Proposal for moving forward on EOS Constitution
EOS is slowly drifting into Constitutional Crisis. To a large extent the blame for this lies with the absence of a referendum process, and I'm not pointing the finger at those working to get that contract ready.
The point being that this long absence has allowed factions to emerge, suspicions to fester, fear to grow.
So how do we move forward? The fundamental and only answer is referenda. So what should we do by way of referenda?
Let's start with the way people expect it to happen: Free market in proposals.
Open Proposals for ... Everything
Which means, lots of proposals will be thrust in there as soon as it is open for bidding. You, me, Uncle Dan, and Auntie's dog will all be racing their best literary effort forward. Here's one from Jetse.
The strength of this is democracy and everyone getting a voice. The weakness is that, the more there are, the more the voting public will be divided. The vast majority of the voters will be asking for opinions! As we lack any clear or useful mechanism to inform people what is good, bad, indifferent - the nature of politics - we can expect a lot of division. Hence the outcomes will likely be:
- we will have trouble clearing the bar of approval, and
- two proposals that are close together but both cross the bar will then be both validly approved!
- no predictability in the future.
We currently have maximum 28% voting that has to cross a bar of 15%. This will be hard. The result will be squeezed between a popularity race and a scramble for paid votes. Not a good recipe.
Let's look at another path.
Ratify the current Constitution
There's a lot to hate in the current Constitution. When I first read it, I thought, there's one clause that could be saved. Then I changed my mind, because I couldn't convince myself the numbers would not be misinterpreted. So, yes, I am a certified enemy of the current Constitution. To the nameless author who burnt the midnight oil - SORRY!
But there is ONE THING TO LOVE in the current Constitution. It's in place. It's the one we have. It's served us for 3.5 months and counting... If that gets ratified, we have stability.
If not, dramatic change. To a random outcome.
And it hasn't got such a bad record, objectively. No particular clause has caused complete crisis. There have been lots of controversy and complaints, sure, but it's been evenly spread. People have written popular alternatives, but none are strictly better, as other proposals have been fundamentally flawed in some way or other.
I propose we stick with what is known and bad rather than unknown and worse. Then, having ratified the current C, the next job is to start fixing it. Clause by clause. And I'll start with:
Chance Article IX - Dispute Resolution
The way to fix a clause(s) is to hold a conference - either online or in person - and hammer at 1, 2, 3 alternatives. Then give the community a choice of those alternatives.
There is the null choice which is to vote for existing text. Then there can be say 3 alternates. Whichever gets most votes wins, as long as it clears the hurdle.
Here's a proposal for additional text:
Article IX – Dispute Resolution
Disputes can be resolved amicably using any method agreed by the parties, including negotiation or mediation. If agreed by all the parties, in contract or in the event, the dispute can be referred to courts or to external arbitration.
In the event that amicable methods do not succeed, disputes arising out of or in connection with this Constitution shall be finally settled under the Rules of Dispute Resolution ("RDR") of the EOS Core Arbitration Forum ("ECAF").
ECAF, as a clearing house for resolution of disputes, is hereby authorised to appoint triage volunteers, arbitrators, forums and online automated providers under the general policy of RDR. ECAF is encouraged to reduce the costs to parties of dispute resolution, within the limits of fairness to the parties and benefit to the community.
ECAF is to be governed by all active Arbitrators and forums.
That's just a few moments of tapping. We need to tighten that up. The thrust of it is that:
- the base-layer rules need to be in common for all members, else forum shopping by powerful players
- we need a central clearing house for all disputes, so that the user experience is not more confusing than it has to be
- we need to help regional forums such as EMAC to emerge because no-one can understand or impose on local conditions, and ECAF itself cannot scale without that help
- we need to explain better what is happening... E.g., that entire first para is redundant, but people haven't understood their rights, so we have to lay it out
- some key sections in the RDR probably need to be in the C... but note that detail can be found in the RDR, such as what means active?
- it's too bloody long...
Of course, there are many alternates. Let's see them?
NB: for those who wish to remove Arbitration from base-layer, note that to do so removes enforcement from the Constitution entirely, and in effect undefines the Constitution. Be careful what you wish for ;-)
Rinse & Repeat
For all other clauses! Work through them one by one. Drop some (ask me) change some add some. It's your constitution - make your mark.
And the RDR, much work to do. Regproducer - slash & burn. There is more work to do...
All this proposal seeks to do is to map out a roadway that does not cause unnecessary disruption and keeps the community on track. Much as I hate the current Constitution, I think and advise to keep one foot on the ground. Ratify it and then let the pillaging begin: change it clause by clause.