Post #31771

27242b556317d204596bb20c828b2ed7c843d7fa6bd601e88b0688f001b442da
c911408e176814d78976ec0179d3dd5e83d3e062daec3c0364c8ff40fb499276
e2c61429397da55a5ee7749088023feb12e0e8e261dfeba32ee7c0794f9a12f8
Signature verified

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

{"entry_date":1613338614,"post_data":{"edit_count":1,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"b2c6bb58939df7904bf09affec0a0907437928e55b6d1475ea988c5711ef4b29219c87efa36a2a4d8be9552f03233baf58381da7b9e77d3cc8a4932eb442eb60","node_id":115,"post_date":1613338408,"thread_id":5666,"user_id":8},"post_link":"https:\/\/forum.factomprotocol.org\/threads\/sphereon-bv-niels-klomp.5666\/post-31771"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
[Sphereon BV] Niels Klomp
Hi Mike,

I am going to split up two of your sentences, because I feel I need to in order to make the case clearer.

[QUOTE="Mike Buckingham, post: 31770, member: 164"]
However this is not the first opportunity to do the things that you describe.
[/quote]
I really believe it is. And it ties into the next item. We really haven't had people with actual mandates, except for guides. And that mandate was constricted to governance only. Given our approach to involving everyone on every decision, regardless of their expertise we have never created the atmosphere for people to really step up in their areas of expertise. The working groups/committees to some extent could have filled that role, but even there it becomes problematic if you do not give people real mandates. I have never stepped up in the core committee for instance, because I never would be able to really take the reigns into restructuring things. People will always perceive others as threats when your approach is that everyone should be equals in all matters.

[quote]
Other than the "too many cooks in the kitchen analogy" which I understand and agree with, can you please explain why now is the right time to apply some of the disciplines you describe and why you could not have introduced and championed these disciplines at any time in the past?
[/QUOTE]
I believe with the last vote the consensus was finally achieved that we really need an interim management approach to get the protocol back on its feet. That means you need someone that is not afraid to make decisions. Decisions that certainly will not please every single person. Some decisions that might not pan out or even simply fail. I am not afraid of making those decisions, as I have learned personally and professionally over the years, that making bad decisions is part of life. You learn from them and hopefully next time make a different decision, if you are in control of course. Making a bad decision is almost always better than making no decision at all. We have been plagued by indecisiveness for way too long.

I will make some day to day decisions by myself, others I will propose to the standing parties. At all times they will be informed through the council and where applicable me. But it will be based on coherent plans. It will be a game of give and take and not everyone will agree all the time. Everyone should be aware that in our previous approach the same thing happened except magnified. Most people were not happy at all, as we lacked clear direction and did not put the protocol first at all times. The people that did try to step up in the past basically burned out because of it. I can name quite a few people, and the same simply would have repeated again and again.

The fact we now decided to bring a council together with a director that will have an interim position next 9-12 months, basically acknowledges we are finally ready for change. Which gets me excited to show we really can turn the ship around.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top