Commitee guidelines for future proposals

[clayop]

1-Make a First forum post to introduce the topic, what we think about it, our pro and cons. Discussion needed here.
2-Gather information and community proposals from the post above.
3-Make a Second forum post with a poll (or another kind of poll less subject to manipulation...idk) including our suggestions and community's more relevant suggestion too.
4-Give time to the community to vote and continue to express their thought.
5-Make a committee proposal with the results we gather from 4-
6-Give to the community enough time to 1)vote for the submitted proposal or 2)unvote committee members

Great posts @mindphlux @cube @Bhuz I support.

[cube]

I support Bhuz's suggestion list.

Distinction between emergency and normal could be:

Bug in the code that is causing a loss or malfunction that threatens the network
It includes not: a specific entity is loosing money because of a misunderstanding or not understanding a specific feature (not having read the whitepaper)

I like to ask for more specific than this.

Bug in the code: what codes? blockchain? cli_wallet, GUI wallet, price feed scripts?  Do we include some of them or all of them?

What about a lack of coverage?  For example, a price feed not getting prices from China websites

Danger to bitshares such as spammers (eg the account creation squatters/spammers) and opportunistic flaw exploiters?  There may be other unknown threats like load stress spam/attack?

[mindphlux]

I support Bhuz's suggestion list.

Distinction between emergency and normal could be:

Bug in the code that is causing a loss or malfunction that threatens the network
It includes not: a specific entity is loosing money because of a misunderstanding or not understanding a specific feature (not having read the whitepaper)

[cube]

I think something like this could be a good start:

1-Make a First forum post to introduce the topic, what we think about it, our pro and cons. Discussion needed here.
2-Gather information and community proposals from the post above.
3-Make a Second forum post with a poll (or another kind of poll less subject to manipulation...idk) including our suggestions and community's more relevant suggestion too.
4-Give time to the community to vote and continue to express their thought.
5-Make a committee proposal with the results we gather from 4-
6-Give to the community enough time to 1)vote for the submitted proposal or 2)unvote committee members

Any other better ideas would be great and welcomed

Thanks for starting up the engine.  I do not have the time to fully analyse but my first impression is: this is a good start.  The suggested steps are useful for a normal and 'non-emergency' proposal.  What about steps for 'emergency/crisis proposals'?  What are the criteria to consider for an emergency proposal versus a non-emergency one?

[Bhuz]

for any small change there will always be big complain, need not to care that much, and I doubt whether it's a good idea to make many rules for how to create and implement proposals, because the proposals are different and the context that need them are also different.

Yes, for any small change there will always be somebody complaining, that doesn't mean we should not care that much tho.

We should not think that the decision we reached is the ultimate true and right decision. We should always be open to consider and analyze new point of view that may change our vision too.

Some rules, or better "guidelines", are definitely needed.
If it is NOT a real emergency we should respect some fixed timing about the time duration of the proposals, their review period and such, no matter the scope or the context of those proposals.
We should act for the community best interest, but we should also make the community FEEL SAFE from our power. We should always give them the possibility to knock us/our proposals down.

Regardless the timing, I think something like this could be a good start:

1-Make a First forum post to introduce the topic, what we think about it, our pro and cons. Discussion needed here.
2-Gather information and community proposals from the post above.
3-Make a Second forum post with a poll (or another kind of poll less subject to manipulation...idk) including our suggestions and community's more relevant suggestion too.
4-Give time to the community to vote and continue to express their thought.
5-Make a committee proposal with the results we gather from 4-
6-Give to the community enough time to 1)vote for the submitted proposal or 2)unvote committee members

Any other better ideas would be great and welcomed

[mindphlux]

Apology accepted.

And I agree with your suggestion, it seems like a good idea.

[cube]

I posted the relevant screenshot to bitcrab since he asked for it. The fact that this issue was misrepresented is an issue though - both me and Bhuz voted only positive because we thought real money was lost - hence the entire committee proposal was 'rigged', it would have not passed otherwise. I will not go public @ to the community however, since this has been an internal issue.

