Post #31279

39c531bd8491d39f5855c3a69f6339f1d622fbe1771879cdf7e3f6c0249463e8
6a399fba44327f0746bae052587666ab0ac340419a64a55d8b577defb842cf7e
e2c61429397da55a5ee7749088023feb12e0e8e261dfeba32ee7c0794f9a12f8
Signature verified

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

{"entry_date":1610545731,"post_data":{"edit_count":0,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"0dc322c89fa7fd9da9e5af983e71a4e41860c5e62fc18a940255dab86d307ec6db7e587ed57d24b30dce37c3ab94e35ebf3e75cb878bd19a1bdac6b7c0fab1e8","node_id":52,"post_date":1610545731,"thread_id":5633,"user_id":9},"post_link":"https:\/\/forum.factomprotocol.org\/threads\/proposed-factom-roadmap-for-2021.5633\/post-31279"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Proposed Factom Objectives
At the ANO Summit almost three years ago, we passed a simplified roadmap that we were unable to execute even with Guides at the helm and more resources.

This is a much more complex roadmap while the protocol is in a much worse state.

So, I fail to see how we can even achieve this proposed roadmap. Happy to play along though.

[USER=32]@Jason Gregoire[/USER]
Since you're proposing the roadmap, [U]I'll assume you also have a plan on how this can actually be implemented[/U]. Can you please share? Maybe break it down based-on each potential Governance route the protocol may go? This clearly conflicts with the Director proposal and very well could conflict with the GWG polling going on right now. Maybe also break down how it could be executed in our current state should we stay at a stalemate. Does everyone see the problem now???

Without a viable plan to execute this roadmap, this proposal is nothing but a wishlist that potentially creates future Governance headaches. We're putting the cart before the horse.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top