Post #12982

Signature not verified

This entry might be using an old signature, or it was signed by a key that does not exist on the server.

The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Centis BV
[QUOTE="David Chapman, post: 12972, member: 2"]First, thank you for stepping up as a Candidate. Putting yourself out there like this is not easy and I appreciate your willingness and desire to work for the Protocol.

1. Thank you for sharing your LinkedIn.
Have fun with it says the guy that has an aversion of social media platforms, because my ICQ list back then had hundreds and hundreds of people wanting my help in the 90's ;)

2. Certain processes such as Document Ratification require a 4/5 vote from Guides prior to the process moving on to additional Standing Parties for a vote. Do you feel this is a centralization of power in the ecosystem? Why or why not? And under what circumstances would you vote "no" and gatekeep that process from progressing?
Good question. IMO this is a delicate problem. In the core yes it is a centralization of power, simply because it would not get to the other standing parties of the guides voted no or do not vote. On the other hand are guides voted in/out by that same standing parties. So they hold the actual eventual power. This is the core of our role; to be the gatekeepers of proper processes and standing. Today we are needed to make sure the processes get created, identify the problems and come up with solutions. There is only one other party type so there would be no balance without guides. Then we get into one of my guide pledges; the additional standing. We need to do that soon and I would see it as a failure if we do not accomplish that expansion to FCT holders and protocol/EC users next term. Having said that, I probably have to explain to nobody that this is a proces that we have to do responsible and that this needs to be guide by us guides. Only if we mature in that process I would feel safe to relinquish much of the current guide standing and ratification control. Guides always include the standing parties in processes.

I would vote no if standing parties would include wording/clauses to documents that give them more power, or prevent new standing parties to not become standing parties. That is one of the fundamental reasons I applied/am a guide to begin with. People know I am also involved in the Factom (r) protocol from Sphereon, BIF and Triall, of which Sphereon is a commercial company that is heavily invested in the protocol. I applied during this term, to a degree with Sphereon in mind. As a business that is so heavily invested in the protocol it means that the governance and standing of the protocol needs to be in order, no single party needs to be all powerful (yes that also applies to Sphereon or my other affiliations). Power needs to be distributed and yes parties that are invested in the protocol through multiple means (FCT holding, EC burning, ANO, grants) might have a few tents of a percent more influence so to say than somebody with only some FCT, but it should never become so powerful that it dictates the direction of the protocol. That is the line for me (sorry for this wall of text btw)

3. Do you feel Guides should always be a Standing Party? If so, why? If not, when would you like to see the role removed?
I partially answered that question above. To be honest I think guide will have standing for a long time in the future. Not as much as they have now though. I believe we will always need people in the real world to get some processes of the ground. Of course when the protocol matures, on-chain governance becomes more and more a reality and powers are nicely distributed, the whole governance and ratification role will diminish over time. The guide role will become more a facilitator and bringing new standing parties to the protocol. Of course if we would reorganize the role could be completely removed altogether. In the end it is all the standing parties that decide what happens to the guide role.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.