Post #13053

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
Hi Dan,

[QUOTE="DanG, post: 13018, member: 50"]Firstly, thank you for putting yourself up for election for this important and challenging position! These are general questions that I am asking to all applicants. If you feel the questions are redundant to your previous replies. Feel free to cite that and move forward.

Having recently ratified changes to Doc 001 I would appreciate it if you could take a moment to explain how you will intend to carry out the following as a guide.

1. Under Guide eligibility standards.
(a) demonstrate independence in thought, leadership, and business
(b) be of good moral character with a demonstrated interest in the long term best interests of the protocol, willingness to serve the community of users, and history as a leader in the community.

2. Under Guide responsibilities
(a) make themselves available to the community
(b) Maintain orderly operation of the protocol network and facilitate the relationships between standing parties and the community. Further, by ensuring an adequate number of applicants to run a large enough pool of servers to ensure 65 servers are always available for the Authority Set.
(c) Be responsible for overseeing the application of the protocol governance to the operation of the the protocol.
I combine these 2, since they fit closely together
I think me stressing to other people that we need to include additional standing parties even if we don't have the technical infrastructure in place for parties that will change outcomes of current votes because they have a different interest then current standing parties (FCT holders for instance) is a nice example.

Me reaching out to new parties, giving presentations to new parties, developers and consultants in name of the protocol, bringing clinical trials to Factom, being available in the market/general-chat channels, to explain people and answer any questions these future standing parties have are all examples of point b. W

Then we have the difference of opinions on matters between the guides. If you look in general it seems to me that Tor and I agree the most compared to the other guides. Of course we also have had some difference of opinions. With the other guides I did have more of those. That is good, because we don't want people to just follow eachother and only being interested in keeping the status quo, because nothing good will come out of it. BTW difference of opinions is not to be confused with respect, infighting or whatever. Just what it is; we sometimes have different opinions, but always manage to come to consensus as a team.

Finally I see the responsibility of “Maintain orderly operation of the protocol” to extend beyond simply the technical and governance parts of the protocol and extending towards the wider community. Do you agree with this interpretation? If so how do you intend to achieve this?

As a guide up for reelection could you also please touch on how you have accomplished any of the elements listed above and how you intend too moving forward.

Thanks Again[/QUOTE]
I agree with your interpretation yes, given my examples above (reaching out to holders, developers, consultants and interested parties). I find that besides all the governance work one of the important goals for guides, hence me mentioning to want to expand that further when being reelected.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.