Welcome to the Dash Forum!

Please sign up to discuss the most innovative cryptocurrency!

Official Pre-Proposal: Proposal Evaluation Committee

Discussion in 'Pre + Budget Proposal Discussions' started by Biltong, Jun 6, 2017.

?

Will this be beneficial for Dash?

  1. MNO only - Yes

    46.2%
  2. MNO only - No

    12.8%
  3. Non-MNO - Yes

    33.3%
  4. Non-MNO - No

    7.7%
  1. djcrypto

    djcrypto Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    180
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    88
    I like the idea of a "stamp of approval", if the total points get above a certain threshold.

    However, I respectfully disagree with your criticisms.

    1) You're into libertarian semantics when parsing terms like "group" or "committee". Nobody in the real world cares about this. Besides, if they do a bad job they will be fired (de-funded).
    2) MNOs don't have to vote in accordance with the recommendations of the PEC. Most people in this space that I know have a brain and critical-thinking ability. If you disagree with the PEC, write a comment in the comments section, or vote to fire them.
    3) If PEC were to take your advice about "helping proposers come up witih better ways...", what would we have? Paid professionals doing the proposers work (think parents doing child's homework), obfuscating the true abilities and qualities that may be lacking in the proposer's efforts or skill set. This type of meddling is exactly what you seem to want to avoid, and this idea would result in exactly the opposite of your intended function, much like the government agencies you criticized.

    I hope this makes sense and explains some of the reasons why I support the PEC proposal.

    -DJ
     
  2. craigums

    craigums Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2017
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    58
    This is a great idea. I was actually thinking along the same lines...a few things come to mind:

    1. What's good timing for this to come out? I'd want to leave enough time for discussion, but also leave enough time for all proposals for the month to be submitted. Perhaps halfway through the month?

    2. Should it be a rundown of all proposals? Select ones on which I think there's value to be added with commentary? Ones that are on the border of passing? (I'm leaning towards the second option, as I think value should be the key...but am curious to hear any thoughts)

    Also, I'd consider myself more of a business strategy guy with experience in sales rather than a marketing guy. (I'm a CPA who has started and sold a business and consulted on many others, filled the CFO role in some, but my heart lies in this kind of stuff (business strategy & sales).

    All that said, awesome idea man! I'm looking forward to digging into it.
     
  3. geolibertarian

    geolibertarian New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2017
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Thanks for the responses - some good points, and I'd like to respond to some of them:

    1. I don't care much either about the terms. How about multiple groups? Multiple committees? That's the main point that I was agreeing with in my comment - having more diverse views and analyses, as opposed to the "officially funded evaluation." Of course, I'd prefer to have no committees than any committees. But if we're going to fund one, I'd rather have multiple viewpoints. Multiple groups could still lead to the problem of group-think/failure, just less likely than one... Or, do you think one committee would be less likely to have problems since it can be fired? I'm open, willing to change my mind, and still considering this.

    2. Ok, so then what is the PEC's role, if MNO's don't vote with their recommendation? If you have critical-thinking ability, then why not use that to analyze the proposal itself instead of needing to analyze the analysis? If it's "easier" to analyze the analysis than analyzing the proposal itself, then that's where I see voting being distorted, because MNO's will (more easily) depend on the subjective analysis of the PEC. One problem then is that those disagreeing with the PEC will have to put in volunteer time to argue against the funded PEC. They're doing the analysis too, coming to a different conclusion, but not getting paid. You seem to be saying that most of the time MNO's can just go with the recommendation except in special cases where the PEC is very wrong, or even slightly wrong - then MNO's can take over so there's a failsafe and it's okay in most cases, is that right?

    3. I took some time to think about this, and for the most part I agree with you. Maybe we shouldn't have a "proposal assistance committee" (PAC) at all. My reasoning for supporting a "PAC" was that the volunteers working for the PEC have been eager to contribute, and it seems like their skills could be useful in helping proposers. Ideally, we wouldn't need it at all. But, if they wanted to do something to get paid by the Dash Budget, I would rather have "assisters" than "evaluators" - though I'm not sure if the transfer of skills is compatible (maybe a different group of people would be better for the job)... would evaluators be able to only assist without doing all the work (or covering up a proposer's deficiencies)? My hope is that helping proposers get started wouldn't necessarily be like parents doing a child's homework. Proposal-submitting often requires a different skill-set than proposal-carrying-out, and generally I would be okay with approving someone who had poor proposal-submitting skills, but excellent skills in carrying out whatever proposal (depending on proposal type). Besides, if the "assisters" were tempted to do all the work (or cover up a proposer's deficiencies), what makes them not tempted to evaluate with bias?
    Anyway, generally I'm supportive of "subsidizing the infant industry" to get it off the ground - once more and more in the community learn how to submit proposals well, then we won't need to fund someone to hand-hold beginners through the hurdles of submitting. But again, I do agree that there's a potential problem that meddling would result in the opposite of the intended function.

