From dfaacfeb7e2eb93e03f65219d11aa4ed0602312d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Koute Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 18:45:35 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] Fix typos in manifesto --- manifesto.tex | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------ 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) diff --git a/manifesto.tex b/manifesto.tex index 8358de1..998b15a 100644 --- a/manifesto.tex +++ b/manifesto.tex @@ -107,17 +107,17 @@ \subsection{Operational Decentralisation} Secondly, as pointed out by Moxie recently \cite{TODO} major networks almost universally fail at facilitating decentralised usage of their service to their users. In order to gain the guarantees offered by the decentralised service, it is generally required to participate on the network directly by running the node software. This generally requires large amounts of time, a reliable, high-speed connection, plenty of storage and the installation of specialist software. Almost all real users are unable to do this and instead simply trust a centralised intermediary which relays information to and from the network.\footnote{Polkadot is actually far ahead of the pack on this, and can provide its service securely to users both in-browser or on mobile without the need for such an intermediary.} A notable example of this is the Infura infrastructure of Ethereum which is used by default in Metamask, the predominant way of accessing Ethereum-based applications. -Thirdly, finally and most importantly for the present work is the practical means by which node operators fulfil their role. It must be understood that blockchains are inhererntly software systems: operating a node on the network involves securely running a piece of software on a machine able to correctly operate according to the network's protocol. We generally call this piece of software the ``blockchain client'' or the ``node software''. Node operators may a decision to run this software and must manually select the software to download and may even need to decide when and whether to apply updates to it. Most node operators are uninterested in arcane protocol discussions and defer to very basic social factors in their decision. This leads to a silent and hithertoo little-explored centralisation risk for the network. And, unlike the first two points which can arguably be solved purely through mathematics and technology, I posit that this is instead a more entrenched social issue and as such a harder problem to solve. To understand the centralisation risk, it is crucial to understand the factors by which node operators select \emph{which} software to use, and \emph{whether} they should apply some upgrade. If these factors lead to the possibility of a small, well-aligned group of people able to widely deploy changes to the protocol, then it can gravely undermine the protocol. +Thirdly, finally and most importantly for the present work is the practical means by which node operators fulfil their role. It must be understood that blockchains are inherently software systems: operating a node on the network involves securely running a piece of software on a machine able to correctly operate according to the network's protocol. We generally call this piece of software the ``blockchain client'' or the ``node software''. Node operators may a decision to run this software and must manually select the software to download and may even need to decide when and whether to apply updates to it. Most node operators are uninterested in arcane protocol discussions and defer to very basic social factors in their decision. This leads to a silent and hitherto little-explored centralisation risk for the network. And, unlike the first two points which can arguably be solved purely through mathematics and technology, I posit that this is instead a more entrenched social issue and as such a harder problem to solve. To understand the centralisation risk, it is crucial to understand the factors by which node operators select \emph{which} software to use, and \emph{whether} they should apply some upgrade. If these factors lead to the possibility of a small, well-aligned group of people able to widely deploy changes to the protocol, then it can gravely undermine the protocol. The present article will soon explore this last point more deeply, but prior to this we will first build some context over the social centralisation forces at play particularly with regards commercial networks. -\subsection{Problem Factors in the Decentralisation of Commerical Networks} +\subsection{Problem Factors in the Decentralisation of Commercial Networks} Practically, the decentralisation of public networks intended as largely commercial vehicles (as many of the most used networks are) have two main problem factors: organisational privilege and economic disparity. The first is based on the fact that most networks are developed, launched, supported and promoted by a single legal organisation with a typical top-down power structure and funding model. These organisations often control the associated intellectual property and can wield it in an arbitrary fashion irrespective of the supposed values of the community or protocol. (As an example, the Ethereum Foundation controls the various