This entry might be using an old signature, or it was signed by a key that does not exist on the server.
Committee Refactor Proposal
For the most part, the Committees are ghost towns (I currently have access to all of them). Marketing and Use Case see the most activity but progress there is slow. I suspect issues include being extremely busy with other work, lack of motivation by some due to FCT price, and/or lack of leadership. I also suspect a big one is what we refer to in the forum world as "forum dilution". Forum dilution is the effect you see what a forum admin creates too many subforums and there's not enough activity in them to spur ongoing discussion. As I say, nobody wants to join a ghost town but many are happy to join a burgeoning village.
As I take part in discussions, I have become increasingly aware that there is significant operational overlap between Committees yet efficient lines of communication are not present. For example, there will often need to be coordination between Strategy and Marketing or Use Case, Marketing, and Strategy.
I have a proposal to increase activity and operational efficiency:
[B]1.[/B] Merge Marketing, Use Case, Strategy, and Exchange. Rename it, "Marketing, Use Case, Strategy, and Exchange Committee"
[B]2.[/B] Merge Governance and Legal, and add "Documentation" to it and rename it, "Governance, Legal, and Documentation Committee"
[B]3.[/B] Merge Core, Technical, and Code Deployment and Network and rename it to, "Core, Technical, and Code Deployment Committee"
[B]4.[/B] I believe it was [USER=67]@Neo[/USER] who suggested have one representative from reach ANO have access. I like the idea but propose we take it a step further:
[B]A.[/B] Setup permissions where all members of ANOs have access to each Committee Forum but that doesn't make them MEMBERS of the Committee.
[B]B.[/B] Let members of the ANOs step up on their own to be MEMBERS of the Committee. Chair, Secretary, Treasurer, Member.
[B]C.[/B] One ANO proposed lowering their efficiency to be chair of a committee. In talking to others behind the scenes, I didn't hear much support for such a move but did hear support for future grants on specific items (that doesn't mean that ANO can't continue their request to lower their efficiency of course). For example, if a Committee comes up with X idea that will require a lot of work on the part of committee members, they create a grant that explains the goals and how to get there, requests additional compensation for those members, and funds the idea is funded if Standing Parties agree to it.
In the future, if these Committees become too busy, THEN we split them off into smaller Committees once efficient lines of communication are setup between them since there will always be some operational overlap and need for coordination.
I am tagging [USER=59]@gforst[/USER] [USER=67]@Neo[/USER] [USER=60]@xavierwjc[/USER] [USER=50]@Matter of Fact[/USER] [USER=94]@brooke[/USER] [USER=70]@KiwiWithLazerEyes[/USER] [USER=51]@HashnStore[/USER] as they've been more active in the Committees area (sorry if I missed anyone!) but welcome all input.
If there is any support, I am happy to then bring this idea up during the ANO monthly meeting.