Dash Nation Consensus Discussion

[TaoOfSatoshi]

There seems to be a lot of confusion in the community over everyone's roles, and who should be in charge of what and have power over what in our organization.

I witnessed a regrettable incident on the Public Dash Slack Channel that I would not like to see repeated, and the cause of it was a lack of clearly defined roles.

How will we move forward?

Are we "core team" and community, or are we Dash Nation, one team under the DAO?

Do the Masternodes decide the path of development through the DGBB, or if not, who does?

Who are we?

Let's create a Dash Nation Consensus.

Everyone, and I mean everyone, please post your opinions. Clarifying this is extremely important to move on in a cohesive manner.

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

Changed "Constitution" to "consensus" Not a formal document, but a consensus for a guideline of responsibities moving forward.

 

[TroyDASH]

I support this idea 100%. Any Thomas Jeffersons around to pen this?

Even if this does not carry any real, binding political "weight" per se, establishing a consensus on what our various roles are, or should be, will go a long way, and it will be even more important the larger the project becomes. I encourage everyone to provide feedback (even if you disagree with the premise) and allow this be a constructive thread. Thanks!

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

I support this idea 100%. Any Thomas Jeffersons around to pen this?

Even if this does not carry any real, binding political "weight" per se, establishing a consensus on what our various roles are, or should be, will go a long way, and it will be even more important the larger the project becomes. I encourage everyone to provide feedback (even if you disagree with the premise) and allow this be a constructive thread. Thanks!

We may crack a lot of eggs here, but we'll create a beautiful omelette...

 

[yidakee]

Tao, please don't hate me, but what are you trying to achieve with this?

It is very clear. This is a payment processor project, with core decentralisation and privacy directives from the genesis.

We are a fork from Litecoin and now Bitcoin. The code was not built from scratch. We are now much more complex than either, but are still tied to core technological primitives. Evan has been consistently solving structural issues that plague Bitcoin, as well as introducing novel concepts. But we're not in the clear yet. This is a business instrument we're creating.

As it stand, miners control the network. Masternodes control the budget system. That's it. Masternode operators do not control development roadmap. We are too young for that, and still much needs to be done until Masternode operators directly dictate the future of DAO, like a board of directors would. Masternode ops are not qualified as a majority to even grasp the possibilities of blockchain technology, in the same manner as Dash's founder is, let alone have complete control on the direction of this project. At best miners, if they'd be interested enough.

Evan has a clear plan to bring equilibrium between miners and Masternodes, but it's still too far into the future. Build this so it can eventually become an entity on it's own. The plan is certainly to have serious stakeholders curate a healthy continuation of the future, but this project is still too young for that.

We are not a social experiment, nor a libertarian anti-institutional movement. It is absolutely great that any regular joe can participate in it, but this is not Dogecoin or funny-money.

What is Dash Nation Constitution, and what do you intend to achieve with it? Dash's github is the Constitution. We have a Foundation to take care of the legal interface with established infrastructure, we have a lead dev with a clear vision paving the way, a team of devs who get his vision and work with him to achieve it. Masternode ops to curate the DAO's finance, miners to secure the network, and thousands of users who believe in the project and thus support it, each in his own way.

This is not a private club. It's a financial solution we're trying to implement.
Who are we? Simple. A bunch of people who believe in what Evan is creating. Some believe and invest their time and money, other's don't.
Everyone has his own opinions, and no amount of constitution debate will ever achieve consensus. Hence the DGbB model.

This is not a democracy, it's a meritocracy.

.

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

Tao, please don't hate me, but what are you trying to achieve with this?

It is very clear. This is a payment processor project, with core decentralisation and privacy directives from the genesis.

We are a fork from Litecoin and now Bitcoin. The code was not built from scratch. We are now much more complex than either, but are still tied to core technological primitives. Evan has been consistently solving structural issues that plague Bitcoin, as well as introducing novel concepts. But we're not in the clear yet. This is a business instrument we're creating.

