Record of meetings

From Blocknet
Jump to: navigation, search

Summaries of weekly Blocknet meetings, held between board members, at which coin representatives are welcome, are recorded here.

Contents

15-03-30

Agenda

  1. 1 News, updates and developments
  2. 2 Vote on proposal for periodic board membership re-elections
  3. 3 Approve a bounty for Nick's orchestration of the Bitnation partnership
  4. 4 Approve payments for communication and development


Attendees

Infinite Chaos

Arlyn

Russell Waters

Rule Land

Daniel W

Dan Metcalf


#1 News

  • Code updates: multiple
  • Think Tank plans explained
  • DX app taking shape
  • Bitnation app taking shape


#2 Vote on proposal for periodic board membership re-elections

Summary of last week's discussion:

  • Re-election every 3/4/6 months?
  • Coin reps or others supported by coins can put themselves forward as candidates
  • One vote per coin
  • Anyone with a majority vote is on the board
  • Also, if any board member resigns, what would we do?‏
  • Accept new candidates, and select the one who gets the most votes I guess...‏
  • The vote could be immediately or at the end of the 3/4/6 month period.

Consensus on re-election every 6 months.

Consensus on immediate commencement of the re-election process with a maximum 1 month timeframe.

  • Dan - yes
  • Arlyn - yes
  • Russel - yes


#3 Approve a bounty for Nick's orchestration of the Bitnation partnership

  • Last week we all voted that people should get tipped for bringing business to the Blocknet
  • 1 BTC tip suggested, paid in HZ.
  • Nick brought Bitnation to the Blocknet
  • Dan - yes
  • Arlyn - yes
  • Russel - yes


#4 Approve regular payments for communication and development

  • Arlyn: 8.502 BTC (2BTC of which to be paid in XC; 1 BTC in HZ)
    • 5.502 BTC
    • 13,333.333 XC
    • 970,873.786407767 HZ
  • Shazzy: Blocknet explorer
    • 0.75-1 BTC for design (includes first 6 months hosting)‏
    • Ongoing, 6months+: 0.1/btc/month (pref in 6 month blocks)
  • Dan - yes
  • Russel - yes
  • Arlyn - yes (though abstains from voting on his own item)


15-03-23

Agenda

  1. 1 Report back on developments and upcoming events
  1. 2 Assemble list of new coin reps: bitcointalk + twitter handle, etc.
  1. 3 Vote on proposal for bounties/finders fees for bringing partnerships and/or investment to the Blocknet
  1. 4 How do new members join the board? How do old members leave?


Attendees

Nick Cote

West Harrison

Rule Land

Arlyn Culwick (board)

Infinite Chaos

Sascha Pahlke

James Stroud (board)

Russel Waters (board)

The Alty

Dan Metcalf (board)


#1 Report back on developments

  • Business case document shared
  • Shazzy's Blocknet Explorer: http://block.blockexplorer.cc
    • Proposal: 0.75-1 BTC for that setup (includes first 6 months hosting)‏
    • He spent a lot of time on it and ii happy for us to agree what it is worth
    • Ongoing, 6months+: 0.1/btc/month (pref in 6 month blocks).‏
    • http://block.blockexplorer.cc/chain/BlockNet/q/totalbc <-- link to the API for the correct coin amount i.e. coinmarketcap‏
  • Meeting with the Santander Fintech Accelerator postponed to 15 April
  • This week: announcement of board + begin to put together Think Tank, Dev Incubator, and Dev blog
  • Bitnation: building relationships, helping them get their tech developed.


#2 Assemble list of new coin reps

Sonic - Russel now on the board - will find a new rep

Reps can set up structure(s) to communicate with each other and with their communities and teams.

  • Private Slack channel? Self-organize.
  • Contact details on the wiki
  • Membership of the Blocknet Skype group
  • Non-voting powers


#3 Vote on bounties/finders fees for bringing partnerships and/or investment to the Blocknet.

Summary from last week:

  • We don't want people to be motivated simply by profit - we want enthusiasm for the project to be the essential spirit of things - but that we want to show appreciation
  • Issue a static reward - a bit like a tip - for bringing new business or other beneficial things to the Blocknet
  • Board decides to approve/disapprove rewards.
  • For a reward, someone would need to have directly set something up, not just passively or in addition to someone else who was the prime mover.
  • Paid in BTC + Alts, relative to a fixed amount in USD
  • Tip: 1 BTC?
  • Option: people propose to bring a certain benefit to the Blocknet; request for a tip to be approved by the board.

