RE: Proposal for an incremental Constitution and Dapp layer governance on EOS
If ECAF were ready, then why was there no secure method of communication set up with block producers? Block producers didn't know who were members of ECAF and who weren't. Talking of logic; To say it was ready, just not for any kind of volume is to admit it wasn't ready. You have admitted before (Telegram) that ECAF wasn't ready, so I'm not sure why you're now trying to say it was.
If the Constitution was designed to be vague as you say - then it has succeeded. The problem with vagueness is - it doesn't work well on blockchains. We need certainty. Vagueness ensures the requirement for some type of body to sit in judgement - an ideal scenario for those seeking positions within such a body.
Tiny group working on the C - Yes, there was no way around that other than to wait for more people to join the debate (which is still only very small percentage wise).
The article stipulates that the referendum should be used sparingly. So providing we don't have an ambiguous and lengthy constitution that's riddled with inconsistency, then the referendum will be a great tool for setting the direction we want our blockchain to head in. A lot of the mundane stuff can be voted on by block producers.
I agree with you about EOS not being a democracy.
If the C is just a set of rules rather than a vague set of principles, then there won't be a requirement to arbitrate on the base layer. If BPs somehow get around these coded rules, then it's up to the community to judge the rights and wrongs using their votes. Admittedly, this would be way more directly responsive and democratic if it were 1 person 1 vote, but that's another topic entirely.
How could there be a secure method of communications set up with people who didn't exist?
You said ECAF was in an advanced state of readiness with a list of arbiters and administrative processes all in place. I disagreed and said this wasn't true and nothing you have said has changed my opinion on this.
ECAF's readiness or lack thereof appears to change as and when it suits your argument.
If ECAF were ready, then regardless of which BPs got elected, ECAF could have stipulated their chosen method of communication so BPs knew who they were dealing with. They didn't and this caused a great deal of confusion. BPs had no way of knowing who was a member of ECAF and who was a fake.
I still don't think you quite grasp the concept of needing to prove your worthiness before requesting such positions of power.
lol... it's always possible to cherry pick one little point and use that to proove the other guy is "false".
"Advanced state of readiness" is a subjective thing, not a thing provable by one detailed question.
Overall, ECAF was ready because it was able to handle the cases that came in. Look at the history of the 7 frozen accounts. ECAF did its thing, returned its results. As far as I can see, no particular case was badly handled beyond what you would expect in the normal starting phase of a complex and complicated operation.
(And did so securely. BPs were not confused. BPs knew who they were talking to. It might be that the public saw confusing results. But that's not the same as the BPs being confused.)
Ian, I respect you greatly, but I feel you are not recalling recent history correctly. Please read the article below written by a very dismayed and very respected block producer:
https://medium.com/eos-new-york/the-state-of-eos-governance-ecaf-regarbiter-401c073d622d
No - those are your words. I won't respond to that strawman, instead better to concentrate on what I said:
A founding document such as that in EOS should always be brief and principled. Elsewise nobody will read it and understand it.
'Your implied criticism of the Constitution that there aren't the stated actions of enforcement e.g., Article I. That's exactly how it should be.' Yes, I took this to mean vague.
I guess by making them brief and principled it actually creates a job for you guys...
A group of people with expertise in this will no doubt emerge regardless of how it is written. But, better a clear, short readable document of principles that the community can understand and get involved with if it needs to ... than an indeciferable code that results in a guild to protect their secret wisdom.