As it stand, miners control the network. Masternodes control the budget system. That's it. Masternode operators do not control development roadmap. We are too young for that, and still much needs to be done until Masternode operators directly dictate the future of DAO, like a board of directors would. Masternode ops are not qualified as a majority to even grasp the possibilities of blockchain technology, in the same manner as Dash's founder, let alone have complete control on the direction of this project.

Evan has a clear plan to bring equilibrium between miners and Masternodes, but it's still too far into the future. Build this so it can eventually become an entity on it's own. The plan is certainly to have serious stakeholders curate a healthy continuation of the future, but this project is still too young for that.

We are not a social experiment, nor a libertarian anti-institutional movement. It is absolutely great that any regular joe can participate in it, but this is not Dogecoin or funny-money.

What is Dash Nation Constitution, and what do intend to achieve with it? Dash's github is the Constitution. We have a Foundation to take care of the legal interface with established infrastructure, we have a lead dev with a clear vision paving the way, a team of devs who get his vision and work with him to achieve it. Masternode ops to curate the DAO's finance, and thousands of users who believe in the project and thus support it, each in his own way.

This is not a private club. It's a financial solution we're trying to implement.
Who are we? Simple. A bunch of people who believe in what Evan is creating. Some believe and invest their time and money, other's don't.
Everyone has his own opinions, but no amount of constitution debate will ever achieve consensus. Hence the DGbB model.

This is not a democracy, it's a meritocracy.

.

If your opinion is the prevailing one, that's how we'll proceed. It's the lack of clearly defined roles that's causing strife in the community right now.

I don't agree with you in your assessment, I think the Masternodes should guide the project.

If the majority agrees with you, that's great. Put it in writing officially so everyone knows.

That's what we need, because I saw the problem today myself. That's what I want to accomplish with this.

EDIT: Dash is Digital Cash, but we mustn't forget that we are a DAO as well. The DAO needs a code to be governed with. Everyone's roles should be clearly defined for maximum productivity.

 

[yidakee]

If your opinion is the prevailing one, that's how we'll proceed. It's the lack of clearly defined roles that's causing strife in the community right now.

I don't agree with you in your assessment, I think the Masternodes should guide the project.

If the majority agrees with you, that's great. Put it in writing officially so everyone knows.

That's what we need, because I saw the problem today myself. That's what I want to accomplish with this.

EDIT: Dash is Digital Cash, but we mustn't forget that we are a DAO as well. The DAO needs a code to be governed with. Everyone's roles should be clearly defined for maximum productivity.

I'm by no means the law here, but...

You're right! Masternodes should guide the project. That is the plan. But when you build a house, you don't start by the roof.

The DAO already has a code to be governed with. It's on github.

.

 

[TroyDASH]

Tao, please don't hate me, but what are you trying to achieve with this?

It is very clear. This is a payment processor project, with core decentralisation and privacy directives from the genesis.

We are a fork from Litecoin and now Bitcoin. The code was not built from scratch. We are now much more complex than either, but are still tied to core technological primitives. Evan has been consistently solving structural issues that plague Bitcoin, as well as introducing novel concepts. But we're not in the clear yet. This is a business instrument we're creating.

As it stand, miners control the network. Masternodes control the budget system. That's it. Masternode operators do not control development roadmap. We are too young for that, and still much needs to be done until Masternode operators directly dictate the future of DAO, like a board of directors would. Masternode ops are not qualified as a majority to even grasp the possibilities of blockchain technology, in the same manner as Dash's founder is, let alone have complete control on the direction of this project. At best miners, if they'd be interested enough.

Evan has a clear plan to bring equilibrium between miners and Masternodes, but it's still too far into the future. Build this so it can eventually become an entity on it's own. The plan is certainly to have serious stakeholders curate a healthy continuation of the future, but this project is still too young for that.

We are not a social experiment, nor a libertarian anti-institutional movement. It is absolutely great that any regular joe can participate in it, but this is not Dogecoin or funny-money.

