Pre-Decision Proposal: Should the core team be forced to apply decision proposals?

[vazaki3]

Just to clarify the question of the above poll:

Suppose a decision proposal is voted, and someone accurately and correctly implements the decision of the vote.
Should the core team be forced to include the code implementation of this decision into the Dash official code?

Yes or no?

 

[awesomedash]

I believe it is quite unlikely that any proposal, which requires considerable code changes, is approved by MNOs without any consultation with DCG/devs first. Also code changes cannot happen in one night, so there will be some timeline to get the changes done and released. With these consideration the general answer is Yes.

 

[Darren]

I should expect the core team to refuse to integrate any changes that will harm Dash.

Someone could post a decision proposal that cannot be securely implemented, or is just plain impossible.

I would expect that the advertised roadmap would take precedence over any vote of the DAO.

 

[vazaki3]

I believe it is quite unlikely that any proposal, which requires considerable code changes, is approved by MNOs without any consultation with DCG/devs first. Also code changes cannot happen in one night, so there will be some timeline to get the changes done and released. With these consideration the general answer is Yes.

Yes...but suppose that this happens.
A decision proposal is voted, someone appears and implements the proposal, and the code implementation is bug free.
Should in that case the core team be forced to include the code into the official dash code?

 

[vazaki3]

I should expect the core team to refuse to integrate any changes that will harm Dash.

Someone could post a decision proposal that cannot be securely implemented, or is just plain impossible.

I would expect that the advertised roadmap would take precedence over any vote of the DAO.

No..this is not the case I ask.

I assume that the code that implements the decision is bug free, and also that it implements accurately what the decision proposal indicates.

Should the core team in that case be forced to accept the code patch and include it in the official code or not?

 

[Darren]

You asked for my opinion @vazaki3 I gave it to you.

I did not ask your opinion. If you will disregard my opinion, don't ask for it.

 

[Darren]

It's dishonest to move a goalpost.

No..this is not the case I ask.

I assume that the code that implements the decision is bug free, and also that it implements accurately what the decision proposal indicates.

Should the core team in that case be forced to accept the code patch and include it in the official code or not?

 

[vazaki3]

You asked for my opinion @vazaki3 I gave it to you.

I did not ask your opinion. If you will disregard my opinion, don't ask for it.

Your opinion is based on wrong assumptions!

"I should expect the core team to refuse to integrate any changes that will harm Dash."

I assume that the changes are not harming Dash. After all , the voters decided that the changes do not harm dash, and thats why they voted for them! Is the core team above the voters, can they decide that something harms Dash while the voters decided otherwise?

"Someone could post a decision proposal that cannot be securely implemented, or is just plain impossible."

I assume that the code is implemented!

 

[vazaki3]

It's dishonest to move a goalpost.

I am not moving the goalpost. I am trying to define more accurately where I set the goalpost .

 

[Darren]

You are misrepresenting the question that you asked.

 

[vazaki3]

You are misrepresenting the question that you asked.

View attachment 10531

You are right. But I cannot change the poll's title. So please take into account the explanation I gave in the first post (which I edited in order to clarify the poll's question)

 

[awesomedash]

Yes...but suppose that this happens.
A decision proposal is voted, someone appears and implements the proposal, and the code implementation is bug free.
Should in that case the core team be forced to include the code into the official dash code?

I don't think so. We (DAO) need to fix that loophole if exists. There should be a diligent careful process for any changes to Dash particularly the core protocol. I imagine when the network is larger proposed changes are reviewed by independent credible parties.

 

[Darren]

I don't think so. We (DAO) need to fix that loophole if exists. There should be a diligent careful process for any changes to Dash particularly the core protocol. I imagine when the network is larger proposed changes are reviewed by independent credible parties.

There is a careful process for any changes, and that's why that some random decision proposal is with out force.

 

[awesomedash]

There is a careful process for any changes, and that's why that some random decision proposal is with out force.

I meant code changes and software release, not the proposal approval process (even though that can be also improved with more and quality information/data available to the decision makers). I don't think that our code changes and release process is that sophisticated. I imagine that at some point in the future a new algorithm, its implementation or other code changes are reviewed and verified by independent parties.

 

[Darren]

I meant code changes and software release, ...

I did as well.

 

[awesomedash]

I did as well.

I know that we have mathematical proofs on DIPs, but do we have verification/proofs on code and release?

 

[qwizzie]

Should the core team be forced to implement the outcome of a decision proposal into the code?

There was a decision proposal by DCG that failed to pass (extending the budget flexibly to 20%) and DCG refrained from implementing what they thought to be an improvement for Dash into code. So DCG does listen to masternode operators / the Dash community and takes it feedback serious.

In the unlikely situation that a decision proposal passes that does not have the support of DCG and does not adhere to the strategy of DCG or its goals,
i feel DCG has the right to refuse to implement the requested changes into code.

Leaving the door wide open for masternode operators to start defunding DCG budget proposals and start focusing on creating and funding a developers group that is more aligned with the majority vision of masternode operators.

It doubt it would ever come to that as that would indicate a massive failure from DCG at communicating their strategy and goals towards the masternode operators and the Dash community.

 

[vazaki3]

Should the core team be forced to implement the outcome of a decision proposal into the code?

There was a decision proposal by DCG that failed to pass (extending the budget flexibly to 20%) and DCG refrained from implementing what they thought to be an improvement for Dash into code. So DCG does listen to masternode operators / the Dash community and takes it feedback serious.

In the unlikely situation that a decision proposal passes that does not have the support of DCG and does not adhere to the strategy of DCG or its goals,
i feel DCG has the right to refuse to implement the requested changes into code.

Leaving the door wide open for masternode operators to start defunding DCG budget proposals and start focusing on creating and funding a developers group that is more aligned with the majority vision of masternode operators.

It doubt it would ever come to that as that would indicate a massive failure from DCG at communicating their strategy and goals towards the masternode operators and the Dash community.

I am not talking about the negative case, about NOT implementing something.
The DCG refrained from implementing what they thought to be an improvement for Dash into code, BECAUSE NOT IMPLEMENTING SOMETHING FOR THE CORE TEAM MEANS THEY RECEIVE THE SAME MONEY AND THEY ARE NOT DOING JOB AT ALL!!!!

I am talking about the positive case, about ordering (by voting) the core team to implement something.

I think in that case the core team should be forced to implement or at least to accept the (safe) code that any other developer implemented.

Otherwise the salary of the core team should be reduced, and this reduction should be part of the protocol.

 

[qwizzie]

I am not talking about the negative case, about NOT implementing something.
The DCG refrained from implementing what they thought to be an improvement for Dash into code, BECAUSE NOT IMPLEMENTING SOMETHING FOR THE CORE TEAM MEANS THEY RECEIVE THE SAME MONEY AND THEY ARE NOT DOING JOB AT ALL!!!!

I am talking about the positive case, about ordering (by voting) the core team to implement something.

Let me repeat myself :

''In the unlikely situation that a decision proposal passes that does not have the support of DCG and does not adhere to the strategy of DCG or its goals,
i feel DCG has the right to refuse to implement the requested changes into code.''

And masternode operators then have the right to punish that by defunding DCG budget proposals and organize & fund another developers group.
In reality i think this situation is unlikely to occur, as it requires a complete disconnect between masternode operators and DCG.

 

[Geert]

The last line of defense is DCG's CEO and CTO. They must be prepared to veto bad ideas.

BTW, if the DAO ever voted to do something truly stupid and was threatening to defund DCG over it, my hope is that DCG would abandon Dash, fork the coin, and airdrop the new coins to every MNO who voted against the truly stupid idea.