Ethereum trademarks.) This organisation can, in the public mindset, become understood as a kind of proxy of the network itself with there being a supposition that the interests of the organisation and the network are equivalent. It becomes implicitly trusted to support, rescue and lead the network and its community in much the same way that a company plays parent to the products it sells. This presumption of trust and ownership can lead to a situation where one private organisation enjoys privilege over a decentralised system that others in the ecosystem do not enjoy. The second is based on the fact that commercial networks tend to have a huge initial level of economic disparity in terms of the token ownership of their stakeholders. Those who are around at the inception of a network---and its associated currency---tend to receive a large proportion of the overall reward should it become widely adopted. This is true even in the case where there is no "premine" (currency allocation) simply because of the massive information asymmetry between the creators of a network and the adopters. Bitcoin may have had no such explicit allocation, but that does not mean that Satoshi Nakamoto---the pseudonym behind the launch of Bitcoin---is any less rich. Regardless, in a capitalist economy this is generally by design and it can be argued that it gives a clear and elegant means of rewarding the founders and early backers of systems which society ultimately deems useful. However, the more disparate the initial distribution and the less liquid the market, then the longer it takes before the economics can settle and token ownership can become truly reflective of the value with which the owner treats them. -During this initial period, we cannot rationally believe that all stakeholders' stakes faithfully reflect their belief in the value of the network. Arguments based on rational behaviour of economic actors are weakened as the markets cannot handle the flux needed to get from this initial imbalanced state to an equilibtrium state. As such, Mechanisms based on these arguments (such as proof-of-stake validator elections and ``coin-voting'' governance systems) are fundamentally broken and the correct functioning of the protocol is placed at risk. +During this initial period, we cannot rationally believe that all stakeholders' stakes faithfully reflect their belief in the value of the network. Arguments based on rational behaviour of economic actors are weakened as the markets cannot handle the flux needed to get from this initial imbalanced state to an equilibrium state. As such, Mechanisms based on these arguments (such as proof-of-stake validator elections and ``coin-voting'' governance systems) are fundamentally broken and the correct functioning of the protocol is placed at risk. \subsection{Node Software and Protocol Specification} @@ -125,19 +125,19 @@ \subsection{Node Software and Protocol Specification} As with most software projects, there is generally a single team behind the node software. In highly commercial blockchains, the software is subject to a closed development model in which a company's CEO has ultimate and absolute control. This makes the blockchain laughably compromisable and entirely unfit for use. -However, even in highly open blockchain projects with open-source software (OSS) development models, decisions in software development must still be made and they will tend to happen under the benevolent dictator model as written about in the seminal work by Raymond\cite{cathedral_and_bazaar}. This can lead to a problem where a minority, including said dictator, are of one opinion and the majority are of another. If both sides feel strongly and cannot be reconsiled in a technical manner, then OSS projects may schism and become ``forked'', leading a single project and community to be split into two. The resultant projects and their teams fight for users on the merits of their relevant decision. Typically one project eventually wins out but co-existence and even cooperation is not entirely unheardof. +However, even in highly open blockchain projects with open-source software (OSS) development models, decisions in software development must still be made and they will tend to happen under the benevolent dictator model as written about in the seminal work by Raymond\cite{cathedral_and_bazaar}. This can lead to a problem where a minority, including said dictator, are of one opinion and the majority are of another. If both sides feel strongly and cannot be reconciled in a technical manner, then OSS projects may schism and become ``forked'', leading a single project and community to be split into two. The resultant projects and their teams fight for users on the merits of their relevant decision. Typically one project eventually wins out but co-existence and even cooperation is not entirely unheard of. Unfortunately, for peer-to-peer consensus-based networks, canonical operation is crucial, as are safety and security. Forking no longer applies merely to a team and a community but also to a \emph{network} and an \emph{economy}. This exacts such a high cost to one of the forks as to make long-term coexistence as equals rather unrealistic and cooperation essentially unprecedented. Added on to this is the conservatism necessitated by the