What is Dash Nation Constitution, and what do you intend to achieve with it? Dash's github is the Constitution. We have a Foundation to take care of the legal interface with established infrastructure, we have a lead dev with a clear vision paving the way, a team of devs who get his vision and work with him to achieve it. Masternode ops to curate the DAO's finance, miners to secure the network, and thousands of users who believe in the project and thus support it, each in his own way.

This is not a private club. It's a financial solution we're trying to implement.
Who are we? Simple. A bunch of people who believe in what Evan is creating. Some believe and invest their time and money, other's don't.
Everyone has his own opinions, and no amount of constitution debate will ever achieve consensus. Hence the DGbB model.

This is not a democracy, it's a meritocracy.

Thank you for your input. A few things I want to mention:
- This initiative should not be construed as an attack or criticism of Evan, or the development team, or anyone who has been involved in community disagreements.

- You are correct that at the current time, masternode operators have the power to control the allocation of funds in the budget system. I think your point about Masternode operators not being sufficiently qualified to understand or make decisions about development direction is debatable. Regardless though, if the miners do ultimately decide about protocol changes as you alluded to in your other post, are you saying that miners *are* qualified to make those decisions, but masternode owners aren't? I would think that miners would be even less qualified to make those decisions because we can see Bitcoin as a case-in-point.

- Regardless of whether the masternodes actually have the power to make decisions about the development at the current time, one question we should ask is, should the development team include the masternode operators (and the rest of the community) in discussions about design, prior to implementation and testing?

- Consensus does not imply unanimity. When a nation passes a law, or when a board passes a motion, it does not mean that everyone agrees, it simply establishes that there is a consensus. That is what this is. We aren't a social "experiment" - we are already a community. I think it is important for anyone who is leading a community, or making decisions that affect a community, should be in tune with what the community thinks.

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

I'm by no means the law here, but...

You're right! Masternodes should guide the project. That is the plan. But when you build a house, you don't start by the roof.

The DAO already has a code to be governed with. It's on github.

.

Let me give you one example so you know where I'm coming from.

@GreyGhost and the Dash World proposal did a report on dash.org SEO. The Dash World proposal passed by the DGBB. Now, @GreyGhost is requesting access to the official website to perform his recommendations. He is not core team, should he be making changes to the official website? I say yes, because the Masternodes voted the proposal in. Now if you believe in the "core team" and community, you would say no because he is not core team. Ambiguous. See what I'm getting at? This is just one potentially distracting example going forward. That's why we need clearly defined roles in Dash Nation.

 

[yidakee]

Thank you for your input. A few things I want to mention:
- This initiative should not be construed as an attack or criticism of Evan, or the development team, or anyone who has been involved in community disagreements.

I didn't think that at all. I love debating with those who clearly and objective feel the same and present valid arguments, as you are.

- You are correct that at the current time, masternode operators have the power to control the allocation of funds in the budget system. I think your point about Masternode operators now being sufficiently qualified to understand or make decisions about development direction is debatable. Regardless though, if the miners do ultimately decide about protocol changes as you alluded to in your other post, are you saying that miners *are* qualified to make those decisions, but masternode owners aren't? I would think that miners would be even less qualified to make those decisions because we can see Bitcoin as a case-in-point.

Miners are by nature greedy. They have to, to survive. And by miners I mean the big centralised mining operation owners, not individual miners. They don't decide on protocol change, they decide if they update or don't. that is fact, no opinion. Nothing we can do about it at this point unfortunately.

- Regardless of whether the masternodes actually have the power to make decisions about the development at the current time, one question we should ask is, should the development team include the masternode operators (and the rest of the community) in discussions about design, prior to implementation and testing?

IMHO - yes and no. On one hand, that already is happening. The block size vote was a direct MN decision. The technical complexity of coding is far above even the geekiest of people. The official Slack is packed full of debate, ongoing 24/7, with about 60 people continuously developing. But the core vision? IMHO, I'm glad we have a talented lead dev that is miles away from the competition. Even the brightest coders have trouble keeping up with Evan's vision. So at this point, I know it's not kosher, but no, I personally, at this point in time, would not want core directional decisions in the hands of MN ops.

