Post #31399

e81a4b0c081090804aa7dce1ecc436f1ebd31bf3d3ea06fa1b84a3a930b9b734
dbc754e1cbda22190ddac5086e9be79bcf51e458c51194d41a5ecb1f07621768
e2c61429397da55a5ee7749088023feb12e0e8e261dfeba32ee7c0794f9a12f8
Signature verified

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

{"entry_date":1611166428,"post_data":{"edit_count":0,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"772df5ed6ed469406b854e55a6b3c5b5605149a33a378e205704c0dd21221ae7f6b33c341d8b716d055e973dc65be72ccb026a4af956e4d67729dc446b275cc5","node_id":52,"post_date":1611166428,"thread_id":5637,"user_id":175},"post_link":"https:\/\/forum.factomprotocol.org\/threads\/batched-amendment-strategy-and-resource-director-proposal.5637\/post-31399"}
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: 31398, member: 9"]
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?
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, if we define a council's profile [B]beforehand [/B](e.g. we know it's tech, outreach, governance), have three, simultaneous subforums for candidates instead of just one. You can still see it as one big election.

If we don't define a council's profile beforehand (e.g. they are elected as a general council and sort roles out between them), have one subforum with a multi-winner election.

If you want a single-winner election process where teams can apply instead (e.g. 3x Sphereon member, 3x Kompendium member), then you pass that by the community first. Happy to hear other people's thoughts on that.

[QUOTE="Matt Osborne, post: 31398, member: 9"]
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?
[/QUOTE]

Would it help you if I worked on an amendment to this proposal so we can compare?

[QUOTE="Matt Osborne, post: 31398, member: 9"]
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?
[/QUOTE]

You don’t mandate anything for a team. You elect an[I] x[/I] number of peers - meaning that one cannot be removed by the other. They do have separate authorities that are theirs and theirs alone. If someone wants the authority of strategy and a budget to carry out certain domains within that strategy, with a cell (management team) behind him, he’ll be very able to. You let the usual dynamics sort any fuzziness out.

Everything’s light on details and the lines will blur. Including this proposal. But I thought we accepted that and we move on.

[QUOTE="Matt Osborne, post: 31398, member: 9"]
Also, could you please detail the pay structure for the council members? Hard numbers preferred.
[/QUOTE]

$5 weekly per council member.

I’m not sure how you honestly want me to give hard numbers. That’s up to each candidate when they apply. I’m not asking Niels for a hard number either. It’s not the time.

[QUOTE="Matt Osborne, post: 31398, member: 9"]
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.
[/QUOTE]

You’re unsure because I never arrived there. It was a reflection of our situation and how that’s very different from the 10,000 companies you keep bringing up.

Our ultimate decision-making (ANOs) is split into ‘factions’ with different ideas. That's a problem of decentralization. There is division and stalemate on major topics. Your solution, based on our current candidate list, is to take one person from one faction and magically assume it’ll bring all factions together. That’s idealism.

If this passes (which it can!), we risk major integrity and oversight problems because a large number of ANOs will turn to conflict or apathy. With conflict, any Director will just get challenged at every turn. With apathy, any Director is largely unchecked due to close ties with the ANOs that are still around.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top