Proposal: accept bounty criteria as above.

  • Arlyn: yes
  • Russel: yes
  • Dan: yes
  • James: did not vote
  • Paul: yes


#4 How do new members join the board? How do old members leave?

Summary of discussion:

  • Re-election every 3/4/6 months?
  • Coin reps or others supported by coins can put themselves forward as candidates
  • One vote per coin
  • Anyone with a majority vote is on the board
  • Also, if any board member resigns, what would we do?‏
  • Accept new candidates, and select the one who gets the most votes I guess...‏
  • The vote could be immediately or at the end of the 3/4/6 month period.


15-03-09

Agenda

  1. Review board election
  2. Elect/approach new coin representatives to replace those who've now become board members - and set up structure(s) for coin reps to communicate with each other and with their communities and teams.
  3. Discuss bounties/finders fees for bringing partnerships and/or investment to the Blocknet.

Attendees

Nick

Paul

Shazzy

Rule Land

Arlyn

Daniel


#1 Review board election

Results:

Dan Metcalf (XC; Blocknet) 100.00% 7

James Stroud (XST) 71.43% 5

Russel Waters (Sonic) 57.14% 4

Arlyn Culwick (XC; Blocknet) 85.71% 6

Shazzy (XCash) 14.29% 1

Paul Busch (BitSwift) 100.00% 7

Kid Krypto (Librex) 28.57% 2

Chris (Killakem) (Fibre) 42.86% 3

Sascha Pahlke (XST) 14.29% 1

Total Respondents: 7 out of 9  


Public link to results: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-ZK9SKSM7/

#2 Elect/approach new coin representatives to replace those who've now become board members

- Ask for details

- Collect details and contact people


BitSwift - Paul out - West in

XC - Arlyn out - InfiniteChaos in

Stealth - James out - Sascha in

Sonic - Russel out -

Util - wrong rep - Rule Land in


  • set up structure(s) for coin reps to communicate with each other and with their communities and teams.
    • Private Slack channel
    • Contact details on the wiki
    • Membership of the Blocknet Skype group
    • Non-voting presence at meetings


#3 Discuss bounties/finders fees for bringing partnerships and/or investment to the Blocknet

Summary:

  • We don't want people to be motivated simply by profit - we want enthusiasm for the project to be the essential spirit of things - but that we want to show appreciation
  • Issue a static reward - a bit like a tip - for bringing new business or other beneficial things to the Blocknet
  • Board decides to approve/disapprove rewards
  • For a reward, someone would need to have directly set something up, not just passively or in addition to someone else who was the prime mover
  • Paid in BTC + Alts, relative to a fixed amount in USD
  • Tip: 1 BTC?

Option: people propose to bring a certain benefit to the Blocknet; request for a tip to be approved by the board.

To be voted upon next week.


15-03-03

Agenda

  1. 1 Updates
  • Board election results
  • Bitnation + Horizon + Blocknet partnership press release
  • Blocknet.co launch
  1. 2 Ocupy
  1. 3 Discuss vote-windows: 48 hours or during the meeting? Discuss voting rights: attendees only or all board members?


Attendees

Arlyn Culwick

Dan Metcalf

Nick Cote

Paul Busch

Killakem


#1 Updates

Vote results: problematic The majority of us seem to have misunderstood the board election vote.‏   People didn't seem to vote for the whole board they wanted, but just one or two people.‏   The result of this is that only three people got a majority vote.‏

- and I highly doubt that any of us want a three-person board.

Proposal: re-vote. Same rules as before, just made clearer.

  • Arlyn: yes
  • Dan: yes
  • Nick: yes
  • Chris: yes

Tally: 4 - 0.

Arlyn to take responsibility for re-voting process.


#2 Ocupy

  • Low turnout; no point in promoting Ocupy in the meeting.
  • Move to next week.


#3 Discuss vote-windows

  • 48 hours or during the meeting?
  • Discuss voting rights: attendees only or all board members?

Proposal:

If we look back at the decisions we've had to make in the past, it seems clear to me that a big - central - part of the process is our engaging with people presenting their views and then discussing them. This is not possible when voting after a meeting is done. Discussion cannot ensue.