F.ex: as my previous example, image someone proposes to drop X11 for pure PoS, and makes a fantastic bling bling proposal with fancy graphics and lovely copywrite... MN's vote yes and collapse this project to the ground.

IMHO - MN should gradually gain get control and the pillars of this project are able to support the roof.

- Consensus does not imply unanimity. When a nation passes a law, or when a board passes a motion, it does not mean that everyone agrees, it simply establishes that there is a consensus. That is what this is. We aren't a social "experiment" - we are already a community. I think it is important for anyone who is leading a community, or making decisions that affect a community, should be in tune with what the community thinks.

I agree.

 

[balu]

I don't see the point of this either. A document called constitutions implies something set in stone, yet everything in such a crypto project is dynamic, flexible. If you define the roles of people clearly you make them think in a box (typical unintended consequence), if you define the roles too loosely there's no point. There's a thin line here that needs constant rebalancing, and cannot be tackled by creating such a document.

On the other hand, if you have a specific issue like the one about the website and you don't know who to turn to, that's a valid concern. Raise it, and someone from the team will answer (in this case probably Fernando or Robert).

Please trust with this those people who worked in corporate environments where having "defined roles" is basically tilting at windmills. You simply cannot cover all areas, and if you do, you have overregulated the organization.

 

[yidakee]

Let me give you one example so you know where I'm coming from.

@GreyGhost and the Dash World proposal did a report on dash.org SEO. The Dash World proposal passed by the DGBB. Now, @GreyGhost is requesting access to the official website to perform his recommendations. He is not core team, should he be making changes to the official website? I say yes, because the Masternodes voted the proposal in. Now if you believe in the "core team" and community, you would say no because he is not core team. Ambiguous. See what I'm getting at? This is just one potentially distracting example going forward. That's why we need clearly defined roles in Dash Nation.

That has nothing to do with Dash's direction as a project as we've been debating. The website is an accessory to it. But sure I'll give you my personal opinion.

Should he have access to the the website and be making changes to the official website? Absolutely not. Only the official webmaster has this privilege.
Should the team be sensitive to the work done and listen closely to the recommendations? Absolutely yes!
and not even because of the vote, it would be just rude to discard his work and expertise.

The proposal the MN ops voted on was not to have GreyGhost re-do the website's SEO. It was to have funds to pay for an audit.
It is imperative to remain objective and congruent to what is being voted and proposed.

.

 

[TroyDASH]

Miners are by nature greedy. They have to, to survive. And by miners I mean the big centralised mining operation owners, not individual miners. They don't decide on protocol change, they decide if they update or don't. that is fact, no opinion. Nothing we can do about it at this point unfortunately.

For miners, the decision on whether to update or not though, essentially is the same thing as deciding on protocol change, isn't it?

IMHO - yes and no. On one hand, that already is happening. The block size vote was a direct MN decision. The technical complexity of coding is far above even the geekiest of people. The official Slack is packed full of debate, ongoing 24/7, with about 60 people continuously developing. But the core vision? IMHO, I'm glad we have a talented lead dev that is miles away from the competition. Even the brightest coders have trouble keeping up with Evan's vision. So at this point, I know it's not kosher, but no, I personally, at this point in time, would not want core directional decisions in the hands of MN ops.

F.ex: as my previous example, image someone proposes to drop X11 for pure PoS, and makes a fantastic bling bling proposal with fancy graphics and lovely copywrite... MN's vote yes and collapse this project to the ground.

IMHO - MN should gradually gain get control and the pillars of this project are able to support the roof.

The block size increase was put to a vote, but as we can see, this vote had no teeth. If the development team thought there was any possibility of there being any controversy at all about it, they would have not put it to a vote, and instead just implemented it without asking for any feedback, then released it. This is what is occurring right now with regard to certain v12.1 features like Sentinel. I think it would be helpful, even if the development team can still buck the community, that some of these grand ideas should be brought to the community for feedback before implementation starts. This is separate from the question of whether masternodes should have the actual power to decide these things - although both questions should be answered.

