Why is it wise to move forward to vote on a proposal without any feedback or comment from DFINITY? I’m not saying that no votes should ever happen without DFINITY, but I’d definitely prefer to at least have the foundation give a once over of each of these proposals before they hit the NNS.
Unless DFINITY comes out and explicitly says they won’t be commenting for reason x, I think we should be cautious about any proposal that hits the NNS after ~1 week of visibility without DFINITY’s feedback.
For example, your Neuron Indexing proposal got feedback from several DFINITY employees (both positive & negative criticism), but the proposal itself went through the ringer and we can assume that most of the important arguments were laid out in the topic for everyone to see - that’s why I personally felt confident in voting for it.
Sorry, I should have chosen my words more carefully. I don’t think it’s wise to move forward without any feedback from DFINITY, but I do think its wise to plan to move forward regardless of whether DFINITY provides feedback. Basically, I don’t want to get into a situation where (a) the NNS is held up waiting on feedback that never comes or (b) forcing DFINITY to put resources into providing feedback on a topic that they may not want to. To sum it up - I would much prefer DFINITY provide feedback (as you do) but I also want to be prepared for a situation where they don’t provide feedback prior to NNS voting.
Regarding the 1 week timeframe, keep in mind that many of the topics have been discussed for the previous week and a half. For topics that are still being discussed, I’d be happy to extend the timeline to ensure that all topics are well deliberated and the NNS community feels they have enough information to make an informed choice.
Again, please let me know if I’ve left off any actionable proposals. I’ll continue to edit this post to ensure this list is accurate.
Proposal Leaders - please let me know if you think your topic needs more deliberation than the 18APR timeline. I want to ensure we have full dialogue before taking all of these proposals to the NNS for vote.
The proposal made by @MrPink13 needs more deliberation. No one considered my answer, except @MrPink13 himself… The problems that I underlined are still unsolved. If there is not such problems, thank to people to enlighten me by explaining it to me the solution, because I did not find the solution yet, and I did not see any answer either about this there.
In its current state, I don’t see why the randomly assigned neurons to filter N-A proposals, with a lot of ICP, would filter these proposals. For them, let pass a spam would be more rewarding than filtering it. Why would we assume that the filterer would not have a similar spirit to the spammer’s. It is a problem of regressus ad infinitum here.
So, incentivize the filterers neurons to act genuinely stays an entire problem for the moment. We can’t delay the same problem to an upper layer. So let us find the missing point : incentivize a genuine behavior of the upper layer. Plus, a spammer could become the filterer of another proposal eventually, so the problem can’t be avoided.
How to resolve non-actionable/non-deliberated (also known as spam) proposals? I have a simple idea: 1. The voting rewards of governance proposals should not be different from other types of proposals; 2. If your proposal is adopted, then you should be rewarded with 1 ICP; 3. If your proposal is rejected, then, in addition to the loss of 1 ICP (or more?), then you should be forbidden from submitting a new proposal for a month, and if too many proposals (maybe 3?) are rejected continuously, then perhaps you should be forbidden from submitting any new proposals for a year (or forever?); 4. (Optional) Only 8 year gang can submit a proposal? (Note: No one can give a precise definition of spam, and the IC community should support free speech absolutely.)
Could you create a forum thread to discuss you idea and include the specific changes you are recommending? The purpose of this is to (1) allow the community the opportunity to discuss the idea in as concrete terms as possible and (2) to make clear the actual proposal that will go forward to the NNS.
@MrPink13, @hashimoto, @willguest, @wpb do you feel ready to move forward with your proposals? I’ve mentioned the idea of delaying the 18APR start of proposal voting. We can still do that if you feel you need more time for discussion and edits. If not, we can move forward with posting all the proposals between 19APR and 25APR (with an introduction proposal tomorrow).
I am still new to the forum and this is really the first time I have put ideas forward here, so I am happy to hear thoughts on how to improve them and find a good route to a formal proposal.
On one hand, I think my proposal solves certain problems that others don’t but, on the other hand, do not feel that it has been thoroughly critiqued in the discussion. Several replies suggested other possible solutions, but few really addressed the structure I posted. Generally I would not say that the proposal has “broad support within the community”, which has been noted as the goal of putting things into the forum.
I would love to move forward with it, but I have a strong suspicion that the proposal would not pass without amendment so unless I hear other voices of support or can develop it more, I will not take it further.
Yes, I am updating the Microtasks proposal and putting the finishing touches on it. I have come to the conclusion that all these systems suffer from the same critical error. They rely on a mechanical mechanisms that are meant to be set in place and forgotten. This is is extremely unreliable and could extend ad infinitum. Its a mistake and they will be gamed eventually. We need vetted humans in the loop.
I am ready to submit this proposal at any time. @wpb can you help me out here?
What about hosting a Twitter Space a few days next week for people to present their proposal, and then to go back and forth with arguments for/against. Both Kyle and Wenzel have pretty decent sized Twitter/substack followings, so I’m sure you both could bring in a decent turnout
How important to you is it that we submit the announcement proposal that contains links to all forum discussions for proposals that you all plan to submit? Technically an announcement is classified as spam because it is not actionable, but there is a utility in doing it. I’m on the fence and leaning toward not doing the announcement, but only if you agree that it is not necessary. I think everyone should feel free to submit their proposals any time over the next week regardless. I am more than happy to submit the announcement if you feel it is important. I am also happy to include this type of announcement in the body of the proposal that @Kyle_Langham and I plan to submit so that it informs people of the alternative proposals they can consider. I’ll wait for your advice.
In favor of submitting an announcement proposal - I think an informative proposal like this should hit the NNS.
Not everyone is as active on the forums (they’re technically developer forums), but they will be more likely to see and engage with all of these ideas if they’re well organized in a succinct summary with links to each of the forum posts that a significant portion NNS voters will see.