Dash Nation Consensus Discussion

[AndyDark]

Of course! That's the point of it ! I swear I was going to suggest exactly that.

.

yeah but then you will just have solarminer / trolldash raising a proposal with no funding trying to get the network to force the "core team" [= anyone who's doing actual work on Dash] to have to take more time of actually building the product that they got this far so they can continue their politics and get more people to buy into their agenda.

if idiots like troydash want to change things, make them actually contribute . raise funding to pay someone to do this (or shock horror- actually do it themselves), not disrupt the only people building dash any more than they already doing.

i'm taking a timeout and be back next week. i'm juggling my own stresses in life and trying to juggle that with working 7 days a week on Dash without listening to this kind of crap.

 

[TroyDASH]

Of course! That's the point of it ! I swear I was going to suggest exactly that.

.

I was hoping we could get a little further along in this discussion before thinking about a proposal, to make sure everyone understands where everyone else is coming from. If there is a proposal I would want it to be fair and to have a clear purpose.

Establishing a liaison is not a bad suggestion, imo, although it does reinforce the separation between the devs and everyone else which might be in the opposite direction as what Tao is thinking.

 

[AndyDark]

I was hoping we could get a little further along in this discussion before thinking about a proposal, to make sure everyone understands where everyone else is coming from. If there is a proposal I would want it to be fair and to have a clear purpose.

Establishing a liaison is not a bad suggestion, imo, although it does reinforce the separation between the devs and everyone else which might be in the opposite direction as what Tao is thinking.

"reinforce the separation between the devs and everyone else"

AKA you're agenda?

 

[TroyDASH]

"reinforce the separation between the devs and everyone else"

AKA you're agenda?

I didn't say whether it was a good or bad thing, geez...
The important thing is that we actually know what the model is.

 

[yidakee]

I was hoping we could get a little further along in this discussion before thinking about a proposal, to make sure everyone understands where everyone else is coming from. If there is a proposal I would want it to be fair and to have a clear purpose.

Establishing a liaison is not a bad suggestion, imo, although it does reinforce the separation between the devs and everyone else which might be in the opposite direction as what Tao is thinking.

Since this is a zero fund proposal I suggest the following, which goes in line with this thread.

Open a thread to formally invite every single person to join so no one is left out. Talk and discuss the creation of a proposal, but consensus must be achieved. This is stage 1

Stage 2 is to elect someone to submit the proposal, so again open a thread to talk about it, and everyone must participate and vote. But to vote, since this is a DAO, we must submit a proposal to ask the MN's who they think should open a proposal for Dash Nation.

Stage 3

So, a new thread is need, or maybe on Slack, because we must talk talk talk talk a heck of a lot about it, maybe not Slack though, as its limited to 10k messages. Maybe we should use another platform.

Stage 4 - open a thread to choose and vote which platform to use to discuss who will submit the proposal for the election of who will submit the proposal for Dash Nation. This is quite sensitive as everyone will be involve in that communication channel other than Slack, so we need consensus. This shouldnt be a problem as there is no structure and everyone will easily agree.

But who pays the 5 Dash to submit the proposal?

Stage 5 - setting up multi-sig wallet to manage the thousands of micro payments everyone will chip in with to submit the proposal on who will submit the proposal for the communication channel to discuss on who will submit the proposal for Dash Nation.

Stage 6 - discussion on who and how many people will manage the multi-sig address. A lot of talk is needed for this is possibly the most delicate part of his project. Of course, MN ops need to vote on it, so ...

Stage 7 - proposal to vote on who will manage the multi-sig wallet to manage the funds to submit a proposal on which communication channel to use to talk and discuss who will submit the present project to the MN ops. But who will fund this proposal pre-proposal of the proposed preposition?

Stage 8 - I think we need to talk about stage 8

 

[kot]

@TroyDASH
Hmmm... I told you already what the model is. It is pretty simple: open-source project. Long story short: contributors contribute, community supports and uses outcomes of the project.
Community preventing contributors from delivering results is something I can hardly imagine in healthy open-source project.
Building too much of politics around this model (as some trying) never works.