 

[yidakee]

For miners, the decision on whether to update or not though, essentially is the same thing as deciding on protocol change, isn't it?

Not at all, no.

The block size increase was put to a vote, but as we can see, this vote had no teeth. If the development team thought there was any possibility of there being any controversy at all about it, they would have not put it to a vote, and instead just implemented it without asking for any feedback, then released it. This is what is occurring right now with regard to certain v12.1 features like Sentinel. I think it would be helpful, even if the development team can still buck the community, that some of these grand ideas should be brought to the community for feedback before implementation starts. This is separate from the question of whether masternodes should have the actual power to decide these things - although both questions should be answered.

I saw it as a clear show of faith on what the intentions are for the future, as well as "training ground". the latter, I don't agree. Evan is just far too ahead of anyone's brain to grasp the potentials of what is achievable. There is enough debate as is, but to give decision option at this point (which is what is being debated here) is walking backwards. Let the man innovate, he has an undeniable proven track record.

.

 

[TroyDASH]

I don't see the point of this either. A document called constitutions implies something set in stone, yet everything in such a crypto project is dynamic, flexible. If you define the roles of people clearly you make them think in a box (typical unintended consequence), if you define the roles too loosely there's no point. There's a thin line here that needs constant rebalancing, and cannot be tackled by creating such a document.

On the other hand, if you have a specific issue like the one about the website and you don't know who to turn to, that's a valid concern. Raise it, and someone from the team will answer (in this case probably Fernando or Robert).

Please trust with this those people who worked in corporate environments where having "defined roles" is basically tilting at windmills. You simply cannot cover all areas, and if you do, you have overregulated the organization.

I agree that we should absolutely not have anything set in stone. If this "constitution" were supposed to be something that is permanent and unchangeable then I would be against it, but that's not what this is. The community should be able to change it in the same way that it created it, by consensus.

A scenario like the one you are describing might seem like common sense, but if the community does not know what the core team expects them to do, or if the core team does not know what the community is expecting them to do, then there can be problems as we have seen today.

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

That has nothing to do with Dash's direction as a project as we've been debating. The website is an accessory to it. But sure I'll give you my personal opinion.

Should he have access to the the website and be making changes to the official website? Absolutely not. Only the official webmaster has this privilege.
Should the team be sensitive to the work done and listen closely to the recommendations? Absolutely yes!
and not even because of the vote, it would be just rude to discard his work and expertise.

The proposal the MN ops voted on was not to have GreyGhost re-do the website's SEO. It was to have funds to pay for an audit.
It is imperative to remain objective and congruent to what is being voted and proposed.

.

See, that's where our opinions differ. I believe we're all a team, not core and community, but everyone involved in Dash. We will get much farther faster if we abandon this core and community theme, and go with the "one team" philosophy. If someone has the skills to pay the bills, and the Masternodes vote for him to do it, I say let him! People working as a team, each contributing to their strengths is a more efficient way of doing things. Same goes with @TheDashGuy designing the website. He is brilliant at what he does and should be helping design the official website, even if he is not core team, but a valued member of Dash Nation.

Evan- Coder

Tao -,Community Builder

DashGuy - Web design

Yidakee- A/V production

GreyGhost - Marketing

All performing their strengths for Dash. All one team under Dash Nation. We will get more accomplished faster this way, and with way better results.

 

[TroyDASH]

Not at all, no.

I saw it as a clear show of faith on what the intentions are for the future, as well as "training ground". the latter, I don't agree. Evan is just far too ahead of anyone's brain to grasp the potentials of what is achievable. There is enough debate as is, but to give decision option at this point (which is what is being debated here) is walking backwards. Let the man innovate, he has an undeniable proven track record.

