Proposal to Enable Manual Voting Throughout the Entire Voting Period of Governance Proposals

Got it. I just wanted to offer another angle on the issue of what we could stand to benefit by changing the existing voting rules.

2 Likes

Hi there, I would like to understand your concern a bit better.
Do you think that your concerns already applies to the current way of how voting works?
If so, could you elaborate on this?
It should already be the case that, even if a proposal is adopted and executed due to a majority, that other neurons can still vote on it and get voting rewards until the initial voting period is over (this voting period would just not be increased as wait-for-quiet increase will not kick in).
Would this resolve your concern or did you have something else in mind too?

4 Likes

Thanks a lot for the work and the edits, I like the improvements!

One last comment for this year:
If I were to design this, I would like to spend some more time understanding whether for 3. the “trend” should consider the projected or the current voting result and what this means for different scenarios (last minute votes by attackers who are followees, who are not followees…).

I see that you already added “it is acceptable to modify the details if needed to develop a better way” (thanks!).
However, if you agree with this and we want to make sure that whoever picks this work up does not forget about this point either, one could additionally change the third point to:
" 3. In the Wait for Quiet algorithm, define the “trend” and carefully think about whether the algorithmic decisions should be based on the Projected or the Current Voting Result."
(Similarly, one could then generalize “but Wait for Quiet is based on Projected Voting Result” in the lower paragraph to “but Wait for Quiet could be based on either Projected or Current Voting Result”)

But this is just a suggestion that I thought could be useful to not loose any information until next year =)

3 Likes

I know your question is for @rubenhorne but I wanted to say also that I would like this functionality that you describe to remain even if the changes related to this proposal are implemented. I like the fact that people can currently still vote if they didn’t vote before the end by absolute majority.

I’m having a hard time thinking of situations where it would be better to base the Wait for Quiet algorithm on Current Voting Result instead of Projected Voting Result, but admit that there may be some solid reasons why to do it that haven’t surfaced yet. Therefore, I left the main text focused on using Projected Voting Result, but added additional comments that highlight the Note that enables Dfinity to use Current Voting Result instead if needed. The Note is intended to be interpreted broadly in the sense that there may be reasons to implement changes of any element of this proposal as long as they are consistent with the overall objective in a safe and reliable way and go into effect with reasonable swiftness.

BTW, thank you so much for all your contributions to this discussion. I really appreciate when Dfinity folks engage in forum discussions as you have done. Whether they are representing Dfinity or their own personal views as voting members of the IC governing body, I think Dfinity personnel have an important voice that needs to be heard by the IC community. It means a lot to have you offering suggestions and opinions.

2 Likes

Yes, this was meant as an answer to @rubenhorne, thanks for clarifying!

I was not sure what he meant by

benefit by changing

and therefore I just wanted to point out that this should already be the case.
But yes, it is also good to clarify that this will remain even after your proposed changes.

1 Like

Thanks for the change, I think this makes sense and it satisfies my intention, i.e., ensuring that we don’t forget about this.

Thanks for your kind words.
And also thank you for taking on the effort to formulate this text and lead this discussion!

I wish you a good end of the year and happy holidays (if you observe)!

2 Likes

Yes, this does resolve my concern. What probably happened in my case was that I showed up to vote after the 4 days were up, despite thinking that I had been within the window. Nice to know the mechanism I wanted is already in place.

2 Likes

@lara @johan @jwiegley @diegop @Arthur @skilesare

Do any of you have any other comments that need to be considered regarding this proposal? Are there any objections to it being submitted to the NNS for voting in 2 days?

1 Like

This is brilliant. After reading this post, I’m convinced this is best practice and the most democratic way forward.

1 Like

This looks good to me. It is helpful for ICDevs’ narrative as we seek out followers. It lets voters keep their agency while also backing ICDevs as an entity.

1 Like

If the motion proposal passes, who will actually implement the change in code?

My current understanding is that community members still cannot make code changes to the IC repo, build a new replica binary, and submit “Bless Replica Version” NNS proposals for that binary.

Does that mean DFINITY will have to implement this? Have they agreed to do it?

(Apologies for all of the “plumbing” questions, but I think they’re important.)

2 Likes

The intent is for Dfinity to make the code changes. If needed, I would offer to submit the formal proposal with code changes attached, but it would also be fine for Dfinity to do it. DF has been engaged in this discussion over the last 4 weeks and the proposal has been shaped by a lot of their ideas and concerns. It seems likely that DF will be in support, especially if it passes. So far, the responses have been favorable, but there has not been a formal verification of support. I also don’t expect a formal position statement from DF, especially if their preference is for the community to decide.

No objection from me, it sounds like a good idea to increase individual participation while not putting rewards at risk.

1 Like

This proposal will be submitted to the NNS on Monday of next week.

1 Like

This proposal has passed. Thank you for voting on this proposal!

3 Likes

How and when will we learn more about how proposal 38985 (regarding manual voting) will be integrated into the tokenomics roadmap?

@diegop @jwiegley @lara

3 Likes

Hi @wpb,
thanks for following up!
As a next step, we estimate how much effort this change would be so it can then be prioritised compared to all other projects on the roadmap.
Since many important projects are planned for Q1 already, it is likely that the requested change will happen earliest in Q2 of 2022.

2 Likes

Just checking in on if any estimates regarding engineering effort were made for this proposal, and to see where it might fit into the roadmap.

4 Likes

We have not spent time detailing the required engineering effort for this.
Regarding how this fits in the roadmap, please consider @bjoernek 's message here.

Thanks for following up!