This is a reply to the Interim Consensus Protocol proposed by Dan on his post here
Regarding who makes proposals:
As I said in the meeting in which Dan's proposed new Interim Consensus Protocol was presented, average level 6 for just making a proposal is way too high.
The right to present a proposal should be based on several factors, two of them being knowledge of the network and capacity to predict community consensus. These variables are more correlated with attendance than with level attained. Level itself is affected by other factors such as team association and native language.
I remember Dan answering that it is impossible to have a high average level without being a regular attendant; that's true. However, the converse is false: It's possible to have a high attendance and not being ranked at or above level 6.
On the other hand, according to data (Figure 8) accuracy to predict the consensus of the whole network is correlated with attendance.
So I'd propose the following formula:
Decision_Power = (average_level_from_last_N_meetings) x Ln (number_of_meetings_attended)
Where Ln stands for natural logarithm and N is a parameter to be chosen.
Then the fraction of the community with the highest X percent of decision power, where X is an adjustable parameter, can make proposals.
Regarding who decides whether to accept a proposal
The decision of approval should not necessarily be done within a 1 hour interval in any week. But discussed within that interval then voted in the hive post during a week. This allow members of the council who didn't attend the first meeting and reduces the probability of not reaching consensus. Also, members of the consensus should, in my opinion, be the ones with the highest decision power according to the above formula.
Finally, if after the posting week the council fails to reach consensus, they all lose the respect from last week. Then a new council is formed and the whole process starts again.
I'm not convinced this is true. Not sure if you already saw my response to Matt's article.
Since I'm not convinced it's true, I wouldn't be in favor of the added complexity in your proposal to add
ln(attendance).However, I completely agree with you that 6 is too high. I'm in favor of lowering that to 3 or 4.
Congratulations @aguerrido! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s):
Your next target is to reach 100 comments.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out the last post from @hivebuzz:
Support the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!
Generally I like idea of taking into account attendance like this. This way someone who participated in a large number of meetings has a chance to get a voice even if he cannot contribute a lot in recent meetings. This will also engage contributors who are not the highest-ranking, but are consistent. Community needs that kind of contributors and I think they should be respected by giving them a vote.
I still do not support penalties for the reasons explained here. This proposal makes it a bit better in regards to penalties by having a larger window to vote on proposals, but still - when council is not able to reach consensus, people who are in the loop more (because they participated in the last meeting) are penalized more.
And I see a small issue with having a larger voting window. Note that both negative and positive knowledge can be gained during the week about the proposal and there isn't necessarily any coordination between the two. That's why it makes sense to make voting happen during the meeting - everyone shares their new knowledge and we make a decision based on that.
For EdenFractal, since it does not yet have any consensus process, I would suggest trying to keep it as simple as possible. I think penalties complicate matters, and I would avoid them in the first version.
Here's what I would suggest: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cr7AJPSNVpGJtYejeo0YaVyLXL1KtrTH/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=104193210757363607373&rtpof=true&sd=true