Post #31507

e81a4b0c081090804aa7dce1ecc436f1ebd31bf3d3ea06fa1b84a3a930b9b734
aa21f2656380fe78e0cc3e3fcdc94a2cbfdb3a9f4adad7f0394cd2be19565950
e2c61429397da55a5ee7749088023feb12e0e8e261dfeba32ee7c0794f9a12f8
Signature verified

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

{"entry_date":1611822166,"post_data":{"edit_count":2,"last_edit_date":1611822166,"last_edit_user_id":175,"message_sha512":"f94bf2e0ec1c8498a0e28aa08ae31ad225960745a26eae6de37477a4e17995c82cad8139288b2f27262c97cd064816fecd05422e976b2a26efb04a63d9e0155c","node_id":52,"post_date":1611821508,"thread_id":5637,"user_id":175},"post_link":"https:\/\/forum.factomprotocol.org\/threads\/batched-amendment-strategy-and-resource-director-proposal.5637\/post-31507"}
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: 31506, member: 8"]
That is rather a large number at this point.
[/QUOTE]

Yep. 6 being a representation of essentially 18 parties is a lot. Yes this should also include tokenholders, users, but we have no immediate mechanisms for those just yet. Hence why we should start with a low number, work on integrating more stakeholders, and then the board can just add another seat.

[QUOTE="Niels Klomp, post: 31506, member: 8"]
Agreed on the remuneration. It really is not management on a daily basis at this point though. That is something to be decided for the future. If it really becomes day to day management, then you need proper remuneration in order to have the right people do the job.
[/QUOTE]

There should be a symbolic, low compensation for starting board members to be reflective of the active oversight, resourcing and communication they'll be providing. Maybe introduce a ceiling and let board members choose whatever they want below it.

[QUOTE="Niels Klomp, post: 31506, member: 8"]
The board as well as the director in the interim period will provide regular updates. The director also typically has confidential info about partnerships, communications etc. That is really not something that you want out in the open.
[/QUOTE]

I agree here. We want the Director to be able to have no-nonsense talks with a board that might also include sensitive information. Similar case being the exchange group. So ideally what I want to see is the director chiefly communicates with the board, and the board conveys it to the stakeholders with whatever policy it develops.

_______

There's been excellent progress on the new draft yesterday. Very few issues remain, but I'm also monitoring some of the feedback here.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top