Post #31389

Signature verified

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

The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Batched Amendment - Strategy and Resource Director Proposal
[QUOTE="Matt Osborne, post: 31388, member: 9"]
For clarification, how are these council members elected? What is the high-level process?

Originally the relevant committees would have nominated them based on a profile they’d draw up. Standing Parties/ ANOs would have approved or rejected that nomination.

Aside from being very elegant (and overly ambitious), this had two other effects:
[*]Involved non-ANOs in electing leadership (through committee membership)
[*]Strong ties & trickle-down effects from leadership to lower bodies, which could have boosted participation and consensus.
The community rejected that, so that’s behind us. We can just elect them through your process in the Director proposal, which is really a multi-winner election process anyway. I’d add that every eligible voter gets as many votes as there are seats to be filled.

Really, I guess we’d be fine with nearly everything in this current proposal. As a compromise. You just switch out single leadership with council leadership.

[QUOTE="Matt Osborne, post: 31388, member: 9"]
Just to clarify, is the community determining the roadmap? Or is it the Council? Or is it the C-Level person(s)?

Really up to leadership. I’d suggest they pick a community-backed roadmap if such an initiative exists (probably not the worst decision legally either) and then add new content or zoom in on existing content depending on the strategy they want to follow.

[QUOTE="Matt Osborne, post: 31388, member: 9"]
1. Isn't it "reality" though that CEOs have literally built every single one of the 10,000 largest companies in the world?

This reflects a very naive stereotype of a lone businessman single-handedly building an empire. It makes for a great film, but the “reality” is that almost none were created that way nor are they managed that way. These success stories are the result of luck, relationships, and the perfect timing of putting talented teams together and focusing it with dedication and tenacity behind a common objective. That’s the real driver behind success.

Our situation is also vastly different from structuring an LLC / Ltd. With a Director you’d be looking for single-seat interim management of a decentralized blockchain project. The few candidates we have for that single seat would each disenfranchise a large number of parties who have majority control. Not a great starting point for a success story versus little Zuckerberg starting out from his basement.

People are fallible, and considering the dynamic of a divided community, the safe bet for Factom is to ensure our success is not resting on a single person.

[QUOTE="Matt Osborne, post: 31388, member: 9"]
So the assumption is that a C-Level executive will be interested in reporting to a council potentially composed of individuals with no experience actually having built a business, correct? Even worse, a council member could simply be a person that is a token holder that is popular on Discord. Yet, a qualified C Level will still be interested in this role, correct?

I guess if someone very experienced takes issue with working in/with a council, then as a Director they’d definitely not enjoy reporting to a group of ANOs who are subject to the same preconceptions you’re projecting. And then they wouldn’t be a good fit for any leadership position in a decentralized project and we shouldn’t want them anywhere near us.

[QUOTE="Matt Osborne, post: 31388, member: 9"]
Is expecting a qualified C-Level person to take orders from an inexperienced council realistic?

If they’re in a council, they’d be working on whatever they have the mandate of doing. They’d listen to other members just like you would normally. I wager that other members would listen to this person more, though. Equating that to taking orders seems a bit of an exaggeration.

If they're hired by a council, then [B]yes[/B], lol.

[QUOTE="Matt Osborne, post: 31388, member: 9"]
Would anyone from Sphereon be interested in this structure? Could you please explain why or why not? Thank you.

I don't think the protocol should cater for one party specifically, we are a decentralized protocol after all. [I][Bonus points if you remember who originally said this.][/I]

[QUOTE="Matt Osborne, post: 31388, member: 9"]
1. Do the three council members vote on every decision and the majority wins?
2. Do the three council members 100% defer to the C-Level person?
3. When does the council overrule the C-Level executive?
4. What happens when all three council members have a differing opinion about something such as which C Level to hire? Or what the tokenomics should be? Or which grants should be funded?

1. I imagine each has conditional authorities. Majority rule is also possible. Up to them.
2. Up to them.
3. Up to them.
4. Resolve it.

Personally it doesn’t concern me much. Top-performing teams shouldn't be bound to any external bylaws or procedures. You want to keep them agile and let them work it out. It also adds importance to recruitment.

In nearly every small group I’ve played a role in (if they had a clear purpose), I’ve always found the dynamics to be very healthy and productive. Maybe that’s just me and it's not the default experience for a VIP CEO-level person.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.