| 18 Aug 2018 |
 @bridge:decred.org | [slack/davecgh] The guidelines will also necessarily be different depending on the proposal type. For example, a proposal towards marketing would be very different than a proposal for a consensus rule change. | 02:15:35 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/JKT] Got it, thanks | 02:19:16 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/solar] Yeah admin shouldn't be a judge of what is a good proposal or not, just what is acceptable or not. | 02:22:24 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/davecgh] Part of the question is going to be able what all should and should not go on Pi at all. My personal feeling, and I'll probably respond to that reddit thread this weekend at some point, is that Pi really should mostly be reserved for decisions regarding the treasury, such as high level budgets, proposals to provide services, etc, constitutional amendments, and part of the process for consensus rule changes (which ultimately must end up with an on-chain vote). Just like you ignore all of the votes happening with your local city council (you know you do!), if there is too much minutiae on the platform, people will ignore it. | 02:27:05 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/davecgh] e.g. Having a vote on there asking if conferences should use pen type a, b, or c, seems a ridiculous notion to me. | 02:29:10 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/solar] What about some sort of regular stakeholder opinion survey? Quarterly? Yearlym | 02:31:34 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/davecgh] Instead, the platform, imo, should be used towards approving overall proposals for teams providing services, and allow the people involved the freedom to provide those services in the manner they see fit. If they are doing a poor job, vote to cut their funding. | 02:32:36 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/solar] What about some sort of regular stakeholder opinion survey? Quarterly? Yearly? (edited) | 02:33:02 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/solar] Seems like sub-DAOs would be very helpful with keeping PI noise down | 02:33:52 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/davecgh] I'm not sure on opinion polls. I certainly can see some value in that, but I think you might run into some issues surrounding how many are acceptable, who gets to choose what questions are asked, etc. | 02:35:03 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/solar] Yeah that's why I see 1 big regular poll being most useful. Used well, it could cut down on PI noise considerably by allowing proposes to be well informed about what the stakeholders would actually go for. | 02:36:14 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/solar] Yeah that's why I see 1 big regular poll being most useful. Used well, it could cut down on PI noise considerably by allowing proposers to be well informed about what the stakeholders would actually go for. (edited) | 02:36:24 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] i think attempts at preemptive optimization will be a huge waste of time | 02:36:45 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] the vetting process is really just a minimum bar to cross. additionally, admins are held accountable by merit of the censorship tokens and admin history | 02:37:41 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] it will become clear very quickly if there are censor-happy admins | 02:38:04 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] it's hard to know how ppl will attempt to use the proposal system until it's live | 02:45:47 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/davecgh] Yeah, I agree that it'll have to be grown to see what works and what doesn't. I was just speaking more philosophically. I personally don't want to see minutiae on there, and, being 100% honest, I'll ignore it and won't vote on it either. | 02:46:10 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/davecgh] I want to vote on big ticket items and give people the freedom to provide the services they see fit. I'm not interested in trying to micromanage. | 02:47:16 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/davecgh] e.g. If there is some group providing development services, I don't care at all how they are internally structured, what their onboarding practices are, their internal compensation policies, if they have to shift people between projects to deliver, etc. I care about if they are producing quality work and if that quality is commensurate with the amount they're being paid, as a group, or not. If they're doing a crap job, I'll vote to cut their funding. | 02:53:39 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] this quality control issue is precisely why i suggested that individuals need to get a 'decred contractor clearance' before they or their employer can bill for their time | 03:08:22 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] i've seen enough issues with it to date that i think it would be a poor idea to allow corporate and individual contractors to invoice the dev org without first demonstrating they have the appropriate skills | 03:11:02 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] it's really the open source way - you can't just arbitrarily commit to repo X - you have to get the approval and feedback from the established devs who manage that repo | 03:12:19 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] ultimately, whether we have this clearance process in place is up to the stakeholders, so we're going to have to vote on it | 03:14:29 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/JKT] I think a "contractor clearance" is a great idea | 03:20:18 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/decoy] out of the gate can we have a max proposal amount for new contractors to reduce this risk? then we can refine the system with stakeholder input. | 03:20:58 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/decoy] what voting structures are their on PI? yes/no, multiple choice, choice ranking,... | 03:32:25 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/JKT] Step 1: stakeholders vote to approve a "Decred Trust" group to make these ground level decisions...then these micro decisions can be made efficiently and people can't claim that they are illegitimate. This kinda goes back to the executive function discussion we had a few days ago. I feel like this function is going to get done by someone no matter what, the only question is if trolls can point to what is done and claim it wasn't done without voter approval. | 03:32:32 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/decoy] what voting structures will there be on PI? yes/no, multiple choice, choice ranking,... (edited) | 03:32:39 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/JKT] I know I'm going to get burned by that option ☺️ | 03:33:27 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/solar] IIRC voting output is something like 8 bytes or some crazy shit like that... more output that you'd ever reasonably need | 03:34:26 |
