create account

Proposal: Interim Genesis Fractal Consensus Addendum I by dan

View this thread on: hive.blogpeakd.comecency.com
· @dan ·
$80.18
Proposal: Interim Genesis Fractal Consensus Addendum I
This proposal updates a the previously ratified proposal entitled: [Interim Group Consensus Process](https://hive.blog/fractally/@dan/genesis-fractal-branding-and-interim-group-consensus-process), which is now out of date as of August 6th, when we initiated the 2-Round Ζ’ractally system.

## New Council Approval Process
The updated process (mirroring the steps from the original proposal) are as follows:

Before each weekly meeting any member with an average rank (as calculated by the avg(level formula below) of 6 or greater may introduce a proposal for consideration by the community. This proposal shall be posted as a link in the comment section of the hive post where we record the consensus results that week. Each qualifying member may only propose one item per week.

After Round 2 of each weekly meeting (on the same video call), those 12 with the highest weekly averages (as calculated by the avg(level) formula below) may discuss the proposal, and if they approve they can reply to the comment with "Approve" or "Reject". If 2/3 of those 12 approve then the proposal passes.

If 2/3 of the 12 fail to reach a consensus within 1 hour to either Approve or Reject then those 12 individuals lose the respect they earned that week.

**Average Level Formula**
<code>avgnew = (5 * avgold + level) / 6</code>

This is an interim process that can serve until modified using the same process or the automated workflow on fractally.com is ready.

## Applying Old Rules to Ratify New Rules
In Round 1 we will ask each group to specify a Level 6 (as we did before we went to 2 rounds) and ask 2/3+ of these people to approve the new interim rules so that we no longer need to specify a Level 6 in Round 1.
πŸ‘  , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and 159 others
πŸ‘Ž  , ,
properties (23)
authordan
permlinkproposal-interim-genesis-fractal-consensus-addendum-i
categoryfractally
json_metadata{"tags":["fractally"],"links":["https://hive.blog/fractally/@dan/genesis-fractal-branding-and-interim-group-consensus-process"],"app":"hiveblog/0.1","format":"markdown"}
created2022-08-26 20:26:33
last_update2022-08-26 20:26:33
depth0
children14
last_payout2022-09-02 20:26:33
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value40.118 HBD
curator_payout_value40.066 HBD
pending_payout_value0.000 HBD
promoted0.000 HBD
body_length1,706
author_reputation155,470,101,136,708
root_title"Proposal: Interim Genesis Fractal Consensus Addendum I"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 HBD
percent_hbd10,000
post_id116,059,155
net_rshares113,213,246,210,856
author_curate_reward""
vote details (226)
@aguerrido ·
Hey everyone! 

Please check my post regarding this subject! 

I propose to both weight average level and total attendance. I also introduced a logarithmic function so as to flatten the attendance weight. 

https://peakd.com/leofinance/@aguerrido/on-interim-consensus-protocol-for-fractal-democracy-systems
properties (22)
authoraguerrido
permlinkrhk7cc
categoryfractally
json_metadata{"links":["https://peakd.com/leofinance/@aguerrido/on-interim-consensus-protocol-for-fractal-democracy-systems"],"app":"hiveblog/0.1"}
created2022-09-02 01:41:00
last_update2022-09-02 01:41:00
depth1
children0
last_payout2022-09-09 01:41:00
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.000 HBD
curator_payout_value0.000 HBD
pending_payout_value0.000 HBD
promoted0.000 HBD
body_length306
author_reputation106,028,353,330
root_title"Proposal: Interim Genesis Fractal Consensus Addendum I"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 HBD
percent_hbd10,000
post_id116,242,140
net_rshares0
@ogre-radio ·
Oh snap
properties (22)
authorogre-radio
permlinkrh8srn
categoryfractally
json_metadata{"app":"hiveblog/0.1"}
created2022-08-26 21:52:54
last_update2022-08-26 21:52:54
depth1
children0
last_payout2022-09-02 21:52:54
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.000 HBD
curator_payout_value0.000 HBD
pending_payout_value0.000 HBD
promoted0.000 HBD
body_length7
author_reputation2,100,489,527,788
root_title"Proposal: Interim Genesis Fractal Consensus Addendum I"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 HBD
percent_hbd10,000
post_id116,062,170
net_rshares0
@pnc ·
It's aligned with our current 2-round consensus. Love when we apply old rules to ratify new rules. 
I support this proposal.
πŸ‘  
properties (23)
authorpnc
permlinkrha218
categoryfractally
json_metadata{"app":"hiveblog/0.1"}
created2022-08-27 14:10:24
last_update2022-08-27 14:10:24
depth1
children0
last_payout2022-09-03 14:10:24
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.000 HBD
curator_payout_value0.000 HBD
pending_payout_value0.000 HBD
promoted0.000 HBD
body_length124
author_reputation31,743,007,487,651
root_title"Proposal: Interim Genesis Fractal Consensus Addendum I"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 HBD
percent_hbd10,000
post_id116,081,905
net_rshares0
author_curate_reward""
vote details (1)
@sim31 ·
I wonder how likely it is that council will have members, which are not participating in the current meeting. This is a critical question because according to this proposal the penalty for not being able to reach consensus would be harder on those members of a council, which participate in the current meeting, even though non-participation of council members is the thing that might make reaching consensus on proposals hard or impossible.

