Amendment Batched Amendment - Strategy and Resource Director Proposal

Public: Only invited members may reply

  • Viewed BlockVenture Blockchain Innovation Foundation Blockchain Innovation Foundation Consensus Networks Consensus Networks Cube3 Cube3 DBGrow DBGrow De Facto De Facto Factom Inc Factom Inc Factoshi Factoshi Federate This Federate This Go Immutable HashQuark HashnStore HashnStore Kompendium Kompendium Luciap Luciap Matt Osborne PrestigeIT PrestigeIT Stamp-IT Stamp-IT The Factoid Authority The Factoid Authority VBIF VBIF
  • Not Viewed None

Should the document be ratified or amended as specified by the thread type?

  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Abstain

    Votes: 0 0.0%

All votes are in

  • Total voters
    17
  • Poll closed .

Timed Discussion

Discussion ended:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Screen Shot 2021-01-21 at 12.42.52 PM.png


Great to hear @WB !!!


Digressing a bit from director vs council: @Matt Osborne I note that in your proposal it says "The Director will not be able to override decisions made by Committees designated by the Factom Governance". So would the director instance have no say in how the website is maintained? I get that the director should not be able to push changes such as tokenomics or demotion onto the servers, but is that wording not limiting the director quite a lot?
Yep, it's not perfect. The thinking is that members of the Website Committee should respect the will of the standing parties (who voted for the Director approach). Therefore, if a Website Committee member has issues with the Director, then the website committee member should stand down (instead of going against the will of the standing parties). Finally, assuming the Director is qualified, the Director should be able to establish a solid working relationship with the Website Committee, so situations like you described can be avoided.

The relationship between the Director and Committees can definitely be fleshed out more in future Governance documents. Right now though, I'm just trying to get Factom "unstuck" instead of trying to craft the perfect governance document.

I'll also take this opportunity to say that the Director Oversight Working Group should most likely also be a committee. But, in the interests of not getting bogged down in bureaucracy right now, it can start off as a Working Group. The Treasurer's solution is not the most elegant either (big understatement) and should definitely be upgraded. For right now though, we just need to get from point A to point B. I could care less how ugly the car is that takes us there, as long as it accomplishes its job.
 
Also, for the record, I am not 100% vehemently against the council approach. In fact, I think we will need it at a future point in time.

PHASE I (current status): Director approach (or team approach)
PHASE II: (when we are 25x bigger): Council approach (or similar)
PHASE III (when we are 250x bigger): Much heavier Governance approach

Each Governance approach has certain advantages and disadvantages. Due to our current "situation," the Director approach is the best fit right now for reasons previously discussed. We'll eventually grow out of our current "situation" though and want to take advantage of certain benefits that the council approach has that the Director approach doesn't.
 
Don't we have to elect a Director as well?
Yes, we would have to do that. It was more meant to imply that it would be difficult for a council to get cracking before they meet. We have a director candidate who has already drawn up a plan.

I don't see the big deal. We seem to be thriving on the idea that we'll have a council of two idiots forever arguing with the 'expert.' ;) Who's honestly going to argue with Niels and the plan he has? He'll get to do that straight away and be supported left and right.
A council with three peers with equal mandate might work in consensus 95+% of the time. We would just need mechanism for the remainder. I don't think it is a big deal to put such a mechanism in. On the other hand I think leaving it out would be a lack of due diligence.

It's far easier to follow through with a supported plan inside a small team. We've tried the single party approach before. It's called the grant system. One party presents a fantastic plan, and ultimately not much becomes of it. If anything's a slight variation, @Nate Miller - it's that.
Here you equate a single person with a party. But grants have also been submitted by teams. I would rather say grants fail because there is limited repercussions when they do so. Grantees still got their payments regardless of results. Whether we have a council or a director there should be a way to remove leadership if it does not perform, in order to alleviate that. I do agree that doing things together with others is easier than going at it alone and that can be an upside for a council model. I still do believe that so many persons in the ecosystem would be involved with a director that the downside could be alleviated.

Did I ever gridlock on anything with @Alex when I was in Factoshi? Not really. Did I ever gridlock on anything in the GWG - which touched on some of the most heated topics you could imagine? Not really.
Good, but just because it did not happen in your case does not mean it cannot in the future :)


It's the second. We elect three peers. Within their respective authorities, they can't be overruled. There will be grey areas for sure, but they'll be less important if they're not captured as an authority anyway. There will be similar grey areas with a Director and ANOs doing work.
Essentially having a "3 director" approach would effectively remove the whole discussion on whether there has to be ways to get out of gridlocks. If their authorities are compartmentalized I suppose we have a bit less of a team synergy and a bit more decisiveness.

