elective-stereophonic
elective-stereophonic
Protocol for new feature implementation and significant changes in NXT core.
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Latest Stable Nxt Client: Nxt 1.12.2

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6  All

Author Topic: Protocol for new feature implementation and significant changes in NXT core.  (Read 14324 times)

coinomat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +214/-18
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1520
    • View Profile

I'm with NXT community since more than a year and a half and I can see some recurring pattern which I'm really tired of.
There's always drama where there should not be any, and it can be easily avoided.

The problem is miscommunication between the developers and the community. Developers must lead the way, but they can't implement features which hurt end-users and other devs building on the platform, at least without asking them first.  New releases broke payments, broke dividends,  are breaking backward compatibility which is sacrosanct for many people. I can't see a single reason why it should be like that.

I propose to create a protocol for all significant changes to NXT core.

- Developers announce new release features.
- Based on the initial feedback a poll is set up
- Users vote.
- Features are realized in the NXT release.

At the current stage of NXT development the devs can't be solely responsible for the implementation of the new features. This has to be a community endorsed process.

To that end I propose a creation of separate developer's fund, using which all NXT businesses and users can support the developers' work.
Community has to give back to developers, and developers should work in concert with community. There's no other way.
Current situation  leads to degradation of the current ecosystem. Please share your thoughts on this proposal.
Logged
Time to go further

Damelon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +792/-54
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2314
    • View Profile
    • Nxt Inside

Just to clarify the vote:

Would the vote be for the features or the implementation?

I'd be wary of myself voting for implementations, because frankly, I don't know the first thing about the technical side.
I'd be like a member of the public correcting a skilled carpenter or smith.
Logged
Member of the Nxt Foundation | Donations: NXT-D6K7-MLY6-98FM-FLL5T
Join Nxt Slack! https://nxtchat.herokuapp.com/
Founder of Blockchain Workspace | Personal Site & Blog

testdruif

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Karma: +71/-1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 223
    • View Profile

A very interesting idea...

I can see how this could work in an environment such as an enterprise where voting would be done in a meeting and there is a limited number of participants.

What are your thoughts on the validity or weight of the outcome of such a vote?

  • If there are 2000 users and 20 of them vote (for argument sake lets say "yes) on wether or not to implement a feature.
  • What weight could be given to those 20 people that responded vs 1980 that did not know there was a poll or did not wish to vote because of various reasons (they don't card for example).
  • Would you give weight to votes based on the amount of nxt the accounts hold? (would give the few big accounts 2 much control?)
Logged
**Necessity is the mother of invention**
NXT-NNGD-V8TN-3MZR-DWWBE
https://arguseyes.net

coinomat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +214/-18
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1520
    • View Profile

Just to clarify the vote:

Would the vote be for the features or the implementation?

I'd be wary of myself voting for implementations, because frankly, I don't know the first thing about the technical side.
I'd be like a member of the public correcting a skilled carpenter or smith.
For the features of course.
if there are some technical issues involved interested parties would have time to plead their case to the community, and that also can be included in voting questions.
Logged
Time to go further

coinomat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +214/-18
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1520
    • View Profile

A very interesting idea...

I can see how this could work in an environment such as an enterprise where voting would be done in a meeting and there is a limited number of participants.

What are your thoughts on the validity or weight of the outcome of such a vote?

  • If there are 2000 users and 20 of them vote (for argument sake lets say "yes) on wether or not to implement a feature.
  • What weight could be given to those 20 people that responded vs 1980 that did not know there was a poll or did not wish to vote because of various reasons (they don't card for example).
  • Would you give weight to votes based on the amount of nxt the accounts hold? (would give the few big accounts 2 much control?)
Yes I propose voting weighted by balance.
Bigger players have to have a bigger vote this is a must.
Logged
Time to go further

testdruif

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Karma: +71/-1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 223
    • View Profile

A very interesting idea...

I can see how this could work in an environment such as an enterprise where voting would be done in a meeting and there is a limited number of participants.

What are your thoughts on the validity or weight of the outcome of such a vote?

