Post #31212

Signature verified

The signature from the blockchain entry has been verified against an identity on this server.

The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Factom leadership and decision making vote
Very hard to capture every nuance in a single question. As an aside, if we can't trust ANOs to ever read accompanying information - that again just tells me it's a bad move to make them the sole 'overseer' of a decision-making entity. I don't want box-checking zombies.

How about changing it to this?

The vote has two phases. The first phase, in this thread, is a majority motion that asks a simple question. [B]“Can ANOs continue to formally participate in governance, except where mandates exclude them?”[/B].

So basically, do ANOs stilll have rights to call for a vote and shape its outcome?

[*]If yes, the follow-up vote determines if they keep all decision-making power themselves or share it (e.g. 32/68%) for those areas without mandates?
[*]If no, ANOs are excluded save for any veto ability and the follow-up determines what kind of entity structure assumes all decision-making power.


Here's my opinion. Don't [B]expect [/B]participation, but [B]enable [/B]participation. Imo, that keeps upgrading and any vetoes working healthily. We already shouldn't care if people don't participate as long as we hit the quorum, because non-voters aren't counted anymore.

If no one's able to participate, the upgrading and veto both get weaker.

1. ANOs ultimately feel less involved and upgrades become harder due to a lack of buy-in.
2. ANOs don't really monitor/read what they're upgrading to and just 'check' the boxes.

Look at the way telecom works. There's no single entity straight up deciding a 5G rollout and expecting parties to follow suit. Samsung doesn't just release a new tech without any involvement. The companies who make the base stations and the network software also have to agree to implement these features. The carriers, companies like Verizon, AT&T, etc. also weigh in.

Now, you can 'align' these parties in fixed periods, like a bi-annual conference. Or you do it on a continuous, dynamic basis as we've been doing for the past few years. It's worked well for upgrading, so I wouldn't toss that system out. We just need decisiveness added to the mix.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.