Post #31779

27242b556317d204596bb20c828b2ed7c843d7fa6bd601e88b0688f001b442da
a6b26e8dc76f4983b22bc527eb347cce69d9aa1f24e3e93b74db83dd5bc56342
e2c61429397da55a5ee7749088023feb12e0e8e261dfeba32ee7c0794f9a12f8
Signature verified

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

{"entry_date":1613388113,"post_data":{"edit_count":3,"last_edit_date":0,"last_edit_user_id":0,"message_sha512":"e89786429c8c84102913954f1de879122efed24125c2f3c84a45f2a488af06b21fd5936b029dda3e4295bbd92e2a1f62772036d2744843d4d4f879286bee2e61","node_id":115,"post_date":1613387916,"thread_id":5666,"user_id":8},"post_link":"https:\/\/forum.factomprotocol.org\/threads\/sphereon-bv-niels-klomp.5666\/post-31779"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
[Sphereon BV] Niels Klomp
[QUOTE="WB, post: 31778, member: 175"]
Can you expand if / how you tried to influence Sphereon's decision-making about grant reporting? Where does Sphereon's policy differ from your personal policy in a Director role?
[/QUOTE]
You can ask [USER=123]@Sebastian[/USER] [USER=106]@mboender[/USER] whether I have internally brought up the subject on different occasions or not.

Where the difference lies is rather simple. As a director I would be doing negotiations and put stuf on paper in order to make sure what is agreed upon is met, otherwise I wouldn't be doing a good job of it. Sphereon has its own commercial and client responsibilities.

Let's take the hypothetical here. If I in my role as protocol director would be having Sphereon deliver something on paper, you can bet your ass I would from my role as director make sure to pursue the legal entity Sphereon for that delivery and would hold back funds and/or any future payments/projects until the matter is resolved.

[QUOTE="WB, post: 31778, member: 175"]
I don't really care about who argues with who and how much. This is about optics and not setting dangerous precedents for the future. Does Factom have a Director? Yes. Who oversees that Director? ANOs. Does the Director have financial ties with multiple ANOs? Yes.

I'm not sure if "that's how business works" will sway public opinion anywhere outside our little bubble. We've had ANOs abstaining from votes before due to perceived conflicts. Some of the first Guide/ANO elections come to mind. Generally that's a good thing.

So again, would you support that any parties with direct financial ties to the Director abstain from voting?
[/QUOTE]
First of all first there is the Council overseeing on behalf of the ANOs. You have the exact same problem there.What is being ignored is that I would be extra cautious and transparent about it. It is something that is there. If we really feel this strong about it, we can remove all ANOs, because they all get paid by the protocol and have a delegation.

So no, I would not be against it, as that means a lot of ANOs would also need to abstain on other votes for different reasons. The assumption seems to be that entities would always vote in favor of what would suit me best, is simply not true.

It the elephant in the room is that BIF should not be allowed to vote on any removal of the director if I would be elected, fine get it in there. I would have to abstain from BIF myself anyway, because it would involve myself in another capacity. Leaving the vote up to Sebastian and Maarten. If people feel that the risk of them voting in favor of me when a removal vote would be held is too big, I am sure that could be resolved on paper.

If you feel that on all other matters these entities should not be allowed to vote, then it make it rather unfair. It would even probably result in most entities not allowing to vote anymore, because I will keep relationships with all entities putting in work.

[QUOTE="WB, post: 31778, member: 175"]
This isn't about legal accountability. This is about how one role may influence how other parties interact with your other roles (and entities associated therewith). The more roles you assume, the more likely that is. And you have a lot. This whole switcheroo (it's not my problem, it's yours for not recognizing different roles!) is therefore irrelevant. It's about the dynamics we're promoting and allowing.

Will you continue to respond on BIF's behalf (after reaching majority within) to standing votes? Just yes or no will do.
[/QUOTE]
As I have tried to explain these roles are there and it is something to deal with. Would it be ideal if we had somebody with no ties? Maybe. On the other hand, is it bad to have somebody at the helm that has a vested interest and is very transparent about that? I would say no.

To the later. Yes, but I will leave most communication to Sebas and Maarten, because people get easily confused about the different roles. If I would be acting on behalf of BIF or Sphereon instead of as Director, I would certainly make that very clear in written and verbal communications.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top