Main Discussion Thread - Github
The poll continues until May 8th. Don't forget to vote!
Total Votes: 44
| Option | Votes | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 40 | 98.12% |
| No | 0 | 0% |
| Abstain | 4 | 1.88% |
Voting Shares: 13,820,157
AV-W Shares: 142,576,636
AVW Validation: 8.17%
Validation Requirement: 50% AVW
VALIDATION STATUS: Not Validated
Source: Gridcoinstats
A question on classification of polls has been raised. Specifically,
Who would decide on classification?
The Steemit content on Gridcoin twitter poll was presented as an example.
TL;DR: It's not "who" makes the decisions, but "what".
Fortunately, most polls are fairly straight forward. When proposals are not straight forward we will be challenged to build on the work the old giants left for us.
How do we decentralize decision making power?
Thanks to the work of these giants, we have options to choose from -- there are many nations and organizations of laws where laws are made through consensus, and conflicts are adjudicated by third parties dedicated to the laws. We can choose one of these protocols, mix and mash, or build an original, but this is out of the scope of this proposal. The point of this proposal is not to define governance. The point is to lay a foundation behind a feature that will be critical to any future governance system.
Over time, I expect we will expand on the definitions in this proposal and make the governance protocol more clear. This expansion will probably often come from reactions to conflicts we must work through. Though I do hear a lot of proactive discussion on the subject which is great.
Eventually I hope we get to contribute to the work of the living giants trying to move from nations of laws to networks of algorithms defined in open-source code. This is why I think it is important to approach governance problems from a rules-based mindset. A rules-based governance protocol can be translated into an algorithm and put into the code, that is if we or anyone ever manages it.
So for now we will have to solve conflicts as a community and attempt to use what we learn from each conflict to clarify the protocol. I think the best way to do this is to encourage people to engage with the community before making a poll. Not everyone is going to do this, however, so it is up to us to keep level heads and work for the betterment of the project as a whole.
Regarding the provided example:
The example provided is a management poll. It questions the responsibilities and actions of the individual or group in charge of a community outlet. It does not offer any content or direction (marketing). It does not suggest official representation at an event or propose anyone reach out to anyone else (outreach). And as its proposal is very near the definition of management, it fits much better as a management poll than a community poll, which is the overflow poll option and option for things like discord events -- such as adding emojis of community figures and competitions.
I hope this answers any questions. If not, please ask!