There are two questions - decision-making, and feedback. "Should masternodes be given the power to make development direction decisions?" This has technical considerations and is much deeper. "Should masternodes be given the opportunity to provide feedback or dialogue with Evan and the dev team on development direction, prior to implementation?" is a totally separate question.

I think Evan obviously has a really great and innovative mind, but it would be a mistake for him to just close himself off in a room and come up with these grand development plans without even asking for community feedback before a testnet release. I just don't see that as a good way forward. Now, I'm not sure where people fall on this, but I would be willing to accept whatever the community thinks. But if we don't make it clear what our expectations are and what our relationship is to Evan and the dev crew, then it opens the door for internal trouble.

 

[yidakee]

See, that's where our opinions differ. I believe we're all a team, not core and community, but everyone involved in Dash. We will get much farther faster if we abandon this core and community theme, and go with the "one team" philosophy. If someone has the skills to pay the bills, and the Masternodes vote for him to do it, I say let him! People working as a team, each contributing to their strengths is a more efficient way of doing things. Same goes with @TheDashGuy designing the website. He is brilliant at what he does and should be helping design the official website, even if he is not core team, but a valued member of Dash Nation.

Evan- Coder

Tao -,Community Builder

DashGuy - Web design

Yidakee- A/V production

GreyGhost - Marketing

All performing their strengths for Dash. All one team under Dash Nation. We will get more accomplished faster this way, and with way better results.

Again, this is the first time I'm hearing about Dash Nation, I still fail to understand what it is.

We clearly have a radically different view on what Dash is.

To me it HAS a community, it is NOT a community.

Evan - Founder, Visionary, Lead Dev
Devs - development team
Miners- Secure the network
MN Ops - Manage funding of projects
Team - Elected members by Evan, that through continuous work and merit, to share and represent Evan's philosophies and vision with the world. To promote the project and bring business to the table. Each has his own valencies, be it business development, legal, project management, web dev, internet marketing, etc etc
Community - group of equal minded folk who love participating in a communal experience, contributing, sharing experience and co-exisit, debate ideas, etc

.

 

[yidakee]

There are two questions - decision-making, and feedback. "Should masternodes be given the power to make development direction decisions?" This has technical considerations and is much deeper. "Should masternodes be given the opportunity to provide feedback or dialogue with Evan and the dev team on development direction, prior to implementation?" is a totally separate question.

I think Evan obviously has a really great and innovative mind, but it would be a mistake for him to just close himself off in a room and come up with these grand development plans without even asking for community feedback before a testnet release. I just don't see that as a good way forward. Now, I'm not sure where people fall on this, but I would be willing to accept whatever the community thinks. But if we don't make it clear what our expectations are and what our relationship is to Evan and the dev crew, then it opens the door for internal trouble.

That is not at all how it actually happens - except when he has a burst of creativity ... and as a creative person myself, I fully understand how important it is to let a visionary lock himself and work 18h a day without exterior input.

There is no internal trouble. The entire dev team is very finely tuned and in sync.

.

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

Again, this is the first time I'm hearing about Dash Nation, I still fail to understand what it is.

We clearly have a radically different view on what Dash is. Sure, is HAS a community, it is NOT a community.

Evan - Founder, Visionary, Lead Dev
Devs - development team
Miners- Secure the network
MN Ops - Manage funding of projects
Team - Elected members by Evan, that through continuous work and merit, to share and represent Evan's philosophies and vision with the world. To promote the project and bring business to the table. Each has his own valencies, be it business development, legal, project management, web dev, internet marketing, etc etc
Community - group of equal minded folk who love participating in a communal experience, contributing, sharing and co-exisitng.

.

Dash Nation is simply a way of saying we are all one team working to see Dash succeed, without classes or roadblocks, majority rules. That's the philosophy I'm asking for here. I'd really like to see this vision come to life. We have many, many talented people in Dash Nation who can all contribute. Who do they report to? The "core team", or the DAO? I say the DAO. Maybe the majority disagrees with me, I guess we'll see in time.