EDIT. Besides of this - there is always an obvious option to start a better open-source project, if something is wrong with the current one. I am confident that someone with a better vision than the current Dash vision will get an attention and respect in crypto-space.

 

[yidakee]

I didn't say whether it was a good or bad thing, geez...
The important thing is that we actually know what the model is.

I've explained 5 times already on this and the other thread, but maybe we should talk even more about it.

 

[TheDashGuy]

I've explained 5 times already on this and the other thread, but maybe we should talk even more about it.

Maybe there should be a "this is how we at the Dash DAO plan to ATTEMPT to operate to make it 'official' page on dash.org?

 

[yidakee]

Maybe there should be a "this is how we at the Dash DAO plan to ATTEMPT to operate to make it 'official' page on dash.org?

You're right, maybe there should. Want to write a first draft and post it for those who don't understand github and how the second tier network works?

 

[TheDashGuy]

You're right, maybe there should. Want to write a first draft and post it for those who don't understand github and how the second tier network works?

I may be slightly off-topic and late to this talk but I think it's more than that, it should incorporate who communicates with who and who 'runs' each sector, possibly a node based visual to show people who don't like reading the structure of this 'DAO'.

As far as the technical details, who cares, people just want to know whos in charge of what, where to lend a hand, where to ask questions, where to look further for more detailed info such as this.

I'm not saying it's needs to get done this weekend, but at some point we need to have formalized this information for the general public and new people who just lurk and don't like to ask questions or whatever.

 

[yidakee]

I may be slightly off-topic and late to this talk but I think it's more than that, it should incorporate who communicates with who and who 'runs' each sector, possibly a node based visual to show people who don't like reading the structure of this 'DAO'.

As far as the technical details, who cares, people just want to know whos in charge of what, where to lend a hand, where to ask questions, where to look further for more detailed info such as this.

I'm not saying it's needs to get done this weekend, but at some point we need to have formalized this information for the general public and new people who just lurk and don't like to ask questions or whatever.

Which is exactly what Evan is preparing right into the code. Super detailed expense reporting of the budget system through a Project Leader who assumes responsibility for managing it. Other than that we have 2 categories of projects. Those that get done by someone with initiative, and others that get talked about ad nauseum. Anyone is free to pick to be part of either.

When I lead a project I constantly update and keep the community informed. Unless it's an internal project then can't be discussed publicly, then I obviously can't even though I would love to.

@kot produces excellent reports both internally and externally. Monthly budget reports started be produced right form the start.
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/march-2016-dash-core-team-monthly-report.8687/

Confluence is basically open, we have a wiki and @tungfa doing an amazing job keeping thins up to date.
http://dashpay.atlassian.net/wiki/display/DOC/Official+Documentation
https://dashpay.atlassian.net/wiki/questions

When we need extra help we alway shout out on all channels. This forum is packed full with Q&A. @fernando recently called for people to get involved in getting on Stack.
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/getting-into-stack-exchange.8864/

Regarding how this DAO work, again I think people are confusing concepts. It's just a regular open-source project structure, but that is decentralised (no centra office) and autonomous (doesn't answer to anyone and does not depend on external funding)

DAO is not a social club around a new subversive technology that empowers the individual and finds its only selling point through a massive collective of people who basically do nothing. That is called Dogecoin.

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

A couple of important points:

I want to reiterate, to anyone who suggests that this thread is "trolling", that I leave my heart on the line for Dash everyday. I believe so much in this project that I invested a significant portion of my wealth in it, and deeply want to see it succeed. I have fought and won against the trolls on BCT through the Dash Nation thread, making BCT a positive place to attract newcomers to the project. Can't speak for others, but I am definitely not trolling here.

The partial disconnect between the core team and the rest of the community is evident here. The core team believes that nothing is wrong, and that the community feels the same way as them. We wouldn't be having this discussion if this were the case.

I'm proposing a deep, fundamental change to the way we operate, and to the way we are perceived by outsiders. I would like to thank the community members who have posted here constructively, making fair points and not engaging in personal attacks. At the end of the day, however, this is only a discussion about a possibly more inclusive and productive way forward, building this DAO that we purport to be in the media.

