Post #31501

e81a4b0c081090804aa7dce1ecc436f1ebd31bf3d3ea06fa1b84a3a930b9b734
554393b832c540a038b846b72bd0cb841f5df5209a688da63f6189674cf846ab
e2c61429397da55a5ee7749088023feb12e0e8e261dfeba32ee7c0794f9a12f8
Signature verified

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

{"entry_date":1611681634,"post_data":{"edit_count":0,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"a9dff79eaaf3d1aff7447b1359d50cfcebe0dbb45df081419e2a3d3144edcf4372cde848094bf4a30d092c4d41ea138ee6814df3ac67751d85bba7c8a15d05b7","node_id":52,"post_date":1611681634,"thread_id":5637,"user_id":175},"post_link":"https:\/\/forum.factomprotocol.org\/threads\/batched-amendment-strategy-and-resource-director-proposal.5637\/post-31501"}
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="Niels Klomp, post: 31500, member: 8"]
As mentioned, having the board from the start is totally fine. As long as the role of the board in that period is overseeing the interim management part we need at this point. That the board becomes responsible for Tech, Marketing, Outreach, Legal and what not after that makes sense, because the plans for that should have already been set in motion by then.
[/QUOTE]

I think at this point it's best to just put something codified in place that represents this. Then we let you look at it. Is that something you want to handle, [USER=9]@Matt Osborne[/USER] ?
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top