I don't like the idea of your vote lasting 12 months because then voting would be staggered and there would be constant campaigning for votes.
What do you mean by "voting would be staggered"?
Also, I'm wondering why you see constant campaigning for votes as a bad thing.
I'm saying some ideas out there would mean that a vote expires after 12 months. I think vote expiration should be synchronized so it's all at the same time. That way everyone is aligned when to campaign, kind of like how the US election cycle works.
I don't think constant campaigning is a bad thing but it's more efficient is vote expiration are synchronized on an anniversary date.
Thanks for letting me clarify that, hopefully that makes more sense now! What do you think?
I'm wondering about the benefits of synchronizing the witness voting. It's required for practical reasons when it comes to country elections. But when we have completely online systems like blockchains, we have a lot more flexibility about how to do it. The only benefit I see of having something like an election day is that it may possibly minimize the effort necessary on the part of users. But I am not sure of that even because you ideally will vote for multiple witnesses. Well, presumably you vote based on your observations of each witness for a period of time. So how are you going to do the voting on the election day - by keeping a list in advance of your observations and chosen witnesses? It just seems strange and quite unlikely. The usual workflow for me is to observe the behavior and contributions of a witness for some time and to vote for that witness at the point in time I think they are in my own top 20 of people who are best for this blockchain. Meaning, the point in time when a witness becomes worthy of my vote according to my personal estimate is when I vote. It would be strange to not vote at that point in time and instead wait for some future date to vote.
I also want a shorter feedback cycle - if someone isn't doing their job right, I want to immediately remove my vote, not wait till next election day.
I think it's to establish cadence so campaigning is more efficient and fun, rather than constant, more of a focused effort during the quarter. During a period you can vote but on a specific day all prior votes before that period would be reset, you don't have to vote on that day... would obviously require some update to the code.
You would be able to remove and change your vote at anytime, the specific date is just when all votes older than a year from that time are reset, any modified vote could remain constant.
E.g. Votes are on Nov. 3. On Dec 24 you decide you don't like your vote and change it. since that was past the prior vote period if you do nothing, for the next year vote the vote you changed would not be reset.
I agree with the shorter feedback cycle, no vote should remain constant because someone could not perform and we should take action.
But, this is why I said more should contribute to this idea, because you make some good points. I think we all would and I'd like to see a blend of our best ideas, rather than wait for top witness to listen to random suggestions and do what they want. How will we ensure the best collective ideas are presented eloquently? That's the purpose I'm trying to serve with this post. The campaign I'm suggesting could even be tweaked, this is just to get us all talking!
Thanks for contributing thou friend!
Resetting votes older than a year sounds better to me. :)
And yes, I agree, these kinds of discussions should be happening all the time, with ideas discussed and the best of each idea combined. A major issue I see is that a lot of low-quality ideas get put forth (the author didn't make much effort to develop the idea) and it reads like an attempt to put something out there mostly for the post rewards (I don't like what I'm saying but...). So for me this is a major reason not to engage with a lot of the proposed improvements.