Post #31290

39c531bd8491d39f5855c3a69f6339f1d622fbe1771879cdf7e3f6c0249463e8
295e9cc3793e8d5e922a2b6568385b9c21816b6de472e1112efa07b04623b140
e2c61429397da55a5ee7749088023feb12e0e8e261dfeba32ee7c0794f9a12f8
Signature verified

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

{"entry_date":1610569964,"post_data":{"edit_count":1,"last_edit_date":1610569964,"last_edit_user_id":29,"message_sha512":"0618f8c4c7930f8b6752b9afb094cbbee7ac269fe53cc8d0db416bd4dbe7ff6c02f31055c4a82799ef04b3ee13e53922e09bf5e7a8d229340c288afb5d3c9716","node_id":52,"post_date":1610569496,"thread_id":5633,"user_id":29},"post_link":"https:\/\/forum.factomprotocol.org\/threads\/proposed-factom-roadmap-for-2021.5633\/post-31290"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Proposed Factom Objectives
[QUOTE="Niels Klomp, post: 31287, member: 8"]
If we treat this as a simple Wishlist that is very much open to changes no matter what approach we are going down I am okay with it. If this really is meant for overseeing execution by whatever leadership we come up with then I am very much opposed to it.
[/QUOTE]

I view it as the list of issues and features. This provides a framework around picking and choosing what we do with the resources we have. This "roadmap" really is just a taxonomy of efforts to be taken.

I do understand we have had issues in the past. I know this year has seen very little momentum. We need to identify steps we can take and actually take them. Making a list feels like a no brainier that in no way locks us into a particular path.

And we have no integrity issue when we document what we have identified as a set of initiatives, which are documented and considered as we deploy resources.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top