  • If there are 2000 users and 20 of them vote (for argument sake lets say "yes) on wether or not to implement a feature.
  • What weight could be given to those 20 people that responded vs 1980 that did not know there was a poll or did not wish to vote because of various reasons (they don't card for example).
  • Would you give weight to votes based on the amount of nxt the accounts hold? (would give the few big accounts 2 much control?)
Yes I propose voting weighted by balance.
Bigger players have to have a bigger vote this is a must.

Any thoughts on how you would address the situation where one or a few people with a huge balance would be able to swing the vote in either direction they want?
it would just shift the "power" (for lack of a better word) from the handful of developers to a handful of people with a lot of nxt
Logged
**Necessity is the mother of invention**
NXT-NNGD-V8TN-3MZR-DWWBE
https://arguseyes.net

lopalcar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +99/-15
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 561
    • View Profile

I like the votes idea
Why not set up a new asset for voting this issues? The assets is managed by tennesse for example and is given to main nxt projects in order to decide about technical matters. The distribution of the asset could be according to the market cap of each project, so we ensure that the most important projects have more weight in the decisions "If a noticiable change in project market cap, project managers also should give back some assets to asset manager, collaboration is always needed from both parties". Nxt worth the same as projects on top of it, so I think this could be a good approach

Then each project can subdivide the poll among their investors but vote only one thing in the iportant poll
Vote only by account balance doesn't make much sense, like in everything, I'm sure there are people with a tone of nxt which have no idea about what is going on and don't care about either
Logged

yassin54

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +240/-14
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2503
  • I am Homer, Sorry my english is Bad!!
    • View Profile

Just to clarify the vote:

Would the vote be for the features or the implementation?

I'd be wary of myself voting for implementations, because frankly, I don't know the first thing about the technical side.
I'd be like a member of the public correcting a skilled carpenter or smith.
me too not expert
but implementation it is very difficult for me, i am noob i can not to vot

coinomat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +214/-18
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1520
    • View Profile

A very interesting idea...

I can see how this could work in an environment such as an enterprise where voting would be done in a meeting and there is a limited number of participants.

What are your thoughts on the validity or weight of the outcome of such a vote?

  • If there are 2000 users and 20 of them vote (for argument sake lets say "yes) on wether or not to implement a feature.
  • What weight could be given to those 20 people that responded vs 1980 that did not know there was a poll or did not wish to vote because of various reasons (they don't card for example).
  • Would you give weight to votes based on the amount of nxt the accounts hold? (would give the few big accounts 2 much control?)
Yes I propose voting weighted by balance.
Bigger players have to have a bigger vote this is a must.

Any thoughts on how you would address the situation where one or a few people with a huge balance would be able to swing the vote in either direction they want?
it would just shift the "power" (for lack of a better word) from the handful of developers to a handful of people with a lot of nxt
Currently we have a rather even distribution.  The major holders are EXCHANGES. this is what would worry me more. You have to communicate to exchanges in the first place.
Logged
Time to go further

coinomat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +214/-18
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1520
    • View Profile

asset could be the way to go to.
that would imply a different scenario of course
and there might be some issues, who would determine the distribution shares?
balances seem more fair in this respect.
I like the votes idea
Why not set up a new asset for voting this issues? The assets is managed by tennesse for example and is given to main nxt projects in order to decide about technical matters. The distribution of the asset could be according to the market cap of each project, so we ensure that the most important projects have more weight in the decisions "If a noticiable change in project market cap, project managers also should give back some assets to asset manager, collaboration is always needed from both parties". Nxt worth the same as projects on top of it, so I think this could be a good approach

Then each project can subdivide the poll among their investors but vote only one thing in the iportant poll
Vote only by account balance doesn't make much sense, like in everything, I'm sure there are people with a tone of nxt which have no idea about what is going on and don't care about either
Logged
Time to go further

testdruif

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Karma: +71/-1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 223
    • View Profile

If mayor projects get a big stake in voting.

