*In my political opinion*, if your governance model requires an ill-defined class of trusted engineers, it is not suited to governing a blockchain. (the above is not similarly qualified as IMPO for a reason)
7/ Secondly, by introducing an election process you allow the possibility that the election could be gamed (who would be the judge of such an election, btw?). You also add a bureaucratic bottleneck that could deter potential contributors from contributing.
-
-
8/ Rather than doing that, OSS is about having a hands-off approach at the system input: everyone who is worth his/her salt can contribute. And enforcing quality *at the system output*: code is reviewed & subjected to a common, objective standard that everyone agrees on.
-
9/ I believe this process is a good model for the so-called “governance” of blockchain protocol development. Again, contingent on the fact that we define the common objective standard clearly.
-
> Again, contingent on the fact that we define the common objective standard clearly. IMO this is impossible.
-
Why not? eg: many would agree that Bitcoin has these high-level requirements (ranked by priority): 1) Security (immutability of ledger + secure token ownership) 2) Decentralization 3) Scalability 4) Privacy When there're conflicting goals, higher priority req takes precedence.
-
You can flesh it out further of cos. E.g.: How to go about making trade-offs, in what scenarios they are allowed. If you disagree with said standard, that’s the signal for forking off to your own blockchain.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.
