Hey @osarrouy & @alexandre.rouxel , just had a look at yr Pando youtube sneak-peek. I’d consider a re-edit. The sound is too quiet and the visuals/text too small. I know both my hearing and eyesight are diminishing with age but, well, you know…:upside_down:

I also have some thoughts re the most recent Medium post https://medium.com/pando-network/a-decentralized-autonomous-licence-for-content-daos-5a03ad9b2eb2... I guess the big, obvious question (that I think it’s be wise for Pando to have a response to) is… 'how will the D.A.L. (Decentralised Autonomous License) be enforced?"

I'm still very uncomfortable with the ‘pick’n’mix’ approach to licensing you propose, though understand the reasoning behind it (the overall conceptual clarity such an approach provides to Pando). I think we’ll have to agree tha we’re approaching this problem slightly differenly, though share the same desire for end results. (sory, my laptop is missing ‘r’ & ‘t’ keys, just rubber atm:)

There’s still no reason that the forked FAL license I propose can’t be one of the DAL options if you wish to carry on with our proposed work:)

There’s still no reason that the forked FAL license I propose can’t be one of the DAL options - if you wish to carry on with our proposed work (& I certainly do:)

What also jumps out a me from a quick read-through, is the section regarding the license updating its terms when the DAO progresses, is actually a really heavy minefield from within commercial orgs, and I think it’s crucial that commercial industry believes itself ‘safe’ to make use of our license (or else, for me, there’s no point). But yes, as you say, if we’re aiming to publish the license q3, then these are the heavyweight topics that are going to require clarity.

BTW - Not sure if anything will come of this but I’ve approached the Sheffield branch of ‘Legal Hackers’ (my nearest chapter) to see if we can get some serious legal chops to lend us a hand - there must be an upcoming legal scholar out there looking to make a name for themselves (and if we can crack this they certainly will). Maybe they’re on here already or someone can point us in the right direction??

I know a couple of people but they’re very expensive (& busy), my plan has always been to seek an audit once we’ve got something concrete in writing. My gut tells me we will require some drafting expertise once we’ve nailed the practical terms down ourselves.

All the best anyway, and good luck for this week (for everyone), should be indeed quite something (I’m quietly well-jel:)

Hey @julian We should have a better video shot / demo during Aracon :) It was just quick demo uploaded mostly as a training for AraCon. For the DAL questions this is super interesting but i’ll let @alexandre.rouxel answer [though he may be in the plane for AraCon right now].

@julian Agree very strongly with the sentiment that a license won’t be successful unless it can provide some degree of stability/assurance to consumers of the licensed work (especially wrt to open source software)

Hy everyone, I am on travel right now but to clarify a little, we are really only at the very beginning of this licensing project. This article just wanted to present the general intention that we have in mind and that had been the subject of some discussions with Primaverra, Lionel Maurel and Benjamin Jean (the French lawyers with whom we have discuss) / Q3 will probably be a date to present a first version on which we will still have to discuss.

The article speaks more about the API than about the license itself as we do not yet know exactly which path to choose.

@julian After Aracon I think it would be nice to open a discussion on the Aragon Forum to bring these interested peoples (Sheffield branch of 'Legal Hackers) together around a common space. What do you think ? It would be a good occasion to clarify the serie of issues we face and to accord ourself around common desires. It will also be much better than working by email.

I found myself with the same problems as you when I started bringing specialists around this licence idea: either they were busy or very expensive. BTW I am not a lawyer at all or a expert in this field and that’s why i want to bring people around this licence project.

And Agreed with @lkngtn we’ll add an unnecessary license to the list of unused licenses if we do not provide stability/assurance

Hy everyone, I am on travel right now but to clarify a little, we are really only at the very beginning of this licensing project. This article just wanted to present the general intention that we have in mind and that had been the subject of some discussions with Primaverra, Lionel Maurel and Benjamin Jean (the French lawyers with whom we have discuss) / Q3 will probably be a date to present a first version on which we will still have to discuss.

The article speaks more about the API than about the license itself as we do not yet know exactly which path to choose.

@julian After Aracon I think it would be nice to open a discussion on the Aragon Forum to bring these interested peoples (Sheffield branch of 'Legal Hackers) together around a common space. What do you think ? It would be a good occasion to clarify the serie of issues we face and to accord ourself around common desires. It will also be much better than working by email.

I found myself with the same problems as you when I started bringing specialists around this licence idea: either they were busy or very expensive. BTW I am not a lawyer at all or a expert in this field and that’s why i want to bring people around this licence project.

And Agreed with @lkngtn we’ll add an unnecessary license to the list of unused licenses if we do not provide stability/assuranc

Hy everyone, I am on travel right now but to clarify a little, we are really only at the very beginning of this licensing project. This article just wanted to present the general intention that we have in mind and that had been the subject of some discussions with Primaverra, Lionel Maurel and Benjamin Jean (the French lawyers with whom we have discuss) / Q3 will probably be a date to present a first version on which we will still have to discuss.

