dfinity / wg-governance Goto Github PK

In today's working group, there was a rough proposal to come up with a list of properties/principles that we want the NNS to follow. E.g. decentralized, accessible, community-driven, etc.

In order to ensure that our efforts stay on track we should come up with a complete list of these attributes. A bunch of good ones were mentioned in today's meeting that we could include. This list doesn't have to be exhaustive, as we can add more in the future, but it should contain the important ones that we can all agree on now.

We can use this issue for proposing and discussing the merits of each principle/property/attribute. (We should also come up with a better name for these since I keep saying principle/property/attribute). Once we're in agreement we can make a PR to officially adopt these.

I would additionally propose that when the PR is merged, we create github labels for each property so that we can mark individual issues going forward. I would also propose a meta label for marking issues that relate to how this working group itself operates.

This Issue is to capture and present information about the Governance Working Group mission statement and issues it should work on in advance of defining a scope.

The following is a survey that will be used to gather participant perspectives:

IC Governance WG: Issues & Mission Statement Survey

A Chinese language one would be helpful. Input gathered here will be presented at the next meeting.

Please reach out to @CaptainChaos on discord or @arthurfalls on twitter to discuss processing results and report writing in advance of next meeting.

As PRs are created to propose official adoptions of the working group, we will need a way to vote on them and a specific metric by which we can determine if a proposal has passed.

My baseline assumption is that we will express our votes with 👍 and 👎 reactions to a PR. However, how will we know if a proposal has passed? In other working groups a large majority usually led to a measure passing, while a roughly 50/50 vote would signify additional discussion was needed.

In order for everyone to feel good about measures passing/failing I think it'd be helpful if we determined a vote percentage that we need to consider something passed. It could be 100% could be >50%. Whatever it is, we should all be in agreement on it though.

Following the 3rd Work Group meeting this issue is the discussion platform regarding the Mission statement. I propose we gather more input here and can do a zoom meeting if more discussion is needed before the 4th Work Group meeting (in 2 weeks). As soon as we get a concise statement we agree upon we put it in a pull request and present it to the bigger group at the next meeting.

@legendface66 already did most of the work doing a survey and proposed the following statement:

Mission Statement
To facilitate the ability of the Internet Computer governance system to represent the interests of the Internet Computer Community by providing advice to the community and the DFINITY Foundation

To have everything in one place here are the answers from the survey done by @legendface66:

Question #1: What should the IC Governance Working Group mission statement be? Please
offer no more than 50 words.

• Advise DFINITY and NNS participants on all subjects that effect IC governance.
• Research and document the components of the IC governance system
• Identify the goals of the DFINITY governance system
• develop strategies for achieving them
• Create a system for creating new working groups.
• understand the broader implications of any proposal before voting starts and to relay
• these understandings to the IC community in a simplified form.
• Provide recommendations to the community to help grow the IC userbase and improve
• the NNS
• Create proposals related to the NNS
• Avoid self interest
• Ratify changes to the underlying protocol
• Represent the broadest possible group of individuals
• Identify problems with governance and propose fixes
  • Participation & representation issues
  • Not leading to improvements to the IC
  • Governance is no longer ratifying changes
• Address governance roadmap items
• Identify issues of governance capture by self-interested parties
• Capture, explore, and challenge community perspectives
• Improve governance transparency
• Improve user experience
• Assist in the development of the IC ecosystem
• Focus on mechanisms of governance
• Aim to improve
  • Decentralization of governance
  • Activity of participants
  • Security & availability of the NNS
  • Foster long-term thinking
  • Efficiency of operation
  • Reactivity
• Define properties of the ideal governance system of the IC and study, publish, implement designs for the mechanisms that will lead to the fulfillment of these properties

In the spirit of the suggestions by @legendface66, I suggest we start splitting up into subgroups with defined tasks. The end result of the subgroups' work will usually be a pull request that can be voted on by the members of the working group.

These are the current subgroups:

• Mission statement
  • Leader: @DataaDave
• NNS Core Properties
  • Leader: @bdemann

Leader: @lastmjs

I think we need to nail down a concrete process for how the working group will function. We have rough ideas about subgroups, but I suggest creating a README in the repository that explains the concrete process, including what working group meetings are for, how to form subgroups, how subgroups present their information, and requirements for publishing results. I've started a simple document here: https://github.com/lastmjs/wg-governance

During our first meeting we are going to discuss the focus and scope of the Governance Technical Working Group. If you have an idea of what you believe should be the focus and scope of this working group, then please post it as a comment on this issue. We'll use reactions to come to consensus on what the working group believes its focus and scope should be.

We'll start off by trying to keep it simple. A thumbs up is a yes vote and a thumbs down is a no vote.