fact that the software controls an economy. This conservatism leads to an huge advantage to whichever fork can claim the status of the default and a near certain failure for the fork understood as the offshoot and therefore the riskier bet. One needs look no further than the Bitcoin and Ethereum networks history to see this played out many times over. \subsection{The Power of the Default} -This hugely important status of ``default'' is the manifestation of many factors, most of them centralised and unconnected to the merits of the underlying disagreement which led to the fork. Remarkably, the Ethereum Classic fork would show that protocol constancy (\ie being the fork that minimises change) is apparently not a significant factor. The actual factors include distribution channels, code repositories, websites, software publication systems, forums, social media accounts, trademarks, privileged organisations, protocol identifiers (network handshaking) and the backing of major personalities of the space. Often times, these apparently ancilliary elements unconnected with the outright protocol functionality are so centralised that a single individual indirectly controls almost all of them. However, in dictating what software runs on the nodes whose operators don't (want to) get involved in the discussion, they manifest themselves as singular levers to dictate the course of the project's following. +This hugely important status of ``default'' is the manifestation of many factors, most of them centralised and unconnected to the merits of the underlying disagreement which led to the fork. Remarkably, the Ethereum Classic fork would show that protocol constancy (\ie being the fork that minimises change) is apparently not a significant factor. The actual factors include distribution channels, code repositories, websites, software publication systems, forums, social media accounts, trademarks, privileged organisations, protocol identifiers (network handshaking) and the backing of major personalities of the space. Often times, these apparently ancillary elements unconnected with the outright protocol functionality are so centralised that a single individual indirectly controls almost all of them. However, in dictating what software runs on the nodes whose operators don't (want to) get involved in the discussion, they manifest themselves as singular levers to dictate the course of the project's following. \subsection{The Papal Model} Ethereum, notably, was the first major network to formally specify its protocol\cite{TODO} in a minimalistic manner unencumbered by the accidental specifics of a particular implementation, and it continues to have multiple node implementations in its second major revision. However, even when the protocol is defined independently of any single development team, decisions on its evolution must be made. Without a strict framework, or \emph{meta-protocol}, for making these decisions, we lose the ability to reason how the protocol will change in the future and thus to rationalise that it will continue operating as expected. As a non-technical, not-especially-diligent stakeholder of the protocol, the lack of a rules-based decision-making system means that one must simply ``have blind faith'' in the personalities who appear to wield significant influence. The appearance of influence is not the same as influence itself and there may easily be forces at play which are neither obvious nor transparent. As a political model, we might liken it to the Catholic church's papal leadership; an inner circle of self-serving cardinals with, inevitably, an individual ``pope''---first among equals---who wields more influence than others and who is able to function as a benevolent dictator where there is a lack of consensus. -To have such an informal decision-making model can be beneficial in the early days of a protocol, when speed and execution are paramount and security, reliability and stability can take a back seat. While such decisions can easily and opaquely fall pray to unaccountable external forces or personality politics, if the personality-driven leadership is problematic then, we can reason, the project wil quickly fail and its resources can be swiftly deployed elsewhere with no great damage done to its stakeholders. +To have such an informal decision-making model can be beneficial in the early days of a protocol, when speed and execution are paramount and security, reliability and stability can take a back seat. While such decisions can easily and opaquely fall pray to unaccountable external forces or personality politics, if the personality-driven leadership is problematic then, we can reason, the project will quickly fail and its resources can be swiftly deployed elsewhere with no great damage done to its stakeholders. However, as a protocol matures and becomes increasingly valuable and relied upon, stakeholders must be able to rationalise their belief in continued correct functionality or risk a catastrophic outcome. Being based on religious faith of a preordained ``infallible'' individual or private organisation, the papal model offers little comfort here, and indeed seems distinctly ill-suited to an age where it is understood that transparency and inclusion are to be championed in public enterprises. Formal processes