 To reach 2/3 of 12 we need 8 council members. What if more than 4 council members are not participating in the current meeting? Reaching consenus is impossible and the penalty is actually less severe on members who caused it (they were earning less that week, because of non-participation, therefore their penalty would be smaller).
πŸ‘  
properties (23)
authorsim31
permlinkrhh9qz
categoryfractally
json_metadata{"app":"hiveblog/0.1"}
created2022-08-31 11:40:12
last_update2022-08-31 11:40:12
depth1
children2
last_payout2022-09-07 11:40:12
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.000 HBD
curator_payout_value0.000 HBD
pending_payout_value0.000 HBD
promoted0.000 HBD
body_length776
author_reputation57,169,944,979
root_title"Proposal: Interim Genesis Fractal Consensus Addendum I"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 HBD
percent_hbd10,000
post_id116,194,149
net_rshares0
author_curate_reward""
vote details (1)
@jamesmart ·
I believe that the 12 people according to this proposal are those 12 with the highest weekly averages out of those who attended the round 2 meeting.

Good thoughts though, I think the wording in this proposal could be changed to clarify that point.
πŸ‘  
properties (23)
authorjamesmart
permlinkrhmyq7
categoryfractally
json_metadata{"app":"hiveblog/0.1"}
created2022-09-03 13:27:48
last_update2022-09-03 13:27:48
depth2
children1
last_payout2022-09-10 13:27:48
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.000 HBD
curator_payout_value0.000 HBD
pending_payout_value0.000 HBD
promoted0.000 HBD
body_length248
author_reputation6,192,244,738
root_title"Proposal: Interim Genesis Fractal Consensus Addendum I"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 HBD
percent_hbd10,000
post_id116,282,298
net_rshares8,189,969,723
author_curate_reward""
vote details (1)
@sim31 ·
Then I see another problem, the same one that I see in the old interim consensus mechanism. Leaders from any one particular consensus meeting might not be good representatives of a community. I mean leaders of one consensus meeting might make a proposal pass, while leaders of next 10 meetings would have rejected it. I guess leaders of the subsequent meetings could undo any proposals. But proposals getting approved, then rolled-back, re-approved... - This jumping between approval/rejection would be confusing to people, and I'd say we better avoid it. That's why I liked this new proposal initially because as I understood it, it would take 12 people with the highest weekly averages, weighting results of the current meeting the most, but taking into account older ones as well. 