No one is suggesting anarchy, even a DAO needs structure. In my opinion, we can have this structure without the polarizing entities that we have today. Creating an environment where everyone feels that their skills are important and opinions will be truly listened to is important.

Please, if at the end of this magnificent debate we do decide to put it to a binding vote, do not call it Dash Nation. Through our talks here I have discovered that it is also a polarizing term. Not everyone agrees with me that an ideological approach is the best one. It's been working well for me to bring people into the community through its powerful message of belonging and empowerment, but it's not everyone's cup of tea, I concede this. Please simply call it "Creating a true DAO, or similar.

I love you guys (core team and community), but I'm serious about this. We've seen this setup to be a problem on multiple occasions both here and with other projects (Core/Classic) so it needs to be discussed, even if it's not sexy.

Cheers,

Tao.

 

[yidakee]

A couple of important points:

I want to reiterate, to anyone who suggests that this thread is "trolling", that I leave my heart on the line for Dash everyday. I believe so much in this project that I invested a significant portion of my wealth in it, and deeply want to see it succeed. I have fought and won against the trolls on BCT through the Dash Nation thread, making BCT a positive place to attract newcomers to the project. Can't speak for others, but I am definitely not trolling here.

I know you aren't, but I must confess I find this thread to be very very very odd.

The partial disconnect between the core team and the rest of the community is evident here. The core team believes that nothing is wrong, and that the community feels the same way as them. We wouldn't be having this discussion if this were the case.

If by "the rest of the community" you mean 3 or 4 people, then I'd have to agree with you. Because otherwise, I just don't see it.
You keep hammering this notion, that there is a divise and evident disconnect.... There simply isn't.

A few disgruntled guys that are pissed off about something or other does not constitute the "the rest of the community". There will always be people who will never agree with lots of stuff, and some be quite angry about others. Some even decide to quit entirely. Others tried their best to harm us. Others said we were over.

InternetApe, vertoe, moli, camosoul, buster to name but a few... A real shame! All extremely talented and huge contributors/team members. But such is life. Can't please everyone all the time. The project only grew stronger with time, because, well, everyone else became ever more organised and cohesive in attitude, ethics and professional attitude, and that's what make stuff work. Not bitching and moaning.

I'm proposing a deep, fundamental change to the way we operate, and to the way we are perceived by outsiders. I would like to thank the community members who have posted here constructively, making fair points and not engaging in personal attacks. At the end of the day, however, this is only a discussion about a possibly more inclusive and productive way forward, building this DAO that we purport to be in the media.

Fair enough, but dont talk about, do something about it !

No one is suggesting anarchy, even a DAO needs structure. In my opinion, we can have this structure without the polarizing entities that we have today. Creating an environment where everyone feels that their skills are important and opinions will be truly listened to is important.

What specifically, are these polarising entities? Care to give an example?
Also, care to briefly explain how you would structure people, projects and funds without discrete nomenclature of people's roles?

Truly be listened? So you're implying we don't listen. What happens when under you idea, heaven forbid, someone propose an idea that simply can't be done or does not align with the Founder and lead dev's roadmap? What happens then? Can they accuse your DAO model of not listening to him? Please explain how to resolve this situation. Boot the lead dev and founder from his coin?

That can be done very easily, it's called forking on github and anyone can boot Evan from his position.

Please, if at the end of this magnificent debate we do decide to put it to a binding vote, do not call it Dash Nation. Through our talks here I have discovered that it is also a polarizing term. Not everyone agrees with me that an ideological approach is the best one. It's been working well for me to bring people into the community through its powerful message of belonging and empowerment, but it's not everyone's cup of tea, I concede this. Please simply call it "Creating a true DAO, or similar.

There is no true DAO It's never existed before. Even if there were, no two DAO need to operate the same.

I love you guys (core team and community), but I'm serious about this. We've seen this setup to be a problem on multiple occasions both here and with other projects (Core/Classic) so it needs to be discussed, even if it's not sexy.

Cheers,

Tao.

We who? What problems and on which occasion?
The first thing to do to solve a problem is to define it thoroughly. Please give us examples and be as specific as you can possibly be.

Then maybe a clear image is formed of where all this trouble is. I do see it. I see just constant and vibrant development.

.