That is why I insist on blockchain facts so this can not happen again.

I believe you are referring to the point where I misunderstood bitcrab's losses 'now versus future' and discussed that point with you.  I genuinely thought I saw Transwiser mentioned loss and I interpreted it in 'suffering existing loss' and not 'expecting future loss'.  I sincerely apologise for this miscommunication caused by my poor Chinese.  I am saddened by you feeling the "committee proposal was 'rigged'".  Please rest assured that there was never such intention.  I will have to be more mindful of my poor Chinese in my future communication with the Chinese.

I like to add to the 'best practice' that in future proposals, each committee member needs to state the true reasons behind their votes for or against a proposal.  If together as a group, we find the 'true reasons' not strong enough a justification, the individual member is recommended to abstain from making a decision.

[mindphlux]

I posted the relevant screenshot to bitcrab since he asked for it. The fact that this issue was misrepresented is an issue though - both me and Bhuz voted only positive because we thought real money was lost - hence the entire committee proposal was 'rigged', it would have not passed otherwise. I will not go public @ to the community however, since this has been an internal issue.

That is why I insist on blockchain facts so this can not happen again.

[cube]

The fact that there have been claims that money has been lost by transwiser already while it was not actually true is unsettling. The committee was presented false facts. I based my decisions on that 'fact' which was not true.

Yes, it was an unfortunate  misunderstanding/miscommunication that could have been avoided if we have a set of best practices/guidelines to follow.  Let's work towards this goal.

[mindphlux]

The fact that there have been claims that money has been lost by transwiser already while it was not actually true is unsettling. The committee was presented false facts. I based my decisions on that 'fact' which was not true.

[bitcrab]

do not agree most of the suggestions.

just take what happened yesterday as an example,  as a representative of China community and BitCNY shorters, I definitely need to step out to take actions when I found there are big risks for BitCNY's short positions, this is not only for transwiser, but also for a big sub-community.

on the other hand, the action taken by committee yesterday is just temporary, it do not harm other groups when it defend one group.

for any small change there will always be big complain, need not to care that much, and I doubt whether it's a good idea to make many rules for how to create and implement proposals, because the proposals are different and the context that need them are also different.

[cube]

While the affected party may be emotionally affected by the exploits, IMHO, the committee as a whole was calm and has responded in a rational and decisive way.

I do not think it is possible at all nor wise for committee members who are major business partners and stakeholders to abstain from voting on proposals that significantly affect their stake.  BM has been calling for big stakeholders and partners to come forward and volunteer to become a committee member.  I believe his intention is to have high stakeholders/business partners committee members rightly represented and their interested can be protected and furthered in the right direction.  There might be some perceived so-called 'conflict of interest' but in reality, this is what is needed.  Abstraining from making such decision-making would tie the hands of the stakeholders/partners from furthering their interests and stakes in the bitshares DAC.  This is not a desirable outcome nor the result that we want.  I would appreciate it if @bytemaster can share his thoughts on this too.

Nevertheless, I agree with coming up with a set of best practices and guidelines that all committee members can support is the right direction to go. Thank you for starting this initiative.

[mindphlux]

What did we learn after the last proposal? Here are my suggestions

The proposing committee member should

Present facts only, no emotions and no panic. Provide proof by the blockchain that supports your position. Committee members should not believe everything they hear, refer to the facts instead.
Avoid conflict of interest. If you're a company that is directly affected by a proposed change and you're a committee member, you should not vote yourself, as this is a clear conflict of interest. It's like a voting for a witness pay increase when you're both a committee and witness.
Do not rush proposals and decisions. 24 hours is not enough, a week is probably good. Give the community time to discuss and to unvote the committee supporters if nescessary.
There may be emergency situations that warrent a shorter response time but one REALLY needs to evaluate if a emergency situation exists.
Do not let the 1 hour review period be on a saturday/sunday when perhaps most of the committee is not behind the computer, that is why a week long review period is nescessary.

Please discuss.

Thanks
mindphlux