You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: BitShares Hangout #35 - 2017-08-25 - OpenSource Agenda [WhaleShare/Beyondbit Payouts Powered by SP!]
Approval of Bugfixes
Recently, @cyrano wanted to check with BitShares stakeholders about whether and how shareholders should approve bugfixes that are being worked on by developers. On the forums, most thought that bugfixes can simply be submitted and ultimately reviewed by witnesses who are directly selected by stakeholders. @ash was of the opinion that hardfork and general rule changes should.
Hard Fork changes which have large economic consequences should come down to a vote, that and perhaps the branding/logos, otherwise it shouldn't be voted upon by the community.
That is fine by me.
Apart from the significance of the code change, I am curious about the "voting". To the best of my knowledge, a "binding vote" on a HF is a vote by stakeholders for (a) the witnesses who choose whether incorporate the HF, and possibly (b) for developers who might be funded by a worker proposal. Am I mistaken?
If I am correct, then "non-binding voting" by stakeholders is carried out on various channels either on forums, posts, et cetera as a means to indicate to witnesses and developers their preferences in a non-binding manner.