Maybe it is not a huge issue for an **interim** consensus process, but something to be aware of.
properties (22)
authorsim31
permlinkre-jamesmart-rhs3ta
categoryfractally
json_metadata{"tags":["fractally"],"app":"peakd/2022.07.1"}
created2022-09-06 08:05:33
last_update2022-09-06 08:05:33
depth3
children0
last_payout2022-09-13 08:05:33
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.000 HBD
curator_payout_value0.000 HBD
pending_payout_value0.000 HBD
promoted0.000 HBD
body_length882
author_reputation57,169,944,979
root_title"Proposal: Interim Genesis Fractal Consensus Addendum I"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 HBD
percent_hbd10,000
post_id116,361,032
net_rshares0
@thenewlegend ·
If this proposal is approved , then no one is eligible to propose something at the next week's  meeting ? Because the "level" in the formula is the level of the member in the previous meeting (?)  and the previous meeting  was under the old method. Or can the past level be used in the calculation for the next week ?
πŸ‘  
properties (23)
authorthenewlegend
permlinkrhbivh
categoryfractally
json_metadata{"app":"hiveblog/0.1"}
created2022-08-28 09:12:00
last_update2022-08-28 09:12:00
depth1
children7
last_payout2022-09-04 09:12:00
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.000 HBD
curator_payout_value0.000 HBD
pending_payout_value0.000 HBD
promoted0.000 HBD
body_length317
author_reputation0
root_title"Proposal: Interim Genesis Fractal Consensus Addendum I"
beneficiaries
0.
accounthiveonboard
weight100
1.
accountocdb
weight100
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 HBD
percent_hbd10,000
post_id116,104,672
net_rshares0
author_curate_reward""
vote details (1)
@sim31 ·
I think "level" is taken from the current meeting. avgold is probably old average. So after every meeting you calculate avgnew. The next week this value becomes avgold. That's my interpretation.
πŸ‘  
properties (23)
authorsim31
permlinkrhd9bx
categoryfractally
json_metadata{"app":"hiveblog/0.1"}
created2022-08-29 07:40:45
last_update2022-08-29 07:40:45
depth2
children2
last_payout2022-09-05 07:40:45
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.000 HBD
curator_payout_value0.000 HBD
pending_payout_value0.000 HBD
promoted0.000 HBD
body_length194
author_reputation57,169,944,979
root_title"Proposal: Interim Genesis Fractal Consensus Addendum I"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 HBD
percent_hbd10,000
post_id116,132,087
net_rshares0
author_curate_reward""
vote details (1)
@thenewlegend ·
What about someone who just joined recently ? How can their average be calculated  ? If the avgnew of the last meeting is taken as the avgold of the next meeting would it cause imbalance because the first "avgold" has an influence in how the averages go from there on ?

I think taking avgold from a set of last meetings ( say 6 ) before a meeting and then taking 0 for absence to get avgnew. This way the average level would be reflected more accurately.
properties (22)
authorthenewlegend
permlinkrhdjox
categoryfractally
json_metadata{"app":"hiveblog/0.1"}
created2022-08-29 11:24:39
last_update2022-08-29 11:24:39
depth3
children1
last_payout2022-09-05 11:24:39
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.000 HBD
curator_payout_value0.000 HBD
pending_payout_value0.000 HBD
promoted0.000 HBD
body_length455
author_reputation0
root_title"Proposal: Interim Genesis Fractal Consensus Addendum I"
beneficiaries
0.
accounthiveonboard
weight100
1.
accountocdb
weight100
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 HBD
percent_hbd10,000
post_id116,135,870
net_rshares0
@thenewlegend · (edited)
If someone is absent for a week is their level taken as 0 ? Or is the average calculaed based only on the meeting one attended ?
properties (22)
authorthenewlegend
permlinkrhd2ml
categoryfractally
json_metadata{"app":"hiveblog/0.1"}
created2022-08-29 05:16:15
last_update2022-08-29 05:23:48
depth2
children3
last_payout2022-09-05 05:16:15
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.000 HBD
curator_payout_value0.000 HBD
pending_payout_value0.000 HBD
promoted0.000 HBD
body_length128
author_reputation0
root_title"Proposal: Interim Genesis Fractal Consensus Addendum I"
beneficiaries
0.
accounthiveonboard
weight100
1.
accountocdb
weight100
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 HBD
percent_hbd10,000
post_id116,129,424
net_rshares0
@dan ·
A 0 is averaged into your average, you don't go to 0 for one missed week. 

This means that it is possible for some members of the council to not be present a given week.
properties (22)
authordan
permlinkrhdpz9
categoryfractally
json_metadata{"app":"hiveblog/0.1"}
created2022-08-29 13:40:21
last_update2022-08-29 13:40:21
depth3
children1
last_payout2022-09-05 13:40:21
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.000 HBD
curator_payout_value0.000 HBD
pending_payout_value0.000 HBD
promoted0.000 HBD
body_length170
author_reputation155,470,101,136,708
root_title"Proposal: Interim Genesis Fractal Consensus Addendum I"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 HBD
percent_hbd10,000
post_id116,139,063
net_rshares0
@sim31 ·
My guess is that intent is to take 0 for absent weeks. We want to take into account attendance.
πŸ‘  
properties (23)
authorsim31
permlinkrhd972
categoryfractally
json_metadata{"app":"hiveblog/0.1"}
created2022-08-29 07:37:51
last_update2022-08-29 07:37:51
depth3
children0
last_payout2022-09-05 07:37:51
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.000 HBD
curator_payout_value0.000 HBD
pending_payout_value0.000 HBD
promoted0.000 HBD
body_length95
author_reputation57,169,944,979
root_title"Proposal: Interim Genesis Fractal Consensus Addendum I"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 HBD
percent_hbd10,000
post_id116,132,042
net_rshares0
author_curate_reward""
vote details (1)