After much thought on the issues we face in regards to the referendum contract and collaborating with many of the top minds working on this, I would like to bring forth a proposal for review that combines all of the best ideas presented so far.
Process for submitting a referendum proposal:
On-chain & Public Discussion - Until the EOS Forum is ready and all communications can be on-chain, anyone seeking to submit a referendum must first submit their full proposal for discussion here in the EOS Go forums, and provide a full copy of the text on-chain at eosproof.io. You must include the cryptographic hash in your actual post as well, so it is recommended you submit it to the chain BEFORE posting it here for discussion.
Public Support & Validity of Referendum - To combat frivolous referendums from clogging up the system, your proposal must meet a certain number of comments and approval from key community members and have a clear path to execution. Ideas are great, but vetted, principled arguments that meet real world standards of public consensus are still relevant, even here in the land of EOS. An exact number of comments and what metrics meet this standard are up for debate.
Process For Submitting Referendum - Once there is ample support for your referendum, you must submit your proposal officially to a Google form in the short term (or relevant EOS public forum once that is set up) to be reviewed by the EMLG group (or perhaps several governing bodies tasked with submitting your referendum to ensure the system is not flooded with spam). The person submitting the proposal will be asked for their cryptographic hash and proof of the data points I outlined, as well as relevant contact information and some level of verification that they are in fact a real person. If that should be decided to beI suggest we appoint at least three competing interest groups who are appointed to do this at different vantage points in the ecosystem to combat the potential for favoritism and censorship of unpopular ideas with incumbent power structures taking shape in the ecosystem now.
Referendum Cost & Support - A fee should be associated with proposing a referendum of 20-40 EOS. This serves two purposes: if you cannot collect that much in public support financially, your referendum may not be worth reviewing in the first place. The other part is the fees paid into the system could be put toward RAM staking to run the actual Referendum forum / eosvotes.io initiative. This both mitigates spam and provides funding to host the contract and referendums ongoing.
I believe this is a good start, please let me know your thoughts. We have many challenges ahead to make this work and we need the best and brightest from our community to make this a well thought out process end to end.
In the spirit of this process, I have registered this proposal on-chain here...
UPDATE: Please see the latest thinking around the referendum proposal guidelines here - https://steemit.com/eos/@eostribe/a-few-thoughts-on-the-eos-referendum-proposal-process
After fielding hundreds of questions and logging countless hours of discussions with individuals in the various Telegram groups, the Worker Proposal System working group has drafted a charter to govern its progress toward a solid Worker Proposal System.
Integral to the working group’s efforts is its goal statement:
“To design a proposal for the EOS Worker Proposal System (WPS) and its governance, including the formal procedures, controls, and data workflows that will control the election of proposals, the responsible distribution and oversight of funds to said proposals, and the process by which the WPS can be amended to meet the needs of the evolving chain. Also to design the referenda criteria for bringing the WPS into/out of existence. The proposed WPS will empower the funding of projects that will enhance the health and competitiveness of the EOS blockchain ecosystem, yet may or may not be otherwise commercially viable and therefore struggle to attract private investment.”
The WPS working group has defined a path forward for a rapidly deployed MVP1 (a first Minimum Viable Product) which will include a governance structure to enable early release of funds for high-priority infrastructure projects, as chosen by the Token Holders of the EOS Mainnet. Following the release of MVP1, the group, in cooperation with the community of stakeholders and volunteers, intends to engage in a more rigorous series of iterations to deploy a robust governance structure and flexible user interface, intended to support a wide range of Worker Proposals.
To discuss some of the most important parts of the Charter, to clarify the path forward, and to empower community members to involve themselves with this project, Thomas Cox will be hosting two Orientation Sessions that will include an open Q&A. All members of the EOS community are invited to attend and registration is required (a recording of the better session will be posted):
The WPS working group will continue to need the support of the EOS community and is eager to answer any questions about the path forward as detailed in the project charter.
The EOS Worker Proposal System (WPS) Project Charter includes a breakdown of the high-level risks, scope, deliverables, and a schedule of milestones. The WPS Project Charter document can be found here.
In addition, a set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) have been posted to EOSGo here.
These FAQs are a first-stop for anyone interested in the status of the WPS working group’s proposal project and will be updated as progress is made, milestones achieved, and more questions become apparent.
The entire community can be grateful for the long hours of hard work put in by the volunteers, particularly lead volunteer Branden Espinoza.
The volunteers who drafted the Charter are:
In addition, the many contributors to the main WPS Telegram Channel did a great deal to bring the project this far.
Translation: As soon as the Charter has been translated into Korean and Chinese, I (Thomas) will update this posting to include links to those translations.
The official language of the working group remains English, and future applicants for volunteer positions in the core group must be fluent in English.
Volunteers must be Members of the EOS Mainnet community (either as current token holders or as claimants of accounts in the Unregistered ledger) and have agreed to its Constitution.
22-Jun-2018: added links to Korean and Chinese translations of the Charter.
This post introduces key criteria that Arbitrators for the EOSIO Core Arbitrator Forum (ECAF) would be expected to meet. It also presents an overview of how Arbitrators, once selected, could be trained.
The Governance Team have been brainstorming on what would make a good Arbitrator and consider the following to be possible criteria for selecting an Arbitrator:
Once selected, Arbitrators would be trained through an apprenticeship process in which they are mentored by a more experienced Arbitrator before being allowed to rule on a dispute in their own right. For example, the experienced Arbitrator would introduce the junior Arbitrator to the intricacies of the Arbitration process and take them through prior exemplar cases. The junior Arbitrator could also shadow the experienced Arbitrator as she reviews an ongoing dispute.
Edit: 4 June 18. Conflict crtieria updated based on Community feedback that DApps may not necessarily be designed to be revenue producing.