Post #29435

6b79ed29c0a7e40c44759780728b380716bb8673e127986d7ee5083f69355781
2694bcaabdb1323af4930d9bfed65b0b2eb76296e459c8ef347ba14749285082
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":1595619124,"post_data":{"edit_count":1,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"1d1e5d8170477add47439ccebf51134badb128012d7d0c7591866f225b8d2dd2db102c00ee9a2dbb3cf27f81331a7e0e245f88600a47d00360ad004e7d0530b5","node_id":17,"post_date":1595618523,"thread_id":5293,"title_sha512":"f6394782466fa9b598f26478592b5df46702ab729ed6b85da48582fbe88abe67f584d1d4abebf336447223a893534bb3a3095022102a78177795391366eac034","user_id":175},"post_link":"https:\/\/forum.factomprotocol.org\/index.php?threads\/5293#post-29435"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Governance Implementation Group
Hello,

This topic is to announce the formation of an implementation group following the recent vote on the Governance Improvement Proposal.

[B]Rationale[/B]:

The positive outcome of the proposal vote is a strong mandate to advance to a Working Group stage for further discussion and document ratification. The lack of a unanimous vote outcome, however, means that there are concerns worth addressing. This Working Group therefore actively seeks to recruit those with sincere, constructive concerns on (parts of) the proposal. Under such a well-represented roster, this Working Group will then pursue a phased implementation where we discuss & release one system at a time, with ample opportunity for debating alternative options.

[B]Objectives:[/B]

Implement the [URL='https://forum.factomprotocol.org/threads/factom-governance-improvement-proposal.5189/']Governance Improvement Proposal[/URL] in two phases. Phases may be updated as work progresses, but always subject to announcements.


[B]Phase I:[/B]

Phase one revolves around community architecture and the roadmap system. It is restricted to the changes that enjoyed the most positive feedback. Documents will be amended or created to include the following:

[LIST]
[*]Overhaul of the committee system, introducing the four permanent/standing committees (Tech, Outreach, Governance, Diagnostics)
[*]Introduction of the Executive Committee (EC)*
[*]Introduction of the Community Secretary for easier & better reporting
[*]New roadmap system with committee oversight & sponsoring
[/LIST]

* A timed discussion will be scheduled to debate the EC and any viable alternatives for a system that seeks giving a voice to expert groups. This is something that came up repeatedly during the proposal discussions, so we're tackling it together with the community before we do any document work.

Phase 1 changes will go through ratification with a Batched Amendment.

[B]Phase II:[/B]

Phase two revolves around standing and vote weight. Documents will be amended or created to include the following:

[LIST]
[*]Voting power for committees through representation by an EC or any alternative decided on in phase 1. This is when committees begin to score for standing reviews.*
[*]Simplification of standing by introducing Standing Categories.
[*]Weighted voting for ANOs based on Standing Category.**
[*]Allow for emulation of standing votes cast by the EC or its alternative.
[/LIST]

* A timed discussion will be scheduled to debate the amount of voting power allocated to committees prior to any document work.
** A timed discussion will be scheduled to debate weighted voting for ANOs and any viable alternatives prior to any document work.

Phase 2 changes will go through ratification with a Batched Amendment.


[B]Membership[/B]:

Doc 006 currently advises Working Groups to stay limited to five members. Those interested may express their desire to join in this thread. Working Groups are temporary, agile teams with set objectives that will seek to disband when these objectives are met.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top