Catalyst Suggestion - Continue to open up the communication around product planning, discussions, decision making, preferences & future intentions

Not your fault at all! It would be the job of the Catalyst operator that we “elected” to run Catalyst (without much real choice, though) to enable such participation.

Your dissemination of the dates was totally okay. I saw all of the announcements from the point where I asked:

But, unfortunately, the workshops from that point on were all during my working hours on the only weekday – Wednesday – that I’m not in home office.

(I honestly don’t know if I would have made attendance otherwise. On the one hand, Zoom calls are really not my piece of cake in general. On the other hand, going into a Zoom call that discusses details of how exactly one concept – categories – shall be fleshed out with “Oh, I now want to please discuss if we should do that at all!” feels annoying and derailing.)

(BTW: Also something I missed in the “participation” around CIP-1694. I can understand that purely destructive contributions somehow have to be managed. But even rather constructive alternatives like @Kenric_Nelson’s work on quadratic voting – although it’s not my personal favourite – were completely side-lined. There was simply no space, process, requirements for totally different approaches provided. It was made quite clear that “this” is the way, it’s already half-implemented, and we just talk about some minor adjustments in those zillion workshops around the globe. … and most people seem to have been happy with that. Me not.)

Rough ideas:

  • I don’t think it will ever work when the powers that be go in with their own proposal. If something is already half-implemented by the IOG Catalyst team in the case of this thread or by the cardano-node/cardano-ledger team in the case of Voltaire, alternatives that deviate too much, that are not just minor patches will always have a totally futile underdog role with no chance of ever being successful.
  • So, the custodians would have to commit – at least initially – to a neutral role, just publish a call for proposals that makes clear what is in scope and what out of scope of the thing that shall be designed, what questions have to be answered in what detail etc. pp.
  • The proposals and at least part of the discussion have to live on a platform that allows long-form textual discussions so that we can see how elaborated they are, which of them might have a chance to succeed, where participation might be fruitful. That can be Github – as it is used for CIPs – or this forum or a Wiki set up for that purpose or …. Google Docs or Ideascale are rather not suited for the job in my opinion.
  • This would allow groups to form to work on different competing proposals without a prejudice on certain decisions in a blueprint given from above. And these groups can then, of course, also use Discord, X, Zoom calls, whatever they like to work on their proposal. Maybe some proposals fork in the process, maybe some join. There should be given enough time for that if possible.
  • At some point when the proposals are elaborated enough, there should probably also be debates between the proposals with a larger audience of interested people from the whole community to at least get an impression of the opinions at large.
  • I’d love if the final decision would be a vote of some kind, but if that’s not feasible I could also live with a decision by the custodians based on those debates.

The important part for me would be a process that allows a rather wide range of alternatives instead of these processes that give the impression of: “Oh, no, if you don’t want categories, dReps, community reviews at all you are wrong here! We are just talking about how we do it! That it is done is already decided for us … by whomever whyever.”

1 Like