open to scrutiny and effective decentralisation are key components of the only solution we yet know to this problem of power. @@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ \subsection{Goals}\label{goals} \subsubsection{Benefits} -This refers to might, in a more legacy context, be considered as the ``financial aspects'' of the organisation. Firstly, members of the Fellowship need to receive support to ensure that their short-term needs are met. If Members cannot afford the time, equipment, accomodation, sustinance, dependents, and leisure activities which life demands, then dedicating themselves to Polkadot becomes unsustainable or unrealistic. +This refers to might, in a more legacy context, be considered as the ``financial aspects'' of the organisation. Firstly, members of the Fellowship need to receive support to ensure that their short-term needs are met. If Members cannot afford the time, equipment, accommodation, sustenance, dependents, and leisure activities which life demands, then dedicating themselves to Polkadot becomes unsustainable or unrealistic. Secondly, it is important that Members feel that their fates is strongly linked to that of the Polkadot network if we are to expect a maximisation of potential. Put another way, we want to ensure that the long-term interests of Polkadot and the member are well-aligned. Thus effective long-term incentivisation acts as both a means of pushing the member to dedicate themselves, as well as an internal compass providing some common cause which can underpin ideological consensus. @@ -187,13 +187,13 @@ \subsubsection{Nurturing} While ones rank of a discipline may be linear out of necessity, practitioners' journeys may not be characterised as such. The act of contributing to a body of expertise is complex and non-linear. Providing an effectively nurturing environment optimises the member's contributions even as their personal circumstances change, as they almost invariably do. Age, family ties and interests can alter dramatically over the years but within a well-designed cultural structure, the richness of expertise available to the network can still be maximised. -By way of example, martial artists progressing through their discipline will often find that the culture is designed to help guide their focus as their fitness, experience and age changes. Inexperienced and unfit practitioners may be pushed to attain high degrees of fitness and disciplined technique. Those with high levels of fitness and good technique may be pushed towards the sport side. Older practitioners may be directed more towards flexibility, mental focus and the underlying philospohy. Highly experienced practitioners may begin instructing all of the above. Practitioners who have demonstrated themselves at the top of their art may be encouraged to help lead the political organisation. +By way of example, martial artists progressing through their discipline will often find that the culture is designed to help guide their focus as their fitness, experience and age changes. Inexperienced and unfit practitioners may be pushed to attain high degrees of fitness and disciplined technique. Those with high levels of fitness and good technique may be pushed towards the sport side. Older practitioners may be directed more towards flexibility, mental focus and the underlying philosophy. Highly experienced practitioners may begin instructing all of the above. Practitioners who have demonstrated themselves at the top of their art may be encouraged to help lead the political organisation. \subsection{Audience and Non-Goals} -The Polkadot Fellowship is intended to be only the first of its kind. It focusses on the sustenance and enrichment of technical expertise relevant to the Polkadot network primarily concerning the core protocol and its implementation. While members may engage in ae number of activities beyond immediate technical work (designing, programming, debugging), the goal of the organisation is nonetheless that of building technical knowledge for the protocol. +The Polkadot Fellowship is intended to be only the first of its kind. It focuses on the sustenance and enrichment of technical expertise relevant to the Polkadot network primarily concerning the core protocol and its implementation. While members may engage in a number of activities beyond immediate technical work (designing, programming, debugging), the goal of the organisation is nonetheless that of building technical knowledge for the protocol. -Pure research, general education, public outreach, developer recruitment, management and mentorship may be incidental activites of some members but it must be understood that these should not constitute the primary contributions for a member to receive recognition. Should the concept (probably after some iteration) become proven effective, we might reasonably expect more instances of expertise-based orgnaisation ``fellowships'' for other disciplines not covered by the present Fellowship. +Pure research, general education, public outreach, developer recruitment, management and mentorship may be incidental activities of some members but it must be understood that these should not constitute the primary contributions for a member to receive recognition. Should the concept (probably after some iteration) become