| 15 Aug 2018 |
 @bridge:decred.org | [slack/joshuam] It's just like "governance is more than voting, the end" ... no shit
And what was with the ETH shill and supposedly 'highly functional' governance? | 03:30:41 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/joshuam] Screams hidden agendas to me. Someone's ETH bags feeling heavy I suspect. | 03:31:16 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/solar] https://twitter.com/tonysheng/status/1029009679966453762?s=19 | 03:33:36 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/joshuam] I could be misinterpreting it, but the shallow examination of our OCG model appeared to be constructed as if to purposefully insinuate that we relied on OC voting alone | 03:35:51 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/solar] I read it exactly the same way | 03:36:35 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/solar] You know what. We get mentioned several times. We used to get ignored. I can live with this. | 03:40:08 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/decoy] so much satisfaction knowing my money is in decred. our decision making process is as optimized as it can get imo. the market will figure it out to. | 03:50:22 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] lots of ppl in the cc space want to snap their fingers and have an instant governance solution or to pontificate about it ad nauseum | 04:53:53 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] building it incrementally is the only reasonable way to do it, otherwise you end up making premature optimizations, which creates a massive amount of technical debt | 04:54:24 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] these articles about governance from ppl affiliated with eth all have a lot in common | 04:58:27 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] there's a lot of handwaving, generalizations, limited technical discussion, and generally saying that ocg is bad | 04:59:32 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] at least this one cites decred, even as a negative example | 04:59:58 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] a positive side effect of being selectively omitted in these discussions is that the project profile stays lower longer | 05:00:43 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] so we can accumulate more informed stakeholders in the meantime | 05:01:40 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/bee] > the market will figure it out to
Not necessarily. The market is super dumb so far. | 07:28:54 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/bee] ^ by that I mean any "help" to the market is useful, e.g. Twitter replies | 07:32:11 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] I read a lot of these articles from people who are deep in projects without OCG now as a defence against their being forced to adopt it in their own project, which is fair enough in a sense. If I'm a major contributor to a project for a while and I don't have any particular interest in OCG, the idea that other stakeholders might start demanding it is not appealing at all, even without the prospective loss of some of my influence there's the fact that me or other devs might have to work on some feature we're not excited about | 09:58:13 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] also, building the governance incrementally with the community, by the community, seems by far the best option, because:
1. this is a fundamentally new challenge, there's nothing one can point to and say "this is more or less how it should work" then emulate
2. it has to work as the interaction of a) some system for making decisions, and b) a particular stakeholder community, and for it to work _that specific community_ has to make good decisions with that system
3. it is inevitably going to get complex if the aim is full DAE, the stakeholder community should understand how that complexity was arrived at, best way to achieve that is if they're along for the ride, voting in the iterations | 10:04:26 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] I'm pretty sceptical now about the idea that you could design some complete governance system on paper, build that out then drop some community in, and have that not be a mess | 10:09:26 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] also, if the whole thing is released as a big package of formal rules, and nobody really likes how it's working, it's hard to know where the problems are. It may end up being quite hard to change any formalised rule once it has been implemented, but rolling back a set of small changes seems the most likely way for it to happen. The capacity to try something out then reject it should be quite valuable in a domain where experimentation is required | 10:13:58 |
| 17 Aug 2018 |
|  Haon joined the room. | 09:26:31 |
|  ZeroASIC joined the room. | 17:48:49 |
| ZeroASIC left the room. | 19:52:50 |
| 18 Aug 2018 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/decoy] I’ve seen some dialogue this week and had a couple opinions I wanted to convey. | 01:42:17 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/decoy] Admin folks vetting proposals should be independent from any proposing contractors. We could go as far as having the first proposal on PI be a solicitation for admin(s). | 01:42:24 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/decoy] I’m hopeful all proposals submitted, regardless of whether they are found acceptable, are made public with one exception. A proposal with legal questions shouldn’t be disclosed and a standard comment should be provided. Something generic like “Proposal rejected and censored due to potential legal violations.” In this case I view the censorship mostly as brand protection. If we didn’t do this it would be a cheap way for people smear the project with a bunch of idiotic proposals. | 01:42:33 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/JKT] Interesting idea! I do wonder what kind of proposals will get turned down by the admins. I would think that all legitimate proposals would get a chance to get voted on. | 02:05:08 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/JKT] I also wonder what would qualify or disqualify someone from being an admin in your scenario | 02:07:08 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/JKT] Say for example someone submits a legitimate proposal and has the legitimate skills to complete it...but a knowledgeable admin sees it as a lateral implementation (doesn't improve Decred)...will that be put through to a vote or shot down through the vetting process? | 02:11:38 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/davecgh] That should have discussion, which would allow those knowledgeable people to discuss why it is or is not desirable, and go to a vote. An admin's job is not to determine whether or not something should be implemented. It's to ensure the proposals follow all of the guidelines. Those guidelines will clearly by a bit fuzzy at first as they get established. | 02:14:43 |
