Need list of principles by which to measure the NNS

[dansteren]

In today's working group, there was a rough proposal to come up with a list of properties/principles that we want the NNS to follow. E.g. decentralized, accessible, community-driven, etc.

In order to ensure that our efforts stay on track we should come up with a complete list of these attributes. A bunch of good ones were mentioned in today's meeting that we could include. This list doesn't have to be exhaustive, as we can add more in the future, but it should contain the important ones that we can all agree on now.

We can use this issue for proposing and discussing the merits of each principle/property/attribute. (We should also come up with a better name for these since I keep saying principle/property/attribute). Once we're in agreement we can make a PR to officially adopt these.

I would additionally propose that when the PR is merged, we create github labels for each property so that we can mark individual issues going forward. I would also propose a meta label for marking issues that relate to how this working group itself operates.

[legendface66]

This is a good idea but I think the best way to do this is to identify these properties/principals as we encounter the need for them.

Also, terminologically we need to be careful. For example, decentralisation is a word defined by negation making it hard to be clear what you are talking about. Decentralised compared to what? What components need to be decentralised? Why? And to what degree? Decentralisation tends to be spoken about as a desirable attribute rather than a strategy to achieve an end.

Decentralised systems tend to be complex dynamical systems that exhibit strange behavior. To illustrate this with an abstract example:

If 3 actors hold an equal share of 99 voting tokens which they use to vote on proposals and also trade between one another, the system behaves like a 2 of 3 majority vote. However, if one actor manages to acquire 50 voting tokens the system undergoes a state change and becomes unilaterally controlled. A share of 49 - 49 - 1 is still a 2 of 3 majority vote, but 50 - 48 - 1 is unitary.

Thresholds of state change like this make up a hidden topography in the spectrum of decentralisation. More complex systems can have a number of these kinds of state changes. Also, where systems interact - like in the tokenomics and governance - changes in the state of one can have effects on others. Often times these effects can be hard to detect in advance. We need at least some kind of map of these state change thresholds if we are to sensibly talk about decentralisation.

If we do decide to start with at least a rudimentary list to start we could approach it by being really careful in our terms and clearly define them. Sticking to the example of the property/principal of decentralisation, we could use "Trending toward decentralisation" rather than just "decentralised".

[dansteren]

@legendface66 Those are good points. I really like the idea of one-word labels that we easily differentiate at a glance. However as you point out, that will leave out a lot of these important nuances.

Maybe as part of the deliverables, any PR that is opened could contain a short list of one-word labels for easy reference, and then create a file of definitions to be checked into the repository that contains a longer, more in-depth explanation of each term that can help everyone stay on the same page with the nuances.

[dansteren]

In today's meeting we talked about the CFTC's action against Ooki DAO and the legal implications of participating in a DAO. Consequently, I'd like to propose a NNS principal of liability-limiting meaning, the members of the NNS DAO would ideally be sheltered from legal repercussions as individuals, similar to a limited liability corporation (LLC). The NNS as a distinct entity and any future treasury it governs would still be liable for any illegal actions the NNS takes, but individuals would be protected, which I think is essential to continued participation in NNS voting.

[bdemann]

I think it would be great if we started listing a bunch of ideas for core principle, @dansteren made a list of a few from some of the conversations in the working groups. I'll post a bunch of those here, each one in it's own comment so people can thumbs up if they like it or thumbs down if they don't so we can gauge how important each one.

[bdemann]

Decentralized no single entity should decide the fate for everyone

[bdemann]

Upheld or Relevant or Respected if a motion is passed it should be implemented

[bdemann]

Highly Participatory or Engaging we want people to vote. It does us no good if nobody participates

[bdemann]

Wealth-Agnostic can we ensure that all voices are heard?

[bdemann]

Measurable we should be able to observe and measure the interaction between the NNS and community

[bdemann]

Centralized one entity should be able to control every aspect of the NNS

[bdemann]

Representative of community will

[bdemann]

Secure

• Resistant or impervious to malicious proposals that are harmful to everyone
• Proposals cannot bypass the voting process and be "voted through" by exploring limitations in the voting protocol

[bdemann]

Available The system can always take and process new proposals

[bdemann]

Long-term thinking or Foresighted Voters are incentivized to vote in for proposals that improve the sustainability of the IC

[bjoernek]

Here are a few properties which we used earlier to assess governance changes (partly overlapping with points made above)

• Decentralized & active: The governance is decentralized. That is, the voting power is distributed over many, independent entities and there is not one single or a few entities that can decide by themselves how the Internet Computer evolves. Also, there is a broad and active community meaning that many participants regularly interact with the governance and there is a variety of active voters (known neurons).
• Secure & available: Malicious proposals, that would be against the interest of the majority, cannot bypass the voting process and be “voted through” by exploring limitations of the voting protocol. Moreover, the governance system is always available to take new proposals and process them
• Long-term thinking: Voters are incentivised to vote in the long term interest of the Internet Computer.
• Scalable: The voting process remains practicable when the Internet Computer and its community increase in size over time.
• Reactive: High priority proposals, for example urgent security patches, can be adopted and executed quickly.
• Purposeful: Proposals should not be misused/bogus. For example not
  • Skew rewards without meaningful proposals
  • Bad content, display bad/inappropriate content to users
• Simple & accessible: There is a low barrier for entry, meaning that users with limited commitment (small staked amounts, low dissolve delay) can propose new ideas and contribute to the discussion. The voters understand how the governance system works.
• Efficient: The voting process can be completed efficiently by voters. For example, it is efficient to identify worthy proposals and easy to vote.