Might I (or anyone else) suggest "user unions" to represent the vote of the common folks :)
Logged
**Necessity is the mother of invention**
NXT-NNGD-V8TN-3MZR-DWWBE
https://arguseyes.net

Sebastien256

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +169/-24
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2823
  • ^LOOK UP^ = Nxt community!
    • View Profile

As a suggestion, maybe people should buy-in their voting power thru an asset. The amount raise coukd serve to fund nxt devs.

That way people interest in the devloppment of nxt would simply buy the asset, and the devs would get fund to build new features. Next major Features would be approved by vote by asset.

Asset would have to be issue by the nxt devs.
This also give more power to the first busiess that build on top of next.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2015, 11:46:56 am by Sebastien256 »
Logged
Please drop your ideas concerning Nxt and/or NRS in this topic -> List of feature request for Nxt and/or NRS (with the full list in OP).

lopalcar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +99/-15
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 561
    • View Profile

asset could be the way to go to.
that would imply a different scenario of course
and there might be some issues, who would determine the distribution shares?
balances seem more fair in this respect.
I like the votes idea
Why not set up a new asset for voting this issues? The assets is managed by tennesse for example and is given to main nxt projects in order to decide about technical matters. The distribution of the asset could be according to the market cap of each project, so we ensure that the most important projects have more weight in the decisions "If a noticiable change in project market cap, project managers also should give back some assets to asset manager, collaboration is always needed from both parties". Nxt worth the same as projects on top of it, so I think this could be a good approach

Then each project can subdivide the poll among their investors but vote only one thing in the iportant poll
Vote only by account balance doesn't make much sense, like in everything, I'm sure there are people with a tone of nxt which have no idea about what is going on and don't care about either

The distribution is decided by tennesse guys "for example" they are a trusted party which want the best for nxt, I think they can do it fairly and adjusting balances before important votes. Is the best way I see, other way would be an automated transaction which moves shares according to market cap, but that isn't possible yet hehe, so we can trust in tennesse :)
It's also needed that main project heads, compromise to send shares back if they lose market cap, for mantain things fair. This is an extra commpromise, but doesn't requires many effort I think, and could solve this problems in a much open way and giving everyone involved the chance to participate in taking decisions

add: what sebastien says also is a good idea, will give funds to devs, but could lead in people which isn't as involved in nxt as major project managers having a very important vote. Maybe not all bussiness want to spend money in nxt for the right to vote, the vote should be granted also by the userbase this projects brings to nxt, not only if they pay to nxt devs. So I think is better not to buy the votes but give voting power according to importance of the project
Logged

Sebastien256

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +169/-24
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2823
  • ^LOOK UP^ = Nxt community!
    • View Profile

asset could be the way to go to.
that would imply a different scenario of course
and there might be some issues, who would determine the distribution shares?
balances seem more fair in this respect.
I like the votes idea
Why not set up a new asset for voting this issues? The assets is managed by tennesse for example and is given to main nxt projects in order to decide about technical matters. The distribution of the asset could be according to the market cap of each project, so we ensure that the most important projects have more weight in the decisions "If a noticiable change in project market cap, project managers also should give back some assets to asset manager, collaboration is always needed from both parties". Nxt worth the same as projects on top of it, so I think this could be a good approach

Then each project can subdivide the poll among their investors but vote only one thing in the iportant poll
Vote only by account balance doesn't make much sense, like in everything, I'm sure there are people with a tone of nxt which have no idea about what is going on and don't care about either

The distribution is decided by tennesse guys "for example" they are a trusted party which want the best for nxt, I think they can do it fairly and adjusting balances before important votes. Is the best way I see, other way would be an automated transaction which moves shares according to market cap, but that isn't possible yet hehe, so we can trust in tennesse :)
It's also needed that main project heads, compromise to send shares back if they lose market cap, for mantain things fair. This is an extra commpromise, but doesn't requires many effort I think, and could solve this problems in a much open way and giving everyone involved the chance to participate in taking decisions

add: what sebastien says also is a good idea, will give funds to devs, but could lead in people which isn't as involved in nxt as major project managers having a very important vote. Maybe not all bussiness want to spend money in nxt for the right to vote, the vote should be granted also by the userbase this projects brings to nxt, not only if they pay to nxt devs. So I think is better not to buy the votes but give voting power according to importance of the project