proven effective, we might reasonably expect more instances of expertise-based organisation ``fellowships'' for other disciplines not covered by the present Fellowship. For now, we explicitly include expertise surrounding parachain consensus, cross-chain message passing (\textsc{xcmp}, \textsc{hrmp}, \textsc{dmp} \& \textsc{ump}), consensus algorithms concerning the Relay-chain (\textsc{babe} \& \textsc{grandpa}) and any cryptographic data-structures, languages and \textsc{api}s specific to Polkadot. @@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ \section{Operational Rules}\label{operational-rules} The operational rules of the organisation governing are detailed below. These rules specify the process for becoming a member and attaining a rank. During the initial bootstrapping phase, it may be reasonable to have shortened timelines in order to expediate decentralisation and ensure pluralism as early as possible in the member judgement process. -Note, as per the tenets, the voting of Memebrs is expected to follow the conventions and bylaws of the Fellowship, and in particular the Rank Specifications. +Note, as per the tenets, the voting of Members is expected to follow the conventions and bylaws of the Fellowship, and in particular the Rank Specifications. \subsection{Entry} @@ -229,7 +229,7 @@ \subsection{Entry} \item The window for voting is open for a one month period. \item There must be a majority of rank-weighted votes in favour for the promotion to be approved. \end{enumerate} -\item If the promition is approved, they attain Membership and their associated rank increments to a value of one. +\item If the promotion is approved, they attain Membership and their associated rank increments to a value of one. \end{enumerate} \subsection{Promotion} @@ -285,7 +285,7 @@ \subsection{Evaluation Considerations} \subsubsection{API \& Code Design} \begin{description} - \item[Level 0] Rarely makes any suggestions, asks questions whose answers are easy to discover. Contributes to noise or stays silent and doesn't learn. This is an indicatation against Membership. + \item[Level 0] Rarely makes any suggestions, asks questions whose answers are easy to discover. Contributes to noise or stays silent and doesn't learn. This is an indication against Membership. \item[Level 1] Generally makes reasonable suggestions for APIs \& code, rarely makes bad suggestions (expectation for I Dan). \item[Level 2] Generally able to identify flaws in APIs \& code of those of the same or higher rank (expectation for II Dan). \item[Level 3] Occasionally innovative in API \& code design, adapting/importing/inventing ideas that lead to effective solutions (expectation for III Dan). @@ -320,13 +320,13 @@ \subsubsection{Voting} Though we explicitly acknowledge that judgements on social matters have an inherent level of subjectivity owing to the ambiguity inherent in natural language, we nonetheless expect that our efforts at guiding judgements through specific considerations and criteria should introduce a high amount of consensus to most decisions. As such, we might reasonably expect (and, indeed, desire) that lower ranks vote mostly in line with higher ranks. -A high degreee of disparity by a lower rank from a consensus of higher ranks implies either a material misinterpretation of this document which the lower rank should be pushed to correct, or some negligence in their voting routine which would imply a lack of commitment to the Fellowship's norms. +A high degree of disparity by a lower rank from a consensus of higher ranks implies either a material misinterpretation of this document which the lower rank should be pushed to correct, or some negligence in their voting routine which would imply a lack of commitment to the Fellowship's norms. -Therefore, for those members up to rank six, the voting record of the member should mostly (up to a threshold) agree with the unanimous determination of those with higher rank. As the member gets a higher rank we can reasonably reduce the threshold, since unanimity becomes less indiviative as fewer votes are used to constitute it. +Therefore, for those members up to rank six, the voting record of the member should mostly (up to a threshold) agree with the unanimous determination of those with higher rank. As the member gets a higher rank we can reasonably reduce the threshold, since unanimity becomes less indicative as fewer votes are used to constitute it. Specifically, at rank three, we this threshold is 100\%---namely, of the decisions made where the members of rank four and higher were in complete agreement, we expect any given member of rank three voted the same way. At rank four, this reduces to 90\% (and thus members of rank four need only vote with their superiors 90\% of the time). At rank five, this is 80\% and rank six it is 70\%. There is no requirement for Masters. -This threshold is a soft requirement: Voters should generally disapprove in cases where the threshold is not met, but if the individual can adequately explain that their voting record is properly in line with a reasonable interpretion of this document, the core tenets and existing precedent, then the disparity may be overlooked. +This threshold is a soft requirement: Voters should generally disapprove in cases where the threshold