Post #2472

5fa1da7f5a546cd239fd7f427ae79109eab0be2a7ec8511c9885e3af575c226c
d03f0aed9d27d02396940292da30f57d4e7a50c9402e9525dd080800f7918ff6
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.

{"entry_date":1532465708,"post_data":{"edit_count":0,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"1daee83a9ca978192dd658b12480b1458ce1a9dcef8f509f830b168c37fd6e2680e0734e14e8c8c50ecfe62af64d7f491989d726b36083df7a413ece5cf8418a","node_id":17,"post_date":1529595742,"thread_id":423,"user_id":34},"post_link":"http:\/\/factomize.com\/forums\/index.php?threads\/423#post-2472"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Committee Refactor Proposal
I’m not sure making the committees broader is the right medicine. I think the problem is that we haven’t clearly defined their roles and responsibilities within the overall governance structure. For any committee to be effective, you have to define the desired inputs and outputs – i.e. what are they supposed to achieve? Committees should only exist when they are deemed the most efficient way to execute a given task. The problem is, we haven’t defined that task.

If the goal is more discussion, then broadening the committees may help, but if the goal is more effective action, we probably need to define their function more specifically. This should also help with operational efficiency. By clearly defining what each committee is responsible for, it should reduce the overlap.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top