I don’t think it’s unwarranted. Too much structure would alienate people, which would suck.
I think it’s important to note that this all feels like it’s still in requirement-gathering mode, trying some stuff to see what works. Maybe it’s just me, but until we started looking at the possible structure and fitting existing motions into those, I couldn’t really get a feel for whether the structure would work…
I absolutely agree.
Sounds good to me
Can we at least say that motions should be plaintext rather than formatted on Discourse? Hashing rich-tech means a lot of potential inconsistency, right?
Would be neat with a graphical interface for publishing and voting on motions later.
Markdown and the supported alternatives are “plain text”. I don’t see a problem with hashing because of that, and formatted text is so much more comfortable to read.
Totally, and we appreciate you being here. The community needs more developers. It’s not easy having a full time job and then going home to play “DAO central bank”.
Lordy you know it. We had horrible times early on with people posting motions. People were trying to hash things and getting different hashes depending on browser, online hashing site, tools. It was a real mess. @woolly_sammoth ended up building a forum bot (@assistant) that people could PM with their motion text. It would then spit back a verification text people could paste into discourse, plus a plain text output hosted somewhere else. Like this for example.
We also set up Daology.org so that people can submit motions for Nu. It automatically generates the hash for the user when they publish their motion, and also provides a link to access a plain text format like the assistant bot.
So we have a few tools to avoid that issue. There might be some other simpler tools that we can direct people to using for at least getting a plaintext representation of their motion. I’m sure more tools will be developed in getting people to comply with NuLaw process.
My interpretation of this is, that asking for a compensation between 101 and 1000 NBT should have a good chance of passing. Yes, that spread is quite high, but it’s a first number.
I personally think that a proposal with a good reasoning will have good chances to reach consensus around 700-1000 NBT.
@jgeewax Looking forward to see a proposal from you.
If more funding would produce a better result, please argue for that. NuLaw sounds like something we want well executed. There will always be improvements to be made of course, but I want to encourage thinking big. You seem to have great ideas.
I’m new here, but I suspect that most of the work will go into figuring out how to best to represent the “rules” (which we’ve already started here), as well as taking the ~50 previous passed motions and turning them into the initial rules (that’s a lot of reading unless you’ve been following along since the beginning).
After that, the work seems incremental, and something we should push onto people proposing new motions / custodians.
I’ll contribute to this initiative. Monetarily, to start, because I’m not at a place where I have any free time to devote, but if someone or a group of people are able to get it started, I’ll see what I can do to find time to help with the next steps.
I’m good for 100 NBT, and will put in another 100 NBT if we’re able to come up with 2000 NBT total for this initiative as a group. Who else is willing to add to the pool? If it is helpful I can hold a pool of funds in escrow using a known address that NBT can be sent to.
I’d like to initially do this without requesting an actual NBT grant.
This actually raises an interesting question. When is a grant the right thing versus a private fundraiser? Shouldn’t grants be limited to things relating to liquidity (as they are effectively “turning on the money printing machine”)? And things like this which are just “we want to fund a project” better suited for private fundraisers?
(Aka, I agree with Ben, but I can’t tell if that’s going against the spirit of Nu’s custodian grants.)
LP’s are private fund raisers. It’s a good question though, especially pertaining to interpretation of past law. How do we know an investor isn’t giving you a list of demands on the down low in return for secure funding. A grant has a way of making the contractor report to a large host of people, meaning that the investor would need to trump not only the monetary price but also the side risk of reputation lost amongst the entire shareholder base. Then again, free money is nice.
That’s my feeling, too, for initiatives like this one.
For major development I can see a benefit for asking shareholders for a true grant (@Cybnate’s custodianship of the Android app is a prime example), but for community-centric activities, I’d like to see external fundraising as the primary driver.
This is an interesting point and one that I don’t yet have a response to that properly addresses it. Personally I believe it’s a risk that exists in either case, but you do make a good case for why a public grant vs. private funding has a higher likelihood of being transparent.
On the other hand, transparency may be less needed for privately-funded initiatives where the results are the important outcome, rather than the process that leads to the results.
For projects that would require ongoing work (like this one) I don’t think using grants is the way to go. It sets a precedent that this kind of work should be paid for with grants. Right now the network isn’t profitable and every NuBit created is a liability to the shareholders.
Grants, for now, should only be used on projects that have a clearly defined result. Such as @Cybnate’s NuDroid wallet. The specifications were presented with a set price to deliver them. NuLaws is a different beast.
I also don’t think @Ben should be putting any personal funds forward either. If you own NuShares you already have a vested interest to build out this system and that should be enough to put time into helping development. That or you just want to help build out the first constitution produced through a blockchain based voting system .
I’m not expecting any compensation for the time I put into this. We have over 50 regularly logged in users that come to the forum daily. If everyone took the initiative on taking an old motion and restructuring it into the new format it would take a day. The repo and verification is a bit more complicated but a few people could produce something within a week or two.
Bringing contribution money into this is just going to complicate things. I would rather it take a bit longer to build out than see people getting lost on who deserves what. This isn’t NuBot or wallet level development. It’s taking a bunch of text and restructuring it to start out. I’d like to see how far we can get before fundraising or turning on the presses.
I was planning to jump back into this project next week. We can create a repo on the NuNetwork github organization and setup a gitter.im room for people to co-ordinate and discuss in real time.
.