[SPHEREON-004] Integration of DAML with the Factom® protocol

[Niels Klomp]

The conclusion I drew from that statement was that you expected to receive an open-ended extension to the grant without a clear plan to deliver it or support for that extension from the standing parties. I felt somewhat irked by this, I will admit. Grantees very often take liberties with timelines and I felt this was a step too far. As a result, I stated my interpretation of your words and displeasure with your decision. I asked to hear a plan for how you would complete the grant in order to reduce that indefinite window to something known, finite and accountable.

You were evidently not willing to produce a plan and instead became defensive. This irked me even more. I then wrote in haste that I would force the issue if you were not willing to produce a plan. Admittedly, I should have taken more care when I wrote that post, but I stand by my position entirely.

Way too much assumptions. Because I never said I didn't want to come up with a plan. I became defensive because of the reasons I stated above.

Even with the above for me it is still not really clear, how you go from grant determination to a plan later. Because either you want the determination to proceed with the expectation to let it fail now or think the grant is done successfully. Of course others decide upon that.

I personally don't want to put it up because I don't view it as done; simple as that. On the other hand the budget for it is spent and we want to do both the PegNet integration as DAML-on-Factom. Meaning we again pay that out of pocket for everybody to use.

Regarding DOC 106. Well actually it doesn't read that. Exactly for the above reasons it reads that a preliminary vote on whether it should be put up for determination should be done. Which I am more than happy with.

If you want to put it up for determination now, that is your right. But what do you expect us to do when the grant is deemed failed because it is not finished? Do know that it becomes hard for me to internally justify to invest expensive resources in this community at that point in time;

To conclude. I can certainly draw a plan, but then I want people's opinion on whether we should do the private Factom road or public one. With the latter I will only include milestone durations and certainly not any dates.

 

[Alex]

Regarding DOC 106. Well actually it doesn't read that. Exactly for the above reasons it reads that a preliminary vote on whether it should be put up for determination should be done. Which I am more than happy with.

That is what I said. At every point I have stated the standing parties will decide whether we should have a determination vote*. It is not within my power (rightfully so) to bring the determination vote itself.

As you are happy to proceed with that, I will set it up later today.

Edit: *When referencing Doc 106.

 

[Alex]

I will add that this has been more heated than I would have liked, and I regret my part in that.

 

[Niels Klomp]

Ok. Hmzz, As you started with "Given the size of the task and the evident unlikelihood of it occurring under this grant, it would be my preference to put this to final assessment." I was always under the impression you meant the actual success determination itself, hence me getting defensive. I can now go on about that, but then I probably would influence the preliminary vote so let's not do that.

It is always harder online without direct communication to see nuances. So yeah I also regret that on my part.
I am more than happy of course for standing parties to decide whether it needs to be put up for a final determination vote.

 

[Alex]

Ok. Hmzz, As you started with "Given the size of the task and the evident unlikelihood of it occurring under this grant, it would be my preference to put this to final assessment."

Yes, initially when the question was presented I thought that you should put it up for final determination. When I realised that wasn't going to happen, I thought it best to put it to the standing parties to decide if it should be.

Anyway, I think everything has been said that needs to be said now. We will leave it up to the standing parties to decide how to handle this.

 

[Alex]

Minor discussion is here: https://factomize.com/forums/thread...-protocol-go-up-for-final-determination.2586/.

Edited to fix the link.

 

[Niels Klomp]

So 14 abstentions, 10 extensions for 1 month and 1 completion. Do we want to draw any conclusions from that?

Because it is interesting to have more abstentions than extensions to me,

 

[Alex]

It is interesting. It implies that the available options were not really suitable. My hands were tied by the process when I set up the vote though. Perhaps we need to review that? Do you have a specific interpretation of the vote?

 

[Niels Klomp]

Well to me it shows that a lot of people didn't feel comfortable to vote on one month extension.
Since I already mentioned I didn't view the grant completed myself as we want to do the other integrations, I would not have expected many votes for completion obviously.

I think it highlights that the combination of what we already warned beforehand, together with doing additional integrations and then being reliant on other work isn't the best combination. I think that is something we all can agree on

 

[Samuel Vanderwaal]

So 14 abstentions, 10 extensions for 1 month and 1 completion. Do we want to draw any conclusions from that?

Because it is interesting to have more abstentions than extensions to me,

Yes, the conclusion is that you get a one month extension and then people get to vote again.

 

[Niels Klomp]

Yes, the conclusion is that you get a one month extension and then people get to vote again.

So how do you rate more abstentions (so active votes) vs extensions?

 

[Samuel Vanderwaal]

So how do you rate more abstentions (so active votes) vs extensions?

It doesn't matter what I think about why people voted to abstain because abstentions aren't considered towards the voting result. This is covered in Doc 106, specifically section 2.1.1.1.3:

If the majority of non-abstaining voters vote to delay another month, then the process starts over in one month.

This isn't a subjective process for us to try to interpret, it's part of our governance processes that were ratified by the community.

 

[Colin Campbell]

It doesn't matter what I think about why people voted to abstain because abstentions aren't considered towards the voting result. This is covered in Doc 106, specifically section 2.1.1.1.3:



This isn't a subjective process for us to try to interpret, it's part of our governance processes that were ratified by the community.

We are a community of people, not robots.

The vote was indeed clear when viewed with human intelligence. “Give them some time to complete the grant so we all can benefit.”


If that’s not clear to you, call another poll with more specific answers, so the abstentions can be machine readable.

 

[Samuel Vanderwaal]

We are a community of people, not robots.

The vote was indeed clear when viewed with human intelligence. “Give them some time to complete the grant so we all can benefit.”


If that’s not clear to you, call another poll with more specific answers, so the abstentions can be machine readable.

Colin, we don't get to just choose to discard our governance processes, sorry. The month extension vote passed so we need to adhere to the outcome of that. This indeed means the grantee gets more time to complete their effort. In another month we go through the same process, per Doc 106.

 

[Alex]

The vote was indeed clear when viewed with human intelligence. “Give them some time to complete the grant so we all can benefit.”

That is not why i abstained. Please don’t make assumptions about my motivations.

I agree with Sam that the outcome was clear. If you want different outcomes then you will need to change the process (I am in favour of revising it).

 

[Niels Klomp]

It doesn't matter what I think about why people voted to abstain because abstentions aren't considered towards the voting result. This is covered in Doc 106, specifically section 2.1.1.1.3:



This isn't a subjective process for us to try to interpret, it's part of our governance processes that were ratified by the community.

Well that is the dry outcome of it yes
Nobody is denying that. Yet at the same time the majority voted to abstain which should also tell something.

To me it shows we have not considered every situation and you also want to prevent voter apathy. So IMO the outcome also shows we may want to revisit this particular part of the process, because If it was as clear and objective as you make it sound, everybody would have voted extension or completion.

 

[Tor Paulsen]

Just want to chime in and say that:
1) Doc 106 and the vote in this thread is clear: There will be another vote in one month.
2) I'll support refining the grant process. The idea with these processes is that we make them better over time.

 

[Samuel Vanderwaal]

Well that is the dry outcome of it yes
Nobody is denying that. Yet at the same time the majority voted to abstain which should also tell something.

To me it shows we have not considered every situation and you also want to prevent voter apathy. So IMO the outcome also shows we may want to revisit this particular part of the process, because If it was as clear and objective as you make it sound, everybody would have voted extension or completion.

I agree with you here. I'm only saying the vote result is clear and objective as defined by Doc 106, not that I know all the reasons why people abstained. I am also concerned about the high level of abstains and what it might say about voter apathy. I also support refining this process to make it better.