Post #31212

7c5e3989ac58c1917e30e10882c68ca90c8847b57a868d0620c996b1c299140d
0a7a9e08a29d056900ba4b6c99866a1878827042f70e4be8e2e8d83dcebf1d25
e2c61429397da55a5ee7749088023feb12e0e8e261dfeba32ee7c0794f9a12f8
Signature verified

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

{"entry_date":1609772443,"post_data":{"edit_count":2,"last_edit_date":1609772443,"last_edit_user_id":175,"message_sha512":"3fecb3b3052abe21d3ad8c49ffb4687469f7685e245bde518b0138cc1f5f3bfdb3f1c031a763cc4f2c50c2fe3366108b530538cc9b9c5b6a8d9073ca179d061d","node_id":52,"post_date":1609758562,"thread_id":5628,"user_id":175},"post_link":"https:\/\/forum.factomprotocol.org\/threads\/factom-leadership-and-decision-making-vote.5628\/post-31212"}
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?

[LIST]
[*]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.
[/LIST]

______________

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.
Top