Post #31384

e81a4b0c081090804aa7dce1ecc436f1ebd31bf3d3ea06fa1b84a3a930b9b734
33b6cd9012049c06a715c490d237fb2a7b457fa0f3d5776ce7c48a3ba573557e
e2c61429397da55a5ee7749088023feb12e0e8e261dfeba32ee7c0794f9a12f8
Signature verified

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

{"entry_date":1611005095,"post_data":{"edit_count":2,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"269512c0966d558d2cf2249f25f309327285274089ef4b8030c1c0b56067dc9b1b145100b9034fcd75cf9fb2c07f8a1efa44b483e2070551c2df220370da241c","node_id":52,"post_date":1611004996,"thread_id":5637,"user_id":175},"post_link":"https:\/\/forum.factomprotocol.org\/threads\/batched-amendment-strategy-and-resource-director-proposal.5637\/post-31384"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Batched Amendment - Strategy and Resource Director Proposal
Thanks [USER=9]@Matt Osborne[/USER]. You're absolutely right. Let's hash it out here. If it takes a few extensions of the discussion, then that's a small price to pay for resolution. I'll post my vision here tomorrow.

Overall I'd like to say that I appreciate all prior discussion you've tried to incorporate into the document. Just so my position is clear here: You don't have to fear for any "what about committees". I accept it's not popular. If we want an Oversight group - we can have it. If we want treasurers, we can have them and see how it goes. I do have a preference for any leadership having a zero or otherwise very limited role in selecting those groups to keep that oversight as strong as it can be.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top