Post #31394

e81a4b0c081090804aa7dce1ecc436f1ebd31bf3d3ea06fa1b84a3a930b9b734
d0c85abf14dca4bc4a7b167f3f9c17ca575bb6ea2ad242b1172ec1fe6eaa2f0b
e2c61429397da55a5ee7749088023feb12e0e8e261dfeba32ee7c0794f9a12f8
Signature verified

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

{"entry_date":1611158781,"post_data":{"edit_count":3,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"4af5c67fc4319aa07f71933c1bba4256ade30c3a834fb67b2bb777515bef0b8293d82dc681c5a17ce97a2f7d8c459fd28b9e2ebbd7c762bf3bf7bad6dfa1e883","node_id":52,"post_date":1611158634,"thread_id":5637,"user_id":175},"post_link":"https:\/\/forum.factomprotocol.org\/threads\/batched-amendment-strategy-and-resource-director-proposal.5637\/post-31394"}
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: 31390, member: 9"]
Under the council framework, would we have 3 different elections (tech, marketing, Governance) and then just hope the people that got elected could somehow form a solid working relationship? Or, are you thinking that the three-man council would run as a team? Meaning, we'd have something like four councils of three people each running for election. People would then vote for their favorite "council."
[/QUOTE]

I think both are feasible. Under the first, running multiple elections simultaneously (separate subforums) probably sounds harder than it really is. Yes I'd expect them to form solid working relations. Again, they'd have separate responsibilities in which they really wouldn't get in each other's way. There'll be some overlap, sure.

To me, a council is a convention of individuals that make for a fair representation of a certain cause. A permanent meeting. Separately, each member can be a "Director" in whatever it is they are charged with doing. An example is Niels post above. But they talk to each other. Listen to each other. They point down the road and say: let's meet each other there. Under this proposal, there will be some fuzziness in how certain votes are cast, but that was always something you and I'd accept.

Under the second method you listed, I'm not immediately against it, and it guarantees a more streamlined team from the start, but there are many combinations to choose from and if just one person isn't desirable, the other two won't make it either. If we happen to agree on a council, we can let ANOs choose if they want this type of election process instead.

[QUOTE="Matt Osborne, post: 31390, member: 9"]
But, I am against tying our hands together by codifying this into Governance.
[/QUOTE]

I don't think that's needed either. Typically, I think we tend to codify too many details as it is. Which is important in some areas, not in others.

What we'll need some agreement on in the future is how motions/votes are interpreted. For instance, the objectives vote just passed. Does it need inclusion in a governance doc? Not really. But can a Director/Council just straight up ignore it when they present their own roadmap? Well I wouldn't recommend it.

It's fine to have multiple roadmaps/objectives. That's what most decentralized projects do. Look at Tezos. Their foundation might have an internal roadmap. Arthur Breitman once posted what he calls [B]a [/B]roadmap or his personal roadmap. Then there might be a community roadmap to inspire community action.

[QUOTE="Matt Osborne, post: 31390, member: 9"]
So you believe that if these 10,000 companies had employed a council structure, and council members are elected by the employees and product users, that these companies would be just as successful?
[/QUOTE]

If their final decision-making was also split into political parties, then yes.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top