Overall strategy would immediately go to the most technically oriented person - because Factom is a technology product.
A bit of a hornets nest right there, but why not shove a hand into it... :unsure:;)
If you had a chain of stores selling paint and paint supplies, should it be run by the person who knows the most about paint?

As Matt also said, it is not that I am completely against a council, I just think a director approach is preferable.
 
It's far easier to follow through with a supported plan inside a small team. We've tried the single party approach before. It's called the grant system. One party presents a fantastic plan, and ultimately not much becomes of it. If anything's a slight variation, @Nate Miller - it's that.

Did I ever gridlock on anything with @Alex when I was in Factoshi? Not really. Did I ever gridlock on anything in the GWG - which touched on some of the most heated topics you could imagine? Not really.
I don't think because an individual or group failed at a grant is an equivalent distinction to governance of the protocol. High performing groups have unification of purpose which is what we're missing. Lots of groups are obviously able to do this is as you mention. However, we have a significantly wider range of interests represented in the overall protocol governance and we've been unable thus far to unify the direction of the protocol. A council may be able to do this, and as others have mentioned, I'm not anti-council but more pro-director. I feel that at this time, the shift we need is an individual to quickly move the protocol in a direction and align the community around this direction. I'm not convinced a triumvirate can achieve this, especially if each has an individual focus area.
 
@Niels Klomp Could you please provide your compensation? Thank you.
Sure. Obviously this needs discussion and alignement. But my proposal would be along the below lines.

First of all I would calculate in FCT and at a price of $2 per FCT. A price which we have not seen for a pretty long time. Current price hovering around the $1.25 mark and which has been at $1.00 for a very long time.

I would seek roughly 10K FCT per quarter, with a bonus of 10K FCT after 9 months based upon agreed performance metrics/goals. So 40K FCT in total over 9 months. I think this would align incentives quite well and the fact I am already calculating with $2/FCT basically states that this would be a bottom price for me, at which I still don't make any profit to be clear.
 
I think we have far more suffered from a lack of focus and cooperation than from decentralized governance. We did not have a roadmap but were still spending resources in several directions.
Are you aware that the protocol did create a roadmap 1.5 years ago at the ANO summit in the USA?

Moreover a limited team gathering several competences is not really what we have experienced so far, but instead a fully diluted decision process with no strategic vision. And such a structure does not prevent natural leadership from emerging within this group.
What has held me back for instance in really stepping up with my expertise and background is exactly our current structure where everyone wants their say in matters they know next to nothing about in some cases. I am confident I can turn it around, but that needs a mandate. I cannot imagine you haven't noticed that all natural leaders have resigned quite early, because they couldn't bring the change or get things done. This has to do with getting frustrated with all the indecisiveness, which stems from the way we do every small details by consensus.
 
It's far easier to follow through with a supported plan inside a small team. We've tried the single party approach before. It's called the grant system. One party presents a fantastic plan, and ultimately not much becomes of it. If anything's a slight variation, @Nate Miller - it's that.
I would not compare the grantpool with single leadership. Completely different things. The current grant system is driven by needs of the grantee first, was created with the acceptance of failure of grants and certainly does not put the needs of the protocol first. Comparing that with a role in the protocol that has a mandate is a bit odd to me.

Having a director is ensuring you put the needs of the protocol first at all times, starting from ensuring the strategy and vision incorporates that. Which most certainly will clash with the needs of ANOs at times, simply because they are the only recognized party at present, whilst they certainly aren't the only stakeholder.
 

Chappie

Factomize Bot
Niels Klomp has made a motion to extend the discussion. If someone seconds this motion by selecting the button below, a vote on the motion will start.

A majority voting yay will pass the motion and the discussion will be extended for 72 hours. This motion will remain open until the normal discussion period ends or a motion to end the discussion is passed by a majority.
 
It's the second. We elect three peers. Within their respective authorities, they can't be overruled. There will be grey areas for sure, but they'll be less important if they're not captured as an authority anyway. There will be similar grey areas with a Director and ANOs doing work.

Overall strategy would immediately go to the most technically oriented person - because Factom is a technology product.
If that works, why do we have directors/CEOs in companies? Why do we have party leaders and prime-ministers/presidents in democracies? Why do we have chairs in working groups/committees? Simply because you need someone calling the shots if there is a stalemate or when direction is not in line with the bigger picture.

