We have not evaluated these standards in sufficient depth and will refrain from doing so until we publish our own
@ned, you have a great idea but your proposal is wrong from start to end. Again, you really need a good CTO to take care of STINC's technical strategy! You aren't attacking the root cause, HF20 was a disaster because you had nobody able to forecast it, which reveals lack of technical leadership. Your company needs an strong and competent CTO, one that you can respect and tell you: "No Ned".
The first mistake is ask each witness to publish their own standard. There are tens of witnesses so we can expect to have tens of proposed standards. The second mistake is to suppose that your dev team will be able to follow all or even a few of the standards, when they are likely to overlap. The third mistake is to assume that witnesses have enough technical skills and incentive to spend a fair amount of time creating, maintaining and assessing their standards.
This is the right thing to do IMHO:
- Release your own draft standard
- Ask witnesses for feedback (within a timeframe)
- Improve your standards (within a timeframe)
- Publish the official standard (on an scheduled date)
- Start working on HF21
- Repeat on every HF
Just my 2c.
RE: Steem Governance is Multiparty