is not met, but if the individual can adequately explain that their voting record is properly in line with a reasonable interpretation of this document, the core tenets and existing precedent, then the disparity may be overlooked. Secondly, for non-Master members (ranks one to six inclusive), there is a minimum voting activity level, starting at 90\% of all votes eligible and reducing monotonically by 10\% for each rank. This is a hard requirement. Masters, again, do not have such a requirement. @@ -398,7 +398,7 @@ \subsection{Candidate}\label{rank-0} This is the beginning rank and indicates someone new to the Polkadot protocol and codebases, but who have taken a first concrete step through placing a membership deposit and finding a sponsor. -Candiates may be of many levels prior to promotion to rank 1 and through a secondary system these levels may even be codified and properly recognised on-chain. +Candidates may be of many levels prior to promotion to rank 1 and through a secondary system these levels may even be codified and properly recognised on-chain. \subsection{I Dan: Humble Member}\label{i-dan-humble-member}~\\ @@ -419,7 +419,7 @@ \subsection{I Dan: Humble Member}\label{i-dan-humble-member}~\\ \subsubsection{Requirements}\label{requirements} \begin{itemize} -\item Primarily designed and implemented a minor or auxilliary component. +\item Primarily designed and implemented a minor or auxiliary component. \item Should be able to list all key goals/principles/tenets of project philosophy and how these relate to technology. \end{itemize} @@ -456,7 +456,7 @@ \subsection{III Dan: Fellow}\label{iii-dan-fellow}~\\ As a foundational grade, a Fellow represents both a ceiling and a floor: becoming a Fellow indicates the individual has enough knowledge and skill to build substantial protocol components (i.e.~all but the major protocol components, e.g.~a pallet or 2-10,000 line crate) alone and with high expectations that they will be completed correctly and to a high standard. They should be able and willing to support that which they built given that it is running 24/7 on a public network. This means a commitment to availability even when it may be inconvenient for them and, in periods of lesser-availability, taking on a responsibility to make this clear to their team prior. -As a Fellow the individual, in some quite real sense, represents the Polkadot Network and as such must be ready and willing to both defend it and its values. They should not merely adhere to the basic community code of conduct, but to hold themselves to a higher standard, maintaining a high level of calm and humility but also honesty and directness. They have a responsibility to represent the Fellowship as well as the network and this should be done in a polite and non-cambatitive, but also honest and forthright fashion. Internally, they should be both helpful, tactful and well-spirited, understanding that Polkdaot is a team effort. +As a Fellow the individual, in some quite real sense, represents the Polkadot Network and as such must be ready and willing to both defend it and its values. They should not merely adhere to the basic community code of conduct, but to hold themselves to a higher standard, maintaining a high level of calm and humility but also honesty and directness. They have a responsibility to represent the Fellowship as well as the network and this should be done in a polite and non-combatitive, but also honest and forthright fashion. Internally, they should be both helpful, tactful and well-spirited, understanding that Polkadot is a team effort. A Fellow must have a comprehensive knowledge of the overall priorities and tradeoffs in the development and design of a global, decentralised and unstoppable network and be able to express and explain themselves on these matters confidently. @@ -484,7 +484,7 @@ \subsection{IV Dan: Architect}\label{iv-dan-architect}~\\ The materials are all of approximately the same hardness symbolising that all three qualities are of comparable importance, and their hardnesses (5-6 Moh on each) sit in between the softer materials of the lower three ranks and the harder materials of the upper three ranks, symbolising the maturing nature of the architect's intellect. -The first, for the grade of 4th Dan is Obsidian. It is essentially volcanic glass, composed of silicon with other light elements and easily forms sharp edges. It has been used in tools since ancient times especially for creating cutting blades. The sharp blade symbolises the single-minded focus required by the individual in both becoming a subject matter expert and in inovation itself. It is very slightly softer than the other materials of the expert ranks reflecting that a deep level of expertise, while very important, is the junior of the three qualities. +The first, for the grade of 4th Dan is Obsidian. It is essentially volcanic glass, composed of silicon with other light elements and easily forms sharp edges. It has been used in tools since ancient times especially for creating cutting blades. The sharp blade symbolises the single-minded focus required by the individual in both becoming a subject matter expert and in innovation itself. It is very slightly softer than the other materials of the expert ranks reflecting that a deep level of