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

@yidakee If we had an environment where everyone's opinion was truly listened to through the MN network, some of those key people may still be with us today, although I think Camo is still lurking...

Re. problem: Core/Classic. I can't be any clearer than that.

Re: Doing something about it, that's what this thread is about. How do we do something about it?

Re: Oddness of the thread. Of course, this has never been discussed so openly before...

Listen, I'm fully aware that I may be wrong, and would respect any decision of the MNs. All I'm asking for is to bear with me, listen to the valid points we're making, and put it to a vote. If the majority wants to keep the status quo, I was wrong. I'm not going anywhere. I just feel that there is a better path forward. If you want more details than what I've already stated in this thread, I don't have 'em. The community should decide through discussion and voting on how to proceed.

I really respect you man, thanks for your indulgence and counter-points you've been making.

 

[kot]

Well... I am on vacation and won't continue this conversation for some time.
Just a suggestion @TaoOfSatoshi. It looks like if you strongly believe that there is a "partial disconnect between the core team and the rest of the community" (now it's a partial at least - so things changed a little (good progress)). I can see even it is a paradigm for this thread and discussion - completely wrong paradigm in my opinion.
Please take a step back and answer these questions to yourself:
1. What particular action did/does the core team to be described as "disconnected from the community" (hint: one angry person is not a community)
2. Who/what brought you to this conclusion?
3. What is the real goal of this thread?
4. Is this also your goal ?
5. Is this helping Dash to grow?
Cheers!

 

[yidakee]

@TaoOfSatoshi discussion is excellent, but you're making some accusations and innuendo without fundamenting them.

Please do address the questions on the specifics I ask, otherwise there is not much of a debate. I'm also just expressing my own opinion here, not representing anyone.

I think this is going no where really. I'll rest my case and leave the discussion for others, unless some precise specifics are brought to the table. I'm not against your efforts here, don't get me wrong. I don't agree with them, but not against your efforts to express yourself.

.

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

@TaoOfSatoshi discussion is excellent, but you're making some accusations and innuendo without fundamenting them.

Please do address the questions on the specifics I ask, otherwise there is not much of a debate. I'm also just expressing my own opinion here, not representing anyone.

I think this is going no where really. I'll rest my case and leave the discussion for others, unless some precise specifics are brought to the table. I'm not against your efforts here, don't get me wrong. I don't agree with them, but not against your efforts to express yourself.

.

Well, I don't agree that our claims are baseless, due to the defectors, and experiences from other more mature cryptos.

You may be right, maybe we are going nowhere. Let's both take a step back and see if this thread keeps going. If not and it sinks, I guess there is no problem.

I'm off to my regularly scheduled promoting...

 

[TroyDASH]

If by "the rest of the community" you mean 3 or 4 people, then I'd have to agree with you. Because otherwise, I just don't see it.
You keep hammering this notion, that there is a divise and evident disconnect.... There simply isn't.

A few disgruntled guys that are pissed off about something or other does not constitute the "the rest of the community". There will always be people who will never agree with lots of stuff, and some be quite angry about others. Some even decide to quit entirely. Others tried their best to harm us. Others said we were over.

InternetApe, vertoe, moli, camosoul, buster to name but a few... A real shame! All extremely talented and huge contributors/team members. But such is life. Can't please everyone all the time. The project only grew stronger with time, because, well, everyone else became ever more organised and cohesive in attitude, ethics and professional attitude, and that's what make stuff work. Not bitching and moaning.

I think we can all agree that the way a project operates can never please everyone. Becoming more organized in ethics and professional attitude is exactly what I think we are trying to accomplish in this thread. We need to know what we should expect from one another so that mountains do not get made out of molehills.

Fair enough, but dont talk about, do something about it !

I don't understand - talking about this is the only way we can ever hope to understand each other. If I were to self-fund my own Dash marketing campaign, bring merchants on board with Dash, start little Dash communities all over the world, and contribute on github, it still wouldn't do anything to resolve my questions over why other Dash developers are not as responsive as I might expect to concerns that have been raised by more than just one or two people over their proposed concepts. Perhaps I am mistaken in having this expectation, but it would help if this could be clarified.