    I agree that something(s) should be done to improve the proposal system, and I see the potential value in having a smaller paid group do the work of investigating proposals more in-depth... However, it's difficult for me to reconcile that with one of the reasons why I got into this space - it is open, borderless, decentralized, neutral, censorship-resistant, and allows permission-less innovation where anyone can participate. The MN system allows a decentralized system of governance, and I believe a small group like the PEC would narrow that unhealthily. For the "wisdom of crowds" to make good decisions, diversity (of participants and opinion) is so important. Instead of "anyone can participate," it starts to turn into "anyone can participate that the PEC likes"

    A better solution, I think, would be a more automated (more objective) system that presents better information to MNO's. Something more like Google Trends, where the data is presented objectively in a way that is easily seen (as opposed to Consumer Reports where the reviews are in-depth, but have more potential for bias).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. CaptAhab

    CaptAhab Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2015
    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Dash Address:
    XwUeFiUQz1qLurzcpzKBDUTPvj1Tzx3FYs
    I do hope these guys get their Submission DASH back as they put a great deal of effort into this.
     
  5. Alich

    Alich New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2017
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
  6. Syntheist

    Syntheist Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2017
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    93
    The PEC has ceased to operate to the best of my knowledge.

    I think that the way forward is to establish an open process for assisting proposal owners and evaluating proposals.

    There are a bunch of documents that were created during the PEC experiment that could form a starting point for this process.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. alex9

    alex9 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2017
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Hmm. They removed the proposal. Also deleted all the templates and guidelines for creating proposals from the dropbox (now all the links show error 404).
    It looks like immature behavior, like wanting to slam the door before leaving. After some critical comments... Wow.
     
  8. Syntheist

    Syntheist Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2017
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    93
    I kept versions of all the important documents, I'm currently editing them for general release.

    A lot of work went into the PEC experiment, a great deal of that work was done by Biltong. He brought a great deal of passion and enthusiasm to the idea.

    If I'm emotionally invested in a project sometimes it's not so easy to separate criticism of the project from my own emotions.

    I think he has helped lay the groundwork for a pre-proposal process that will ultimately be of benefit to Dash. This is very much new territory and the only way to make progress is by putting different solutions into practice.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. alex9

    alex9 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2017
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    48
    They intended to work with people and big money. This requires steel nerves and maximum impartiality.
     
  10. Syntheist

    Syntheist Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2017
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    93
    I should state for the record that I was part of the PEC experiment, I pulled out before the proposal was withdrawn due to time constraints and conflict of interest: I'm working on a proposal.

    I think it's important to understand that the PEC was not a homogenous single entity but a voluntary collective of individuals each with their own strengths. Some of us certainly do have nerves of steel and complete impartiality, some bring their passion and energy.

    If one individual chooses to make a decision to wipe out the proposal without consulting anyone else in the collective about it, and that person is the proposal owner, then you get the situation we are in.

    This is why I favour decentralisation, to remove single points of failure, to become more resilient and responsive.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. demo

    demo Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2016
    Messages:
    3,114
    Likes Received:
    263
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Dash Address:
    XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
    All this problem occurs because the MNOs are not allowed to vote the numbers (and change their vote willingly whenever they wish).

    Voting the numbers allows to the MNOs decisions to adapt in a highly dynamic financial and technical environment. You dont need to care how to write the proposal to maintain flexibility. All the proposals will have X variables in the place of all the numbers they deal with. And these X numeric variables will be able to be voted by the MNOs.
     
    #71 demo, Jul 18, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2017
  12. craigums

    craigums Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2017
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    58
    Hey y'all! We ended up doing a video on this, and we plan on doing one the last Wednesday of each month before the deadline. Here is is for July:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. AlejandroE

    AlejandroE Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2017
    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    208
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Hello, Im new on the community and I want to post a Pre-Proposal, Im trying to read the How to submit a Dash Pre-Proposal https://goo.gl/7jmwXQ , but the link is broken, could you help me to find the correct link? I would appreciate you a lot!! Best regards :).

     
  14. Syntheist

    Syntheist Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2017
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    93
  15. AlejandroE

    AlejandroE Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2017
    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    208
    Trophy Points:
    103