Then we typically have a body that is not involved with day to day decision making that can send that director/CEO/Prime-minister/President home. Having 15+ decentralized ANOs as a "board" and working with a director doesn't make the protocol not decentralized anymore. Ultimate power still is decentralized. No director or council changes that.
 

Chappie

Factomize Bot
Miguel Proulx has seconded the motion to extend the discussion.

A motion is now active at the top of this thread to vote if you want to extend the discussion. A majority voting yes will pass the motion and the discussion will be extended for 72 hours. This vote will remain open until the normal discussion period ends or another motion is passed.
 
@Matt Osborne

Here's an amendment to this proposal as we discussed. It compromises and keeps the overall light-weight structure intact, but it replaces a single Director with a 'Three Director System' / Council.


Smaller changes include:
  • Council Oversight Group manages elections, establishes a conflict of interest policy and sees to its adherence.
  • Conflict of interest provision (3.3.4.7) added to candidate elections
  • Minimum turnout (quorum) of 50.1% for elections to be valid
  • Q&A during elections moved to 7 days
  • Council applies for a budget, breakdown per member, if approved, funds are minted to treasurer system (e.g. 3 treasurers, 1 per seat)
  • Treasurers may not simultaneously be part of the Council Oversight Working Group and vice versa
  • Veto quota for ANOs reduced to 60% in line with all other motions

In my opinion, this is a win-win.

1. If this amendment is adopted for this proposal, we'll be sure it passes and we have leadership.
2. If this amendment is not adopted and the Director proposal passes, we have leadership.
3. If this amendment is not adopted and the Director proposal doesn't pass, this proposal will pass and we have leadership.

I'd like to stress that if the Director came out on top during the ranked vote, we'd have supported this as promised, but it didn't, so this is our compromise to ensure we get leadership either way.

Even if you don't adopt a Council structure, I'd still point to some of the other smaller changes; most notably the conflict of interest provisions. We really can't go without it and it might sway some people. It has no immediate repercussions for any candidates because it's unlikely we'll have a policy in place before the elections, but it needs to be public record to show that we take it seriously and for Standing Parties to consider. We've been tolerating this since the very first Guide/ANO elections and I think it's cost us.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Screen Shot 2021-01-22 at 10.32.36 AM.png


Hi @WB
I'm slightly confused here. You responded, "Working on it now" to my inquiry about the GWG modifying the current proposal so as to fit in both the Director approach and the council approach, and then deciding things via an election. Yet, the GWG's new proposal does not do that. It eliminates the Director approach and mandates the council approach, correct?

It seems to me that both can be incorporated into the same proposal rather easily if the GWG wanted to. In fact, it's potentially already possible for a council to run under the Director proposal. You could personally run as Director, but state that you will be holding elections to determine other people in your cabinet and that you will be delegating voting power to these people and/or using majority voting when necessary.

Is the GWG interested in working as a team, compromising to pass this proposal, and then letting the standing parties decide which leadership structure they want leading the protocol (like you implied)? Or has the GWG backtracked on this? I don't care how you answer, but I think many of us would like an honest, direct answer. The amount of time being wasted is ungodly.
 
@WB I like the "Conflict of Interest" clause and have added a COF clause to the current proposal.

If you'll recall during the Committee/Steering Council proposal, I asked who was interested in sitting on the Steering Council and was told by a member of the GWG that I was not allowed to ask this question. That person eventually deleted their post without an explanation as to why. Therefore, I'm glad to see that the GWG now finds transparency and conflicts of interest important.

Since the GWG and I both agree about the importance of conflicts of interest, could the GWG members (@Jason Gregoire @Mike Buckingham @WB etc) be upfront about whether they will be running for council positions (and thus have a conflict of interest when it comes to this proposal)?

Thank you.
 
I like the "Conflict of Interest" clause and have added a COF clause to the current proposal.
Thank you. I appreciate it.

If you'll recall during the Committee/Steering Council proposal, I asked who was interested in sitting on the Steering Council and was told by a member of the GWG that I was not allowed to ask this question.
I can't help but find this pretty adorable. :p Your post followed a certain pattern in soliciting interest for something you are against, for example here. "Do we even have people wanting to be Guides?" (yes) - "Do we even have people wanting to join committees?" (yes) - which if we're being honest is going to irk some people because no