Secondly, some decisions might require discussion first before it is even possible for people to know what to choose, and those who miss the discussion would not be equipped to vote responsibly.‏

Thirdly, needing to be present in order to vote would incentivise people to attend and engage.‏

Fourthly, there's a precedent for this too, as parliaments only allow attendees to vote.‏

Nonetheless, I think that some votes ought to be 48 hour ones to ensure that everyone gets a say.‏

Finally, I think that requiring a 48 hour vote for every item is unduly cumbersome. Decisions need not be so long-winded. In fact, sometimes decisions may be urgent. We need the power to vote here and now. (Potentially, we could go for a strategy whereby all votes are only by attendees, unless one or more attendees call a 48 hour vote.)‏

Summary:

  • any board member can request that any (or all) votes for a given meeting are done over a 48 hour period.
  • if no one requests this, then votes can just be taken during meetings.
  • if any item is urgent and cannot allow a 48 hour vote, then only attendees can vote for it (this will be very rare).

[Paul arrives]

Votes:

  • Dan - yes
  • Nick - yes
  • Arlyn - yes
  • Paul - yes
  • Chris [does not vote]

Tally 4 - 0


#4 payment to Arlyn of 15.556 BTC

  • Dan - yes
  • Paul - yes
  • Nick - yes


15-02-23

Agenda

  1. Sign off website
  2. Voting starts for board member election (48 hour vote).
  3. Discuss having a minimum number of attendees for quorum.


Attendees

Nick

Paul

Killakem

Dan

Arlyn

Daniel

The Alty


#1 Sign off website

  • Paul
  • Daniel
  • Nick
  • Chris
  • Arlyn (abstains due to being involved in the website's creation)


Tally: 4 - 0


#2 Voting starts for board member election

Candidates:

1. Dan Metcalf

2. Killakem

3. Kid Krypto

4. Arlyn Culwick

5. Shazzy

6. Paul Busch

7. James Stroud

8. Russel Waters

9. Sascha Pahlke


Rules:

Vote for the entire board that you would like to have.

Don't vote for only one or two candidates.

Any candidate who achieves a majority vote is on the board.

Voting is open for 48 hours.

One vote per coin.


List of voters:


Voting to begin after the meeting ends.

Voters will be notified by email.


#3 Discuss having a minimum number of attendees for quorum

Proposal:

  • 5 people as a minimum for quorum
  • Quorum remains if someone leaves mid-meeting
    • Prevents people "inverse-DDOSing" the meeting by making it drag out for ages, which causes people to have to leave.
    • We can't always tell if people leave or have just fallen silent, so it's important to relax quorum.

Vote

  • Paul - yes
  • Arlyn - yes
  • Nick - yes
  • Dan - yes
  • Daniel - abstains

Tally: 4-0.


15-02-16

Agenda

  1. 1 Killakem has proposed to buy FIBRE from the Blocknet. 27k at 0.00033906 BTC = 9.15462 BTC, as agreed between Dan and Chris. We need to vote on this proposal
  2. 2 Ocupy: a potential alternative to Bitcointalk
  3. 3 Report back on progress on the Blocknet


Attendees

  • Chris (Fibre)
  • Paul (Bitswift)
  • Arlyn (XC)
  • Nick (HZ)
  • Daniel W (XC)


===#1 Killakem has proposed to buy FIBRE from the Blocknet.

27k at 0.00033906 BTC = 9.15462 BTC, as agreed between Dan and Killakem. We need to vote on this proposal.

Concerns:

  • Fibre would want the Blocknet to be incentivized to increase Fibre's value. Our holding FIBRE does so. Perhaps it's best we stay incentivized.
  • If Fibre buys back its coins, the other participating projects might want to do the same. Is this something we want for the Blocknet?
  • We hold 32,844 FIBRE at FQ8KQJio7ncdMDKYDaBH4eV1bQaWP1ufAF‏. Need to keep a reserve of [5k] for the gateway/decentralised exchange/general future.
  • Advantage: the Blocknet gains BTC, a more stable asset

Votes:

  • Paul: yes
  • Nick: yes
  • Arlyn: yes
  • Chris: abstained due to conflict of interest.

Tally: 3 - 0.


