Hi Jon, thanks for sharing your ideas on decentralization.
I partially agree, everything regarding decentralization is on point. But i partially agree with the "rough consensus", it is good for small dev teams working on code improvements/new implementations, but brings up some questions for the XIP voting. The Ethereum Magicians is a Community of Individuals collaborating on improving the Ethereum Protocol. ethereum-magicians.org/. Basically a pre-discussion forum to fix and improve possible implementation ideas.
Some questions arise with this consensus, who is the working group and who decides that? "It is up to the Chair to determine if rough consensus has been reached", In XDC Network's case, who would determine if the rough consensus has been reached?
"Dominant view of the working group shall prevail" - The developers bringing up the new implementations have generally good reasons for bringing it up, with logical cause, each one participating in the vote will agree. I don't see a need to manifest a consensus in that a "working group" view should prevail, while its "dominant view" is bound to as determined by its chairperson, which sounds centralized.
The best ideas and implementations will prevail in an open and decentralized network.
"The IETF published a subsequent document pointing out that supporting percentage is less important for determining "rough consensus" than ensuring opposing views are addressed." This is not clear to me with how many and what kind of votes (the agreement) the vote will be accepted and with how many or what kind of votes it won't be accepted. In my opinion, it is not clear enough at this stage.
For XDC - simple majority vote or 2/3 vote should be implemented of those participating in the XIP vote. If 20 Participate in the Vote, 11 should be agreeing.
Furthermore, we should expand the eligible Voters for the XIP process and include Masternode holders. As those are keeping the network up and need to upgrade or decline a software upgrade. Which could be a cause for potential hard fork/chain split. To prevent this, integrating the MN holders in the voting process is crucial in my opinion.
This is a different case than Ethereum, as XDC Network has a limited number of core Masternode holders.
As implementations, be it technical or else, have not just an effect on the tech side but bring various more changes to the whole network. To ensure any changes to XDC Network are secure and widely supported by the community, it is important to include MN.
This has been proven to be a real good and working process. In the long run, it will bring credibility to the process, and an ability for the existing expert technical members to steer governance decisions in a way that can be beneficial for the network as a whole and all of its participants.
One last point I want to mention, maybe we can even call it the 5.th pillar of decentralization is transparency. Session recordings, voting and outcome need to be easily accessible for the whole community. Transparency in all aspects of this process is key to include the community in the process.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
Hi Jon, thanks for sharing your ideas on decentralization.
I partially agree, everything regarding decentralization is on point. But i partially agree with the "rough consensus", it is good for small dev teams working on code improvements/new implementations, but brings up some questions for the XIP voting. The Ethereum Magicians is a Community of Individuals collaborating on improving the Ethereum Protocol. ethereum-magicians.org/. Basically a pre-discussion forum to fix and improve possible implementation ideas.
Some questions arise with this consensus, who is the working group and who decides that? "It is up to the Chair to determine if rough consensus has been reached", In XDC Network's case, who would determine if the rough consensus has been reached?
"Dominant view of the working group shall prevail" - The developers bringing up the new implementations have generally good reasons for bringing it up, with logical cause, each one participating in the vote will agree. I don't see a need to manifest a consensus in that a "working group" view should prevail, while its "dominant view" is bound to as determined by its chairperson, which sounds centralized.
The best ideas and implementations will prevail in an open and decentralized network.
"The IETF published a subsequent document pointing out that supporting percentage is less important for determining "rough consensus" than ensuring opposing views are addressed." This is not clear to me with how many and what kind of votes (the agreement) the vote will be accepted and with how many or what kind of votes it won't be accepted. In my opinion, it is not clear enough at this stage.
For XDC - simple majority vote or 2/3 vote should be implemented of those participating in the XIP vote. If 20 Participate in the Vote, 11 should be agreeing.
Furthermore, we should expand the eligible Voters for the XIP process and include Masternode holders. As those are keeping the network up and need to upgrade or decline a software upgrade. Which could be a cause for potential hard fork/chain split. To prevent this, integrating the MN holders in the voting process is crucial in my opinion.
This is a different case than Ethereum, as XDC Network has a limited number of core Masternode holders.
As implementations, be it technical or else, have not just an effect on the tech side but bring various more changes to the whole network. To ensure any changes to XDC Network are secure and widely supported by the community, it is important to include MN.
This has been proven to be a real good and working process. In the long run, it will bring credibility to the process, and an ability for the existing expert technical members to steer governance decisions in a way that can be beneficial for the network as a whole and all of its participants.
One last point I want to mention, maybe we can even call it the 5.th pillar of decentralization is transparency. Session recordings, voting and outcome need to be easily accessible for the whole community. Transparency in all aspects of this process is key to include the community in the process.