25 Apr 2019 |
bridge-bot | <lkngtn> they are visible for me one one browser, but not on another. May be that default node is having some trouble.
| 16:16:23 |
bridge-bot | <julian> Firefox/Debian no joy so far
| 16:24:16 |
bridge-bot | <julian> ‘#14’ now visible
| 16:25:23 |
bridge-bot | <lkngtn> It eventually loaded for me, but from a fresh browser instance it took quite a while for anything at all to show up
| 16:25:32 |
bridge-bot | <julian> here we go… :lifter:
| 16:26:10 |
bridge-bot | <julian> oooh, few votes trickling in too - cool!
| 16:27:34 |
bridge-bot | <julian> (possibly dumb question, apologies in advance)… How do we know which votes are which? They have different ‘#-n’ numbers now 🤔
| 16:30:55 |
bridge-bot | <light> does it not look like that @julian ?
| 16:36:38 |
bridge-bot | <julian> Not yet
| 16:40:04 |
bridge-bot | <julian> Have reloaded page, waiting. Will upload screenshot
| 16:40:35 |
bridge-bot | <light> please do! older orgs do generally take longer to load if you haven’t looked at them and cached them recently. it’s something we’re working on improving :)
| 16:41:11 |
bridge-bot | <julian> How come not Bella?
| 16:45:22 |
bridge-bot | <light> what about Bella?
| 16:47:46 |
bridge-bot | <julian> Oh sorry, is it my org that needs to update to Bella (see screenshot) 😊
| 16:52:12 |
bridge-bot | <julian> same btw atm (no text)
| 16:52:30 |
bridge-bot | <light> ah right
| 16:54:13 |
bridge-bot | <light> logistical challenge
| 16:54:21 |
bridge-bot | <light> I think a supermajority of all ANT holders would have to approve it due to how the org is configured
| 16:54:42 |
bridge-bot | <julian> @light ouch
| 16:56:34 |
bridge-bot | <julian> Yay! And we’re good to go. All text present and correct. :partyparrot:
| 16:58:00 |
bridge-bot | <light> look at it again, it might just be 2/3 of voters on a given upgrade, like a meta track proposal
| 16:58:02 |
bridge-bot | <light> looking at it again, it might just be 2/3 of voters on a given upgrade, like a meta track proposal
| 16:58:18 |
bridge-bot | <julian> @light Sounds doable
| 16:58:57 |
bridge-bot | <light> yeah
| 16:59:12 |
bridge-bot | <light> we should do it during a not-AGP vote
| 16:59:19 |
bridge-bot | <light> so as not to confuse the voters this time
| 16:59:35 |
bridge-bot | <julian> Current numbers would suggest higher voter turnout this time (obv. early doors but…)
| 17:02:23 |
bridge-bot | <burrrata> Hey guys. As per AGP-1, dropping into the gov channel to share a proposal to separate Signalling from Voting.
AGPs are a wonderful tool to give the community a voice and guide Aragon’s decision making. Before submitting proposals for concrete decision making, there is often a need to gather signals from the community. This can happen in the forum, but in a heated and long term debates it’s often impractical to measure sentiment without getting overwhelmed. The Aragon community realizes this and has created an awesome signalling app.
I propose that the signalling app be updated so that it is fully functional and can included in the AGP-1 doc as part of Stage 2: preproposal. This would require all AGPs to use the signalling app to gather sentiment from the community along with current methods of forum posts and AMAs before drafting a proposal. This metric can then be taken into consideration by the AGP Editors during Stage 3: Draft.
Please share thoughts on this and/or what needs to happen from a technical perspective to make it possible. Once a more concrete plan is in place, a submission as a Meta AGP seems appropriate. Thanks :)
| 19:01:54 |
bridge-bot | <burrrata> There’s also a thread on the forum and issue opened on the GitHub repo
| 19:02:01 |
27 Apr 2019 |
bridge-bot | <julian> re quadratic voting - 👀 https://twitter.com/DeanEigenmann/status/1121761276991082496
| 04:21:38 |