#2 Ocupy: a potential alternative to Bitcointalk

  • Attempt to bridge the gap between the activism and the crypto communities
  • Social network that acts as a learning platform and a web 2.0 forum
  • Aiming to first unite the communities of crypto, and then go after the activism communities.
  • There is also a blockchain-based Ocupy network, with some features supplied by other blockchains (a bit like the Blocknet and SuperNET). Zerotrust from Fibre is the first feature they've announced.
  • http://www.cryptoarticles.com/featured/ocupy-social-network-learning-platform-for-digital-currencies

Suggestion: actively promote Ocupy to Blocknet communities


#3 Report back on progress on the Blocknet

  • Decentralized exchange prototype imminent
    • Paul: for PR, get 2 coins exchanging in real life. Great demonstration of the tech.
    • Website (effectively a précis of the business case) shared, comments invited.


14-12-22

Agenda

  1. Circulate press release
  2. Propose structuring discussion to limit the length of meetings (proposal; replies; response; vote).
  3. Discuss publishing either minutes or summaries of meetings.
  4. Vote on whether board members may remain anonymous.
  5. Elect board members (48 hour vote).
  6. Discuss re-electing the working team.
  7. Discuss vote-windows: 48 hours or during the meeting? Discuss voting rights: attendees only or all board members?
  8. Discuss having a minimum number of attendees for quorum.
  9. Vote on whether only one person from each coin can vote.
  10. Vote to approve expenditures


Attendees

  • Dan
  • Daniel
  • Sascha
  • Killakem
  • Arlyn
  • Nick
  • James

#2 Structured discussion

Proposed way of structuring how proposals are considered:

  • Step 1: someone makes a proposal. (S)he needs to express the whole of it, only once.‏ No need to repeat.
    • It therefore needs to be said well. And prepared for.
  • Step 2: a period for responses.
    • These should be direct responses to the proposal, not responses to the responses.‏
    • A nominal time limit of 10 minutes should be suitable.
      • A time limit will incentivise people to think about the significance of what they might want to say, and hopefully leave out side-issues and distractions.
  • Step 3: the person who made the proposal has an opportunity to respond to the responses.
  • Step 4: the board votes on the proposal.

Votes:

  • Sascha - yes
  • Flubber - yes
  • Arlyn - yes
  • Daniel - yes
  • Nick - yes
  • Dan - yes
  • Killakem - yes
  • James - yes


#3 Discuss publishing either minutes or summaries of meetings

Votes:

  • Flubber - summaries
  • Arlyn - summaries
  • Sasha - summaries
  • Dan - summaries
  • Daniel - summaries
  • Nick (no response)
  • James (no response)
  • Chris (no response)

Tally: 4 - 0

Recommendation: have meetings on a set day so that people know when to submit proposals for review.


[Sascha leaves]


#9 Vote on whether only one representative from each coin can vote

- Proviso: people who represent more than one coin still get one vote, for a single coin

Votes:

  • Flubber: yes
  • Arlyn: yes
  • Chris: yes
  • Nick: yes
  • Kid: yes
  • Dan: yes
  • James: (no response)

Tally: 6 - 0


#4 Vote on whether board members may remain anonymous

Arlyn: let me present Kid Krypto's proposal. He's not here but I told him I'd support the merits of his idea (due to his unpopularity).‏ Unless I'm mistaken, Kid proposed a board composed of the coin reps who've put themselves forward (and who get a majority vote), as previously agreed.‏ This board's members should not be required to make their identities public for the following reasons:‏ - the working team is public already, and they're the people who deal with the business world.‏ - some coin developers have a legitimate reason to remain anonymous (like death threats, doxxing, and Killakem's real-world job)‏ - requiring board members to go public therefore permanently excludes some coins from gaining the representation they'd desire. This would not be fair.‏ So Kid proposes that the board - which includes the working team - allows its members to remain anonymous.‏

Votes:

  • Kid - yes
  • Dan - yes
  • Arlyn - yes
  • Flubber - yes
  • Nick - yes


#3 Elect board members (48 hour vote)

1. Dan Metcalf

2. Killakem

3. Kid Krypto

4. Arlyn Culwick

5. Shazzy

6. Paul Busch

7. James Stroud

8. Russel Waters

9. Sascha Pahlke

- Vote for as many candidates as you like

- Any candidate who gets a majority vote is on the board

- 48 hours to vote

- www.electionbudy.com

[Paul arrives]


#4 Discuss re-electing the working team

Votes:

  • Killakem: remain as is
  • Kid: remain as is
  • Dan: remain as is
  • Flubber: remain as is
  • Paul: remain as is

[Killakem leaves]

#5 Discuss vote-windows: 48 hours or during the meeting? Discuss voting rights: attendees only or all board members?

