(Summary from 12:00 August 10th till 12:00 August 12th)
Ricardian Contracts
User Sun Tzu asks user Thiago Canellas how consent is shown. User Thiago responds that he believes consent is signing the Ricardian and the arbitrator should judge that deceptiveness. User Sun Tzu replies as follows:
“There is a technical concept known as signing which memorialises the act of agreement. Yes. In Ricardian terms, sending a packet / signing a packet with digsig can indicate that agreement. Same with pen on paper. But the problem goes deeper. We can design a system to send a hash. We can design a pen & paper. But if the contents are opaque in some sense, is agreement really found? What does it mean when a non-programmer agrees to some smart programmer code? And, yes, any defects or defaults in this process might be sorted out by an arbitrator - but that's a big maybe. What happens if they are systematically present and they are not being sorted out?”
User Emma joins in on the debate and responds to Sun Tzu. If a product is inconsistent with the constitution, the inconsistency becomes an issue only when a claim is brought to ECAF. However, if the claimant accepted the inconsistent terms to use the product how can he have grounds for a claim? If he doesn't have grounds and the product continues to exist, what's the point of a constitutional provision that would not be enforced? User Sun Tzu and Thomas Cox agree with these remarks.
Arbitration & The Board of the Alliance
User Martin notes that if there is to be a quasi-institutional body, it has to be demonstrably impartial. There was talk about this body vetting DApps for exchange listing. That's pretty powerful and influential stuff. Censorship potential right there. User Martin questions if the board/committees are voting on anything. User Thomas Cox replies as follows: “The Board of the Alliance will NOT judge DApps. There has been talk of several work groups, one of which would work on clear transparent guidelines for what makes a good or healthy DApp or ICO, analogous to the early work we did on the question, what makes for a healthy BP? The workgroups should behave a lot like IEEE groups”. User Martin asks Thomas Cox if the Alliance is impartial with regards to the constitution, base layer versus DApp layer arbitration, and WPs. User Thomas Cox replies that it must be impartial on all topics like this. Only the token holders can set policy and the Alliance must be a servant. User Sun Tzu joins the discussion and says that the board will not be voting on any actual things or actions that affect the community. The working groups will be tasked with facilitation, not direction.
User Sun Tzu continues by saying that he thinks that one of the first tasks of the alliance is to help the constitution ratification process. User Martin has some concerns regarding this statement and says the following: “To be frank this is what worries me as most of the players are not impartial on this. They have openly expressed a bias.” User Sun Tzu replies as follows: “I would expect everyone to be partial and to express a bias on the constitution - before it is agreed. Afterwards, we have a choice: agree with it or leave. But one can still express an opinion, still seek improvement, still be partial, still fork off and do another version.”
Constitution
The user Elephant in the room asks if there is a v3 proposal in the works or not. User Thomas Cox replies that the most current thing he has written regarding the various Constitutions, hypothetical and real is a draft of a charter for a workgroup. The draft can be found here:
Mission: curate an open process to ensure broad community participation in drafting, discussing, revising, and publishing at least two Constitutions for consideration by referendum.
3 weeks of "Values, Core Beliefs, Design Principles"
- 1 week of closure, come up w/ 2-3 coherent design clusters
- 3 weeks of "Articles and Explanations"
- 1 week of closure, publish 2-3 candidate Constitutions
- 1-3 weeks of campaigning
- VOTE (30/120 days)”
李嘉图合同
用户Sun Tzu询问用户Thiago Canellas如何体现意见一致。用户Thiago回应他认为在签署李嘉图时，仲裁员可以对欺骗行为做出裁决。用户Sun Tzu回复如下：
“有一种称为签署的专业概念，代表纪念这种协议行为。是。在李嘉图语中，使用digsig发送数据包/签名数据包可以表明该协议。与笔在纸上相同。但问题不仅如此。我们可以设计一个系统来发送哈希值。我们可以设计一支笔和纸。但如果内容在某种意义上是不透明的，那么协议真的可以被建立么？当非程序员同意某些智能程序员代码时，这意味着什么？并且，是的，此过程中的任何缺陷或违约都可能由仲裁员进行整理 - 但这只是一个很大的可能。如果他们系统般地存在然而没有被整理出来会怎么样？“
用户Emma加入辩论并回应Sun Tzu。如果产品与宪法不一致，则只有在向ECAF提出索赔时才会体现出这个问题。但是，如果索赔人接受了使用该产品的不一致条款，他怎么能有理由提出索赔？如果他没有申诉理由并且产品继续存在，那么不能被实施的宪法条款存在的意义是什么呢？用户Sun Tzu和Thomas Cox同意这些评论。
仲裁与联盟董事会
用户马丁指出，如果要有一个准机构机构，它必须是明显公正的。有人谈到这个机构审查DApps进行交易所上市。这是非常强大和有影响力的东西。审查潜力就在那里。用户Martin询问董事会/委员会是否对任何事情进行投票。用户Thomas Cox回复如下：“联盟董事会不会评判DApps。有过几个工作小组的讨论，其中一个工作小组为了能制作出优质的或健康的DApp或ICO将做出明确的透明指导方针，类似于我们在这个问题上做的早期工作，是什么成造健康的节点人？工作组应该像IEEE小组一样“。联盟对于宪法来说是不是公正的，基层与DApp层仲裁以及WPs方面保持公正，用户Martin问了Thomas Cox。用户Thomas Cox回复说，它必须对所有这样的主题保持公正。只有令牌持有者可以设定政策，联盟必须是服从人。用户Sun Tzu加入讨论并表示董事会不会对任何影响社区的实际事件或行为进行投票。工作组的任务是提供便利，而不是提供方向。
用户Sun Tzu继续说，他认为联盟的首要任务之一是帮助宪法批准程序。用户马丁对此声明有一些担忧，并说：“坦率地说，这让我担心，因为大多数成员都不公正。他们公开表达了其偏见。“用户Sun Tzu回答如下：”在达成协议之前，每个人都会偏爱并对宪法表示偏见这是我预料之中的。那么，我们有一个选择：同意或离开。但任何人仍然可以表达意见，仍然寻求改进，仍然保持偏爱，仍可以分叉并做另一个版本。“
宪法
用户大象询问是否有工作中的v3提案。用户Thomax Cox回答说，他撰写的关于各种宪法的最新内容，假设和真实是工作组草案中的一章节。草案可以在这里找到：
使命：策划一个开放的过程，以确保社区广泛参与起草，讨论，修改和出版至少两部宪法，以供公民投票考虑。
3周的“价值观，核心信念，设计原则”
*在1周内关闭，发布2-3个候选宪法
- 3周的“文章和解释”
*关闭1周，发布2-3个候选宪法 - 1-3周的竞选活动
*投票（30/120天）