It could be a combination of both, freely distribute to userbase and buy-in to get extra vote.
Logged
Please drop your ideas concerning Nxt and/or NRS in this topic -> List of feature request for Nxt and/or NRS (with the full list in OP).

coinomat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +214/-18
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1520
    • View Profile

The key question here is - do devs agree to this?
It would be nice to hear what they think.
Logged
Time to go further

Bitinvestor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Karma: +8/-2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 54
  • Banned!
    • View Profile

The key question here is - do devs agree to this?
It would be nice to hear what they think.

I propose to vote on significant new features
Yes, but how the votes should be weighted to accurately reflect the need for, and the benefits/cost ratio for the new feature is the tricky question.
Quote
and API changes
No. Design by voting doesn't work.
Logged

Arkh

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Karma: +15/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile

About API changes :

Here is how it SHOULD work (that's almost a convention between devs... )

If it is needed to change an API call ( except for a security breach ) you DEPRECATE the old call, which means that it can still be used but will display a warning that it is gonna be deleted soon. Then you ADD the new call so both can co-exist for a while.

The purpose of that is to satisfy everybody : 1. the API devs can go forward and improve the API as they will 2. The API won't break for 3rd party devs and will provide them with warnings on soon to be deleted calls.

For the timeframe of that proposition, I would propose that for example for an API call change, introduced in 1.6.X the call will be deprecated until 1.7 hard fork then it will be deleted.  Letting 3rd party enough time to adapt.

I am available to explain this further if anyone of the dev team, or the mediation team want to hear it. I am also volunteer to help fixing this operational issue.

I also kinda agree with coinomat's idea about voting on the features before they are realized but I am worried about that it will slow down the dev processes and that a very few people have a sufficient technical knowledge to be able to vote.

Regards,

Arkh


Logged

chanc3r

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +124/-50
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1019
  • NXTInspect
    • View Profile

Arkh you make a lot of sense, I agree and similar improvements to how change impact can be mitigated have been discussed not just around API calls but some of the 1.7 changes which won't change the API but because of the new blockchain constraints some uses of the blockchain may break.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2015, 02:03:46 pm by chanc3r »
Logged
NXT: 29996814460165 (NXT-JTA7-B2QR-8BFC-2V222)
@imrimr @NXTinspect

farl4bit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +210/-45
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3466
    • View Profile
    • Crypto Advies

Thanks for this topic coinomat. The past months/years the community is not really being involved in the decisionmaking of the features for Nxt (except the coinshuffling). Most of the time this isn't a problem. Jean-Luc knows what people want en because he's doing such a great job we give him the freedom to think what is best for Nxt.

Involving the community in the development of new features makes Nxt a true decentralized platform. Users should even get more active in Nxt and on the forum, because they have a feeling to be a real part of Nxt. And the votings are good for PR and marketing, because we can spread that news everytime and get exposure.

I think that voting needs to be done on Proof of Stake, because that's the basic of Nxt. People with more Nxt have more concerns about the roadmap of Nxt and the effects of the features will affect them more.

But I do thing that the voting is only an advice to the devs and the foundation. Imagine that account with 50m decides something stupid, there must me a possibility to cancel that request. It's like a referendum. People vote for something and this is a strong advice/message to the devs and foundation to implement that feature or make changes to the core of Nxt.
Logged

saladin89

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Karma: +10/-4
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
  • Banned!
    • View Profile

I am against this. First of all the majority of the users here have no technical knowledge, so how can they be qualified at all to vote? You say they will vote on the feature, but the feature is extricably tied to the technical stuff. Secondly this will slow down the development.

I like how it works now an enlightened elite(platos philosopher kings) choosing the path forward for nxt, democracy is overrated.

« Last Edit: November 08, 2015, 02:30:54 pm by saladin89 »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6  All
 

elective-stereophonic
elective-stereophonic
assembly
assembly