Applying the word "governance" to the residual human decision-making needed for public blockchains carries, as the term is thought of by non-developers, tons of baggage that is irrelevant to the only necessary category of such decisions, namely decisions about upgrading software.
-
-
Please write a blog post on this! Very important topic that deserves careful nuanced analysis.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Alas, I'm not seeing how the metaphor enlightens. The Wikipedia article on "governance" captures it well, IMO. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance Are you saying too many hear "govern" and think coercion? That's a fair argument to use something else, but what?
-
Continuing to think on this: "residual human decision-making" connotes to me people deciding for themselves on the merits, not relying on others' expertise. That ideal is not the current state of affairs, IMO, alas. Thus, we have "governance" more than (preferable) deciding.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I would say the decisions are more akin to improving the boat, but they're based on assumptions about what the boat is supposed to be like and where it should be going. "Governance" is good because BTC's goals are equally indeterminable.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yes - and in that design, certainly, having some skill in anticipating likely outcomes should be included in the drawings. Not "and then the magic happens" arrow here - uncertainty.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Boats come in all sizes with many purposes flying various flags.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.