The article speaks more about the API than about the license itself as we do not yet know exactly which path to choose.

After Aracon I think it would be nice to open a discussion on the Aragon Forum to bring these interested peoples (Sheffield branch of 'Legal Hackers) together around a common space. What do you think ? It would be a good occasion to clarify the serie of issues we face and to accord ourself around common desires. It will also be much better than working by email.

I found myself with the same problems as you when I started bringing specialists around this licence idea: either they were busy or very expensive. BTW I am not a lawyer at all or a expert in this field and that’s why i want to bring people around this licence project.

And Agreed with @lkngtn we’ll add an unnecessary license to the list of unused licenses if we do not provide stability/assuranc

Hy everyone, I am on travel right now but to clarify a little, we are really only at the very beginning of this licensing project. This article just wanted to present the general intention that we have in mind and that had been the subject of some discussions with Primaverra, Lionel Maurel and Benjamin Jean (the French lawyers with whom we have discuss) / Q3 will probably be a date to present a first version on which we will still have to discuss.

The article speaks more about the API than about the license itself as we do not yet know exactly which path to choose.

@julian After Aracon I think it would be nice to open a discussion on the Aragon Forum to bring these interested peoples (Sheffield branch of 'Legal Hackers) together around a common space. What do you think ? It would be a good occasion to clarify the serie of issues we face and to accord ourself around common desires. It will also be much better than working by email.

I found myself with the same problems as you when I started bringing specialists around this licence idea: either they were busy or very expensive. BTW I am not a lawyer at all or a expert in this field and that’s why i want to bring people around this licence project.

And Agreed with @lkngtn we’ll add an unnecessary license to the list of unused licenses if we do not provide stability/assuranc

Yep yep, sounds good. See you on the Forum post-Con. Be useful to get Primaverra, Lionel Maurel and Benjamin Jean’s take too.

Interesting paper - Walch, Angela, Deconstructing ‘Decentralization’: Exploring the Core Claim of Crypto Systems (January 30, 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract= “This paper examines the common ways ‘decentralization’ is used in blockchain discourse, arguing that it is generally used to suggest that the systems are resilient and lack concentrated power centers. The paper critically examines the claims of ‘decentralization,’ providing examples of actions by core developers and miners within crypto systems that undermine claims of decentralization. Finally, the paper’s core contribution is to examine the consequences of uncritically applying the term ‘decentralized’ to blockchain systems and making legal judgments based on it. The paper argues that in suggesting that blockchain systems lack sites of centralized power, the term “decentralized” in effect functions as a liability shield for those operating the systems (developers and miners), creating what I call a “Veil of Decentralization” and giving a core benefit of organizational law to participants in these systems without accompanying obligations.”

CleanApps summation of their ongoing approach to aligning international law and blockchain/crypto law (inc response to Zamfir’s ongoing issue w. Szabo) https://medium.com/cryptolawreview/blockchain-governance-105-international-law-3c7ebd025a43

Hy @julian & @lkngtn , I come here because regarding to your last comments I have started working on another idea for the DAL. It’s still a draft but you can take a look and act on the doc here

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ONXLWOnBa2HrBd6Xpw70fTHibQYUb2n9Gh5o5rFcZOM/edit?usp=sharing

just came across this reading list of smart contract/ governance books. if anyone’s interested :) https://www.amazon.com/registry/wishlist/317ZW1HSD4UB2/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_ep_ws_JeuyAb240EFD2

via this twitter thread https://twitter.com/oliverbeige/status/957210766196838400

@light This is great, thanks for sharing

DGOV Foundation January Updates: https://mailchi.mp/1530583221a9/dgov-compilation-1-september-271695?e=4d942f3e6b

Happy Sunday!

I've recently submitted a post on the forum that falls into this category. Please check it out if you are interested:

https://forum.aragon.org/t/majority-rule-flattening-voting-power/548

hey! what is the process in place to ensure token holders are not flooded with AGPs?

@GustavMarwin currently both the AGP editors (me and @light) have a review/editorial role, and the Association has a review/editorial role in the process.

Great, thank you.

what do you guys think about having a mixed (ANT/Reputation Tokens) governance system for the Aragon Network??

We are currently discussing to create an Aragon Cooperative, including its purpose… I think we can use it to govern reputation among community members. If you guys want to follow the discussion, here the thread: https://forum.aragon.org/t/what-is-the-problem-the-aragon-cooperative-is-trying-to-solve/541/17

I think it could end up being interesting to leverage those reputation tokens within the governance process, but those tokens would first need to prove themselves as reliable as well as well as be convincing enough for ANT token holders to vote for such modification.