Post #31776

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.
[Sphereon BV] Niels Klomp
[QUOTE="WB, post: 31773, member: 175"]
Let me clarify where I'm coming from. The Director has a lot of overlap with the current grant system, but the scope is bigger. Instead of you being accountable for your own grants and its progress, you will be responsible for and coordinating the efforts of multiple parties, with far more resources.

So what I'm really asking is how we prevent past situations where the grants you represented suffered from communication issues and how you intend to rectify this in a Director role. It has very little to do with too many cooks in the kitchen. These same issues can plague a council-director relationship where either funds stop getting released or one side gets bullied into submission.

Here's one example:
Accountable being the operative word here. I think we have big difference in what personal accountability vs organizational accountability is. As director I would be directly accountable, meaning I will ensure that you have clear deliverables and contracts in paper.

An organization makes their own decisions and provides their own accountability. It is different roles. Something quite easily to get a grip on tbh.

[QUOTE="WB, post: 31773, member: 175"]
Is a good first step. But leave out [I]'in the first few months'[/I] and '[I]probably' - [/I]otherwise it sounds like a very soft commitment.
The probably was with regards to the intervals and not that I would hold them or not.

[QUOTE="WB, post: 31773, member: 175"]
While it sets a bad precedent, I have a feeling the majority may accept this for an interim term out of necessity, but for the future I wouldn't be comfortable with a Director having financial ties to multiple ANOs that are supposed to oversee the role. In any case, I'd expect them to abstain during important votes (election, removal). Do you agree?
That is how the business world works. I rather have somebody with a vested interest in making something a success. It evens works the other way around. Whenever a decision around on of these entities has to be made I would be very much on my toes.

I know it is hard for some people, but different roles have different approaches and opinions, simply as part of their responsibilities. BIF is a legal entity, as is Off-Blocks, as is their ANO. These legal entities make their own decisions. I think the fact that Sphereon is a shareholder in Off-Blocks, whilst you have me seen disagreeing with Colin in here quite a lot is a testament to that. You either believe I am open about conflicts of interest and will act with the protocol first in mind as a director, or you don't. If you don't, then simply don't vote for me, because it would be a loosing game regardless.

[QUOTE="WB, post: 31773, member: 175"]
Continuing on this, will you still act on BIF's behalf when it comes to responding to standing votes?

BIF acts on its own. Everytime we have a discussion you seem to think I am a sole decision maker in BIF. That is simply not the case. In BIF there is a majority voting rule that is even anchored into the notary registered documents. I take different roles and being a legal representative rather serious, so to me it seems like you are trying to pick at something where there really is nothing to pick at. To be clear, not adhering to these things, means you can be personally responsible instead of the legal entity as a whole in legal matters. I take that very seriously.

Again if people don't believe that as a director I would put the protocol first in that capacity, then don't vote for me.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.