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