Arlyn's proposal: If we look back at the decisions we've had to make tonight, it seems clear to me that a big - central - part of the process is our engaging with people presenting their views and then discussing them. This is not possible when voting after a meeting is done. Discussion cannot ensue.

Secondly, some decisions might require discussion first before it is even possible for people to know what to choose, and those who miss the discussion would not be equipped to vote responsibly.‏

Thirdly, needing to be present in order to vote would incentivise people to attend and engage.‏

Fourthly, there's a precedent for this too, as parliaments only allow attendees to vote.‏

Nonetheless, I think that some votes ought to be 48 hour ones to ensure that everyone gets a say.‏

Finally, I think that requiring a 48 hour vote for every item is unduly cumbersome. Decisions need not be so long-winded. In fact, sometimes decisions may be urgent. We need the power to vote here and now.‏

So my proposal is that we do not vote on this today.‏

I think we need to work out which sorts of votes need the 48 hour period, and which ones are better without it (potentially, we could go for a strategy whereby all votes are only by attendees, unless one or more attendees call a 48 hour vote.)‏

So I propose to consider things further.

Votes:

  • Flubber - consider further
  • Kid - consider further
  • Dan - consider further


#6 Discuss having a minimum number of attendees for quorum

  • Vote next week

#8 Vote to approve expenditures

  • XHub development: 14 BTC
  • PR: 6.422 BTC


14-12-15

Agenda

  1. Website
  2. Remaining coins not yet paid 3BTC for involvement in the ITO to be paid.
  3. Consider various courses of action regarding Apex due to Gekko's involvement in BitBay's scam ICO.
  4. Vote on proposed courses of action.
  5. Vote to remove BitSwift due to Paul's involvement in BitSwift's scam ICO.
  6. People interested in being board members (and thus take on the obligations voted in last week) to put themselves forward.
  7. Board members to be discussed and voted for.
  8. Air concerns regarding the core team allegedly voting themselves into their positions
  9. Discuss and vote on a course of action regarding the membership of the core team.
  10. Vote on a proposal that voting is done over a 24 hour period.
  11. Discuss rules for voting, such as a minimum attendance for quorum.


Attendees

  • Argakiig
  • Killakem
  • ATCSecure
  • Arlyn
  • Paul
  • Kid Krypto
  • Shazzy
  • Sascha Pahlke
  • Daniel W

#1 Website

Proposal: https://docs.google.com/a/blocknet.co/document/d/1j1i312s9QuLckLjiJ_q83uOLF_I0mfXR8wxuZKX1X2k/edit

  • Argakiig - yes
  • Killakem - yes
  • ATCSecure - yes
  • Arlyn - yes
  • Paul - yes
  • Kid Krypto - yes
  • Shazzy - yes
  • Sascha Pahlke - yes
  • Daniel W - yes

#2 Consider various courses of action regarding Apex due to Gekko's involvement in BitBay's scam ICO

  • Consensus to vote non-anonymously

#3 Vote on proposed courses of action

  1. Vote to remove Gekko from the Blocknet:
    • Kid Krypto: Gekko out
    • Killakem: Gekko in
    • Paul: Gekko out
    • Sascha: Gekko out
    • Argakiig: Gekko out
    • Shazzy: Gekko out
    • Arlyn: Gekko out
    • Daniel W: not present at the time
  2. General consensus to leave Flubber in charge of Apex.

#4 Vote to remove BitSwift due to Paul's involvement in BitSwift's scam ICO

Vote:

  • Arlyn: in
  • Kid Krypto: in
  • Argakiig: in
  • Daniel W: in
  • ATCSecure: in
  • James Stroud: in
  • Shazzy: in
  • Paul: (abstains due to conflict of interest

Tally: 0 - 7


#5 Call for board member candidates

People interested in being board members (and thus take on the obligations voted in last week) to put themselves forward.

Resulting candidates:

1. Dan Metcalf

2. Killakem

3. Kid Krypto

4. Arlyn Culwick

5. Shazzy

6. Paul Busch

7. Nick Cote

8. James Stroud

9. Russel Waters

10. Sascha Pahlke


- Vote for as many candidates as you like

- Any candidate who gets a majority vote is on the board

- 48 hours to vote


Prior to 14-12-15

  • relationships between Blocknet projects were just beginning to form
  • meetings were organized in an ad hoc fashion
  • no meeting summaries were made