I think it’s interesting to look at a current governance issue through the lens of what might be under different models like the zBloc suggested here.
Let’s use the current Network Sustainability Fund (NSF) decision as a current governance issue.
Under the current model, we need to somehow get to clear community consensus. I believe ZF intends to poll ZCAP to inform their position, ECC will poll ZAC to inform our position, and think there should be a poll of coin holders. However, unless there is clear consensus, the change would not be implemented. But what is clear consensus? It’s highly subjective.
With the zBloc, I believe the process would become more clear. The NSF implementation would not be included in any network upgrade until the majority of constituents signal approval by signing with their key.
If, for example, the initial constituent set included: ZCG, coin holders, ECC, ZF, a group of core engineers, ZecHub, and Shielded Labs, the implementation would be scheduled for a network upgrade as soon as 4 of the 7 constituents signs.
A constituent would signal either disapproval, or “wait,” by withholding a signature.
As an example (all hypothetical), let’s say Shielded Labs, ZCG and Coin Holders (perhaps through a process managed by Hahn) signed in support of inclusion of the NSM in the next NU (NU7), one more party would need to get on board. Let’s say the core engineers were on board, but not until a future NU. In that case they would not sign until after the NU7 inclusion deadline had passed, which would then trigger inclusion in the next NU (NU8).
Is this how we would like to see governance work? What are the downsides as compared with the current or alternative models?