expertise, while very important, is the junior of the three qualities. To attain this grade the candidate should be demonstrating a shift in their focus from the attainment of specific knowledge, comprehension and skills to the less knowledge-based and more creative elements of protocol development: design, invention, innovation and architecture. Rather than (just) plentiful incremental low-level improvements to the protocol, substantial valuable individual contributions to the (r)evolution of the protocol should have been demonstrated through the design, architecture and/or implementation of key future components which were (ultimately) found valuable by the Fellowship. Rather than comprehension, their ability to experiment, design and build new technology must be beyond question and their truly novel ideas and designs must be of a consistently high quality and at least occasionally beyond the imaginations of those with higher rank. @@ -507,7 +507,7 @@ \subsection{V Dan: Architect Adept}\label{v-dan-architect-adept}~\\ The second material in the middle three ranks is Ilvaite, a mineral which exhibits pleochroism, meaning it appears to change colors depending on the angle in which is it viewed. As the second material in the Architect ranks, it symbolises the need for multiple perspectives, reflecting that great architects often draw upon knowledge and understanding from different teams, areas or even disciplines in order to create a final solution. It should remind the individual that while myopia and deep focus can be an alluring path and even necessary in the pursuit of perfection, they should not overlook the possibility the an alternate form of the problem is already solved by others or that inspiration may arise from apparently unrelated areas of human-pursuits (consider Feynman's story that physics Nobel-prize winning work arose from studying the dynamics of a tea-saucer when spinning in the air). -To attain this rank, the candidate must have demonstrated clear levels of architecture. Their abilities as a builder should now be beyond question and as a leader in technology design should now be becoming clear. They should begin to understand the protocol as a living organism and be able to visualise its path. They should only very rarely misunderstand a protocol consideration, and have a clear grounding in all fields related to protocol design including game theory, economics, programming languages, complexity, enntropy and distributed systems. They should be able to speak with technical authority on all levels of the Polkadot protocol past, present and future. +To attain this rank, the candidate must have demonstrated clear levels of architecture. Their abilities as a builder should now be beyond question and as a leader in technology design should now be becoming clear. They should begin to understand the protocol as a living organism and be able to visualise its path. They should only very rarely misunderstand a protocol consideration, and have a clear grounding in all fields related to protocol design including game theory, economics, programming languages, complexity, entropy and distributed systems. They should be able to speak with technical authority on all levels of the Polkadot protocol past, present and future. The participant will have been practicing Polkadot as their primary life-focus for at least \textbf{one} year, unbroken, after attaining the previous rank. However, this is only a bare minimum and should not be taken as a presupposition of the expected amount of time required. The candidate should be only be promoted to this grade once the time limit is over \emph{and} they have demonstrated the appropriate aptitude. @@ -645,7 +645,7 @@ \subsection{Obligations of Masters}\label{obligations-of-masters} \subsection{Annexes, Clarifications and Conventions}\label{annexes-clarifications-and-conventions} -On elevation to a Master rank, the individual is able to propose an annex (additional rule), clarification or non-binding convention to this manifesto. Pre-existing rules always take precedence. These ammendments are included by default after a one month challenge period passes, during which time a majority ranked-vote of the Fellows (and above) may cancel it. Ammendments must not break the principles nor any pre-existing rules. +On elevation to a Master rank, the individual is able to propose an annex (additional rule), clarification or non-binding convention to this manifesto. Pre-existing rules always take precedence. These amendments are included by default after a one month challenge period passes, during which time a majority ranked-vote of the Fellows (and above) may cancel it. Amendments must not break the principles nor any pre-existing rules. \section{Allowances}\label{allowances} @@ -681,7 +681,7 @@ \section{Terminology}\label{terminology} \section{Philosophy \& Principles of Polkadot}\label{philosophy-principles-of-polkadot} -Note: This section needs somestantial improvment in the coming months. +Note: This section needs substantial improvement in the coming months. \subsection{Enlightened Liberalism}\label{enlightened-liberalism} @@ -751,4 +751,4 @@ \subsection{Ideas \& Considerations}\label{ideas-considerations} \end{itemize} \end{itemize} -\end{document} \ No newline at end of file +\end{document}