This entry might be using an old signature, or it was signed by a key that does not exist on the server.
[QUOTE="madisonhope, post: 3365, member: 132"]Thanks for the info [USER=17]@factom_matt[/USER]! Firstly, we'd like to clarify that we don't have any objection to inter-ANO collaboration. Indeed, one of the admirable qualities of Factom is that it's built around this sort of collaboration and is designed to prevent one party having too much power.
But all of that collaboration should happen in the community discussion channels, and we'd imagine that you have industry-standard agreements with Factom Inc that limit your ability to discuss information used to make decisions or suggestions. In addition, being an employee of another ANO or Guide establishes a hierarchical relationship that allows the employing ANO or Guide to unduly influence or pressure the employee ANO. What we're curious about is how you plan to clearly separate Factom Bridge from Factom Inc and deal with any potential conflicts of interest when it comes to furthering the Protocol as a whole. What happens when Factom Bridge and Factom Inc disagree on a decision, or you can only justify a decision by violating an agreement with your employer? These are the sort of concerns which arise when relationships like this one exist, and we'd like to learn a little bit more about the approach you're taking to prevent it.
We're positive Factom Inc is a good actor. That said, on a personal level, I know I'd be hard pressed to go directly against my employer in a public venue if I had to.
I thought I had covered it with my employee hat comment in the last message, but conflicts are possible. I have no intention of going against my employer's (Factom, Inc) wishes. My working with other ANOs on a project or not is a courtesy. In Factom Inc's case, it is more than a courtesy. I consider all of the code that I write for Factom to be proprietary code unless I have received permission to share it. If another ANO asked for help with something that they considered proprietary, that wouldn't be open source either. And I would help. Building the community around the Factom Protocol is a team effort. I would also not be going into detail publicly about what I am doing for them. Being transparent about what I am working of as Factom Bridge is not the same thing as detailing what and why I am not working on something. Whether that is because of Factom, Inc, another ANO or even just a philosophical reason of why I like or don't like something. One of the metrics I mentioned above (Julianft) is how to measure our value as an ANO. Primarily, that will be what I share as open source.
The above being said, apart from wanting to be an ANO since before I started working here, a major reason we are applying to be an ANO is to fund development on things that Factom, Inc is NOT doing. I get to work on things that Factom IS doing at work.
As for having an undue influence of one ANO over another, this is less of an issue today than it was when there were only 11 ANOs. Assuming that Factom, Inc could control Factom Bridge on some ANO voting item, we are talking about the difference between 3 and 6% of the voting, and less in the future. That is also what recusal is for.