Post #31398

e81a4b0c081090804aa7dce1ecc436f1ebd31bf3d3ea06fa1b84a3a930b9b734
5b89b526330ef70397feb5f4dd5bb30c2be11a90d3cb34298225f6039df70c2a
e2c61429397da55a5ee7749088023feb12e0e8e261dfeba32ee7c0794f9a12f8
Signature verified

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

{"entry_date":1611162592,"post_data":{"edit_count":0,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"2dd4d5e1633c7bc06b7eb8c53199be4ca71cf556bf0362a623e51c1c65639418b155ef0af1a625f6527cc18243a7f3449cbeecbdb9e1d7c1b50365b5781660a7","node_id":52,"post_date":1611162592,"thread_id":5637,"user_id":9},"post_link":"https:\/\/forum.factomprotocol.org\/threads\/batched-amendment-strategy-and-resource-director-proposal.5637\/post-31398"}
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="WB, post: 31394, member: 175"]
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]
1. So to clarify: The much-preferred council approach involves three separate elections for three separate positions as opposed to councils running as teams in a single election, correct?

2. As a follow-up, it sounds like the GWG is unwilling to modify this proposal to fit the GWG's needs. For example, including a clause that allows the Director to hold sub-elections where a tech person, marketing person, etc. can be elected by the Standing parties (ANOs) [U]and[/U] the Director can implement whatever decision-making process they would like. Correct?

I'd personally prefer to find a way to compromise so we can move forward, but if that's not an option, then that's totally fine. I am just trying to make sure we're on the same page. Thanks

[QUOTE="WB, post: 31394, member: 175"]
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]
Factom has been paralyzed with indecision since the start. Can you please detail how a Council would actually make decisions? Does the marketing person have sole control over all marketing decisions? How does the C Level executive factor into this? What exactly is the process for decision making? Is it a vote w/ majority rule? Assuming the council will somehow all get along and everything will be harmonious is unrealistic. There needs to be a defined decision-making structure. What exactly is it? Also, how are initiatives (e.g., tech vs. marketing) prioritized?

Also, could you please detail the pay structure for the council members? Hard numbers preferred.

Maybe I am missing something, but it seems like the council approach is light on details. Clarity would be much appreciated.

Thanks

[ATTACH type="full"]2849[/ATTACH]
Governments can't even properly run a DMV. I am not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that they could build a $100 billion+ corporation from scratch. Thinking a government-type structure can accomplish this isn't grounded in reality, it's grounded in idealism.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top