Post #31819

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="Dennis Bunfield, post: 31816, member: 96"]
Thanks for your application. You probably stated this previously, but I'm having trouble picking up on a few things. So can you concisely clarify a few things for me.

1) in a few concise bullets what is your vision of what you think a director should be?
First of all I am interpreting it as interim director, as that is what I am signing up for. I think I already answered this particular question in my 2nd post.

Although there is plenty of overlap, an interim director makes sure the to address failing parts of an organization/collaboration.
Key areas of a director:
[*]Maximize chances of succes for the protocol
[*]Ensure financials are in order for good times, but more importantly so survive bad times, as we know eventual bear cycles will follow again
[*]Ensure the work done by a diverse set of actors is as aligned as possible
[*]Ensure the protocol has a clear road ahead. Meaning the vision and strategy is hashed out with plans in place to act on those. You should always be able to (and actually do) ask yourself the question on decisions whether it fits strategy
[*]Ensure the protocol will be handed over to new leadership in more calm watters. It makes sense that we will prepare for a non-profit to take its place in the protocol, obviously with the standing parties having control over that entity
[*]Ensure the protocol becomes interesting again to invest in. By token holders but just as importantly by individual developers/integrators/companies using the protocol

2) In a few bullets what is your vision for the grant system and changes you would like to see to it?

3) What Role do you see the director as having in the grant system?
I will combine these two. I also partially addressed this in my response to Jason. I don't want to draw too many conclusions at this point in time, as we really need to follow proper steps first before proposing to change the grant system altogether.

First of all in my current thinking it makes sense to at least have a certain percentage allocated towards grantpool 2.0. Meaning we should still have a system in place where outside entities as well as current entities can propose their ideas and products to see whether it can get funded. That system would have to be more milestone related though. So no more 60K grants with 3 bulletpoints

Then there would be the specifications and proposals that we as a protocol have defined. Meaning we come up with plans and where applicable specs, for developers to implement. The ANOs would be involved in ensuring they feel the plans and importance of these plans are in order for the next few months. The director will be involved in ensuring this process takes place as well as ensuring together with the core committee that the work performed here stays on track as much as possible. This type of work will probably be nor really milestone specific, as it doesn't make sense to offload all risks on things the protocol would like to achieve on developers. The director will ask/propose the budgets for these and will allocate these budgets towards execution.

So ANOs will be responsible in either giving the OK to the protocol defined work, or are involved in defining those if they wish. The director gets the OK for the budget from the protocol as well. Then the director ensures the budget is being used towards that work.

Next to that their would be a grantpool 2.0, that would be milestone based. That is too attract ideas which either are not deemed in line with the core protocol, or for which the requestor simply wants to go down their own route. It make sense to either have the core committee, or a newly formed group overseeing that. Meaning to judge whether milestones are achieved. The director would then allocate the money to the grantee or not.

I have seen I believe Paul mentioning centralization today. I hope that doesn't come from self interest. Yes appointing a director means more centralization in day to day decision making. But that is exactly the part which we have failed at. It certainly doesn't mean the standing parties have nothing to say anymore. They simply aren't involved in day to day questions and decisions if they don't want to. Anyone willing to help out is welcome of course.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.