Post #31401

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="WB, post: 31399, member: 175"]
Would it help you if I worked on an amendment to this proposal so we can compare?
If there's a way to modify this proposal prior to vote so it could also potentially incorporate what the GWG envisions (as well as what the Director approach envisions) and have the approach be decided by an election, then let's 100% do it! Does this sound good to you?

[QUOTE="WB, post: 31399, member: 175"]
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.
That somewhat clarifies who has jurisdiction over what. But:
1. How would the C Level executive factor into this though? Does this person's power supersede the Council?
2. How are priorities decided? How are budget allocations decided? This will 100% be a point of contention.

With the Director approach, this is cut-and-dry (the Director has the power). I am just trying to understand how this would work with the council so people can make an informed decision.

[QUOTE="WB, post: 31399, member: 175"]
$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.
Well, we have very limited financial resources. So, if we have 3 council members and a C Level executive all getting paid 5,000 FCT a month, that equates to 60,000 FCT a quarter, which is over half of the grant pool. That doesn't leave a lot left over. So, I think compensation is highly applicable to our conversation.

[USER=8]@Niels Klomp[/USER] Could you please provide your compensation? Thank you.

[QUOTE="WB, post: 31399, member: 175"]
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.
The Director approach is based-on hundreds of years of data and hundreds of thousands of success stories. That's reality.
The Council approach is completely unproven and thus based-on optimism/hopefulness. That's idealism.

Director approach: Data-driven.
Council approach: Idealism driven.

If you had to bet your life savings on which of the two choices will best turn Factom around, you're sincerely telling me you would bet everything on the council approach succeeding over the Director approach?

[QUOTE="WB, post: 31399, member: 175"]
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.
If this proposal passes, it will be because 60%+ of ANOs decided to offload the strategy and resource allocation to a Director. So, I guess I don't follow your logic. Thinking we will ever come to a solution that makes 100% of ANOs happy is just not realistic. Additionally, this is not about what is best for ANOs. It is about what is best for the protocol, which includes FCT holders, ANOs, and end-users.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.