Based on community feedback and observations, we conducted a poll earlier this month to gather the send of the Ambassadors re: whether or not running a node should be mandatory.
The question posed was:
Shall we amend the bylaws to strike or amend Article 2, Section 6, Paragaph E, which states “Network Participation. Ambassadors must continuously run a subspace farmer.”
And the options (single choice) were:
Strike - remove the requirement
Keep - do not remove the requirement
Amend - running a farmer should be mandatory for membership in Support & Engineering Team, but is not required for other teams.
Object - We need more discussion or alternative proposals before we can decide this.
Abstain - I don’t care and will let others decide
The results show a majority (53.42%) in favor of either striking or amending; however, we also have a signficant percentage (nearly 10%) object requesting more discussion.
We do not yet have a agreement re: how much of a veto vote can hold up changes. That is a topic that the governance team will be taking up (along with defining a quorum.) We have decided given that a) the objections were a substantial portion and b) there wasn’t a clear decision on amend vs. strike, that we would bring the discussion out of discord and to the forum where we can continue to discuss the pros, cons, and options that shoudl be considered.
Let’s use this topic to identify the concerns and see if we can address them with a new proposal and a new vote.
I think we should amend it. I feel it is needed for the support team to run it to have an understanding of what they are supporting. But someone lets say in marketing for example may have no desire to run the software.
Just run something does not mean be able to provide support on it. Even as an It guy, i’m running cli not acres or anything else.
I will not be able to provide great support on acre until a while compared to cli. In the same time, I should split my farm + node into several things wich will decrease my knowledge investment into cli mode.
I’m 100% on the side of As IT team we should run it, but we should do it smartly & wisely.
I voted FOR maintaining the nodes only because I have the technical ability to do so even though I am a marketing agent.
but I agree that not all marketing agents and other non-technical groups can do it.
So I’m going to “change my tune” and say that it’s probably a good idea to make it NOT a requirement.
I voted Yes because I believe that no matter if a person works in support or marketing, they should still at least see what they are working with. I believe that the more knowledge about the product, the more accurately and clearly all the necessary information can be communicated to the end users, eliminating mistakes due to a gap in knowledge. I’m not saying that it is mandatory to keep a noda 24/7, but at least try to install and see the changes - just have to. Especially since we are now in the testnet phase, where everything changes very rapidly.
Ambassadors use this as a point of their contribution to the project, and when it is mandatory it does not look correct.
If we make it not obligatory for social workers, then we will have to introduce clear distinctions of which teams have the right not to keep installed node and farmer, but we all realize that many members of social teams are also members of other teams, and in general, attributing this or that ambassador to a particular team is arbitrarily done. And if someone change his/her team it will be necessary to trace when this changes have been done.
Therefore, I see the most rational solution to leave the holding of node and farmer by all ambassadors mandatory. Especially since it is easy to ask other ambassadors to help those who do not have experience with it, we just need to not be shy. That’s how it is, fam.
I believe that everyone should do the duties that he knows how to do and wants to do. That is, who has the ability to do one activity or another.
Just as an example: A cook cannot be a car mechanic, but this does not prevent him from using a car. And if the car breaks down, he will contact a specialist and tell him about the problem. Also, a car mechanic will not be able to prepare an amazing dish like a chef in a restaurant.
The anologies are simple and clear. Nothing prevents the ambassador from understanding and knowing what is happening with the project. I think we all took part in testing and understand how the project works. But let everyone do what they do best.
I am for the ambassador to have a choice.
Running a farmer should be a mandatory consideration for all whether it’s a team let alone Ambassadors or those who are still magan as ambassadors. It’s just that what needs consideration is the huge resources used to run the farmer, besides that there are still many updates that I have monitored so far even almost every day this is what the team needs to consider as well. I think if it’s still like that, is it not wise to put it as a devnet first ???
Believe I voted object due to the fact that the requirement for running a node has never been enforced. No node ID’s have been collected or uptime tracked, so I think it’s hard to call it a requirement at all.
I know this is kind of ticky-tack, but I think we should consider another solution.
I propose that the results of this vote should be discarded and the requirement removed immediately from the bylaws, for two reasons:
If we vote to remove the requirement - we are voting to remove nothing. Currently ambassadors have no reason to fear losing their membership over node downtime. Nobody knows which node is theirs, or they already plan to spin one up after a node id is requested – therefore removing leads to no change in behavior.
If we vote to keep or amend the requirement - we still do not have a method to track or enforce it. Most ambassadors are very active farmers, so probably little change in behavior in this scenario as well.
Once the requirement is removed, we can have a more productive conversation about if a requirement like this is useful, necessary and trackable in the first place.
Thank you for your consideration and for your patience while I role-play as a scrappy defense attourney. If it turns out that nodes have been tracked for years and they’re already preparing to kick me out, I will be sincerely humbled.
What comes in mind to me is that there is one ambassador providing free monitoring stack, so if any ambassador plug their own farmer node in, anyone can check this by their own, and this is 100% free & public so.
