Meh… this is just the nature of 2-of-2, its what happens when there’s a difference of opinion on a serious issue.
Functionally, the statements ‘I cannot agree’ and ‘I will block’ are identical, but the way those statements are perceived and shape further discussion are wildly different.
They’re delaying things which gives time to come up with a solution and are meeting (IRL) to work on it.
Right thing to do IMHO, far more productive. Its easy to forget that behind those glowing screens there are real people and their perceptions are their own realities.
Here are the data points we have:
The Zfnd wants the 2-of-2 decision making process.
The Zfnd doesn’t like the 3-of-2 decision making process.
The Zfnd wants to control at least 60% of the development Fund.
Zooko proposed multiple times an 3-of-2 decision making process.
Zooko informs everyone about this disagreement.
Zfnd uses their available instruments to force an 2-of-2 decision making process.
That’s the corresponding statement of the Zfnd:
Therefore we are delaying our community sentiment collection and any decision-making regarding NU4 until the ECC recommits to the 2-of-2 agreement that was already agreed upon
Agree. On the one hand, it seems the ECC is pushing hard for a quick (too quick) voting process for a 20% Dev Fund, but then on the other hand, stalls on any changes to the governance of the Zcash trademark when it means less control for the ECC.
Does a large Dev Fund of 20% until the year 2024 still seem like a good idea? (Not implying @boxalex is a fan of 20%, which I believe he is not.)
The faster Zcash gets to true decentralization by decreasing large amounts of funding for centralized entities, the better.
Does the fund want 2 in 2 because it is feasible in the current situation? 3 in 2 is not due to the absence of a third party, if you wait, you can continue to coordinate forever, while the preliminary agreement was 2 in 2, right?
the fund does not want 60%, as I understand it, but offers, the next proposal was to create a trust that will accumulate and pay money, which is the same for both funded organizations, isn’t it?
Zooko, as I understand it, refuses preliminary agreements of 2 to 2 and offers to switch immediately to a complex scheme, why, it will be endless, then 5 to 3 and so on, and for now, the trademark owner can block everything and, in principle, dissolve the fund after refusal of financing after 2020, and maybe not right?
For my part, I see no problems in order to find a common solution, there is a problem that both sides do not like the existing solutions. I’m more than sure that after the meeting a solution will be found, this is bad, because it was possible to meet and agree earlier, and then we can discuss some decisions among the masses, understanding where the community is leaning, not the other way around.
This is a misleading characterisation; Josh Cincinnati said quite clearly:
I’ve no reason to doubt the sincerity of that. (Not to mention that “The Zfnd wants to control at least 60% of the development Fund” also misrepresents the proposal.)
Thanks for clarifying this @daira, and just to reiterate: @mika as I said in the other thread my personal (not official Foundation) proposal does not call for 60% going to the Foundation. In a “fully shielded” world, 40% would go to the ECC, 40% would go to the Foundation, and 20% would go to ZF Grants administered by the Foundation (via restricted donations) and I very clearly in the proposal do not want the Foundation to have anything but a minority voice in the disbursement of those funds.
But back to the main thread: I’m glad the ECC is coming back to the negotiating table and look forward to a swift and amicable resolution.
Thanks Josh Cincinnati for pointing out your understanding of the term “minority”, such that it’s clearly visible for everyone.
However I’m very interested in your interpretation of the following statemen:
I hope your interpretation becomes as clear as in the case of the term "minority
Zfnd uses their available instruments to force an 2-of-2 decision making process.
That’s the corresponding statement of the Zfnd:
Therefore we are delaying our community sentiment collection and any decision-making regarding NU4 until the ECC recommits to the 2-of-2 agreement that was already agreed upon
This seems to be the most accurate statement. 2-2 is what the ECC and Foundation have stated needs to happen for some time now. I don’t think the Foundation is opposed to a 2-3 agreement but as of right now there is no 3rd party. So in the meantime (until a 3rd party is established) the Foundation feels the 2-2 should be in effect.
Any update on the state of “private” dicussions that are held? And out of curiousity, will there be a protocol or something in the name of transparency or will these private talks stay just …private?
Don’t try to speed them up, I have been slacking off due to family commitments. I could always use more time.
and yes I imagine we will only know the result. there is no reason to have the actual discussion in public - I would even say it would be detrimental to the discussion process.
Wait, so something both sides claim to be doing in the interest of the community is done without the community in private conversations. As said, in the name of transparency, which again both parties claim to be, the least someone could asking is a protocol or something like that so that the community is aware which part/entity thinks what and how the community they claim to represent is argumented.
Just as a side note an interesting definition:
One business dictionary defines transparency as a “ lack of hidden agendas or conditions, accompanied by the availability of full information required for collaboration, cooperation, and collective decision making.”
Well I guess I should have read the quote before I wrote my post. - left it up just in case it isn’t. will edit it out if it is. - or just delete my post.
I think you are just after the “minutes” of the meeting. (lets face it, it will be several conversations which will be condensed into 1 meeting) - In fact this might be all my mistake. I only just found out that some people call “minutes” “protocol”
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. The conversation is about the community, but it does not involve the community. It is a discussion between the ECC and the Foundation.
Transparency in this situation would be having the discussion and asking the foundation to publish the minutes of the meeting. - Disclosing why they made the decisions they did and how they reached those conclusions.
Transparency is about making sure the decision makers have full information during the decision making process(ECC/Foundation). It is also about making sure that everyone in the community has full information after the decision has been made. it is not about making people involved at every stage of the process (that would fall under bureaucracy - Which also should be a transparent event, but it is not the same)
This fits with the definition of transparency that you posted. - we are not involved in the decision making process. So we get transparency after so we can do our due diligence.