Truly be listened? So you're implying we don't listen. What happens when under you idea, heaven forbid, someone propose an idea that simply can't be done or does not align with the Founder and lead dev's roadmap? What happens then? Can they accuse your DAO model of not listening to him? Please explain how to resolve this situation. Boot the lead dev and founder from his coin?

That can be done very easily, it's called forking on github and anyone can boot Evan from his position.

I don't think I can tell others that they don't listen. Only they can know that. What I can say is how it is perceived. When there isn't any response, how are we supposed to know that developers are listening? When we get shot down as trolls when we criticize certain aspects of the project, how does that convey to us that developers are listening and value our feedback? I don't think that conceptual feedback from non-coders is worthless. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to waste the time of the developers and especially not the lead developer, and obviously if it is just one or two squeaky wheels, the development team should be able to filter that out, but it feels like there is a piece missing here. The new functionality for the budget system is one example -- there were several well-established individuals on the forum expressing some concern. Putting the final decision-making thing off to the side, what about just requests for information or requests for responses to questions? Can we agree on under what conditions at least someone from the development team should take a little time to respond? There has to be some kind of balance here, I'm not asking for Evan or the development team to give up very much time at all. But in my view being aware of the need for some responsiveness in certain situations is necessary for building a healthy community, and in turn, bringing even more talent into the project.

I share Tao's sentiment that if this thread doesn't really go anywhere and very few others are interested to weigh in, I'm not going to continue beating the dead horse forever. I can accept if people don't agree. But I would appreciate if you would put up with us for just a little bit and be willing to accept and contribute more feedback if anyone has any. And I appreciate the patience, sometimes it even takes a few iterations of saying the same things in slightly different terms for it to finally get through to people (both ways).

Thanks

 

[kot]

The problem is that you are not accepting any other view than your own. Read carefully this entire discussion and the other one about sentinels and say again that no one discussed this with you. You are not able to see that what we are doing here is exactly what you are suggesting we don't want to do. Should I start laughing?
Wake up. What's your point and agenda?

 

[Solarminer]

@Solarminer you are becoming the biggest troll in Dash. Look how many negative things you are saying there that "might" happen or are wrong with what the contributors (you're "core team") are doing:

And all this without proposing a single solution, or even having a clue the work and professional experience that has gone into Evan's plan.

Seriously, you are getting way out of hand. It's easy to snipe at the people doing that hard work, would be good I saw you doing any for a change?

I think @AndyDark needed some sleep or something. He did apologize in a private message to me.

I have made an effort to understand the proposed budget system. I read posts, the github, and listened to the dashroundtable podcast. I believe I have the details correct. (But I would totally be happy if I was wrong, but I have not been corrected only asked to have faith and wait). I have posted how I thought this system worked and my solution on the official slack. It got no response. I have also posted on bitcoin talk several times with some reasons that this could cause future problems. Mostly got responses like, "How dare you question Evan". Look, I respect Evan a lot. But there is an entire team of developers and an entire community that would make it better than just a one man show.

I am not disrespecting Evan by saying the new budget system isn't right, it is only voicing a concern. Waiting for something to be finished is not the right attitude....fix the problems before you finish so you don't do it twice. I know with some jobs it is supposedly bad to question your boss. Well I did it all the time, a lot of times they were thankful that I found a problem that saved them time. Well, now I own the company so I am the boss.....Anyway, don't think that asking questions or making comments is stopping progress. This is how we learn, and make things better.

We had a 31 page thread discussion the implementation of the first budget system. I don't see why the pros and cons are not addressed in the same way. I remember then that Minotaur and Tante were pushing against the ideas Camo and I had. I was actually surprised when the final solution came out....the funds are not created unless there is a project. Genius.
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/self-sustainable-decentralized-governance-by-blockchain.4708/

So back to what I think the budget system looks like: Again the issue isn't having core people getting paid - this is A ok by me. The issue is having the employers making decisions without any risk(except they could be let go). And then expenses getting paid with a judgment call by a few managers after the fact without a vote to determine what expenses should be paid - turns the system into an expense lottery.

And what I would instead suggest changing the system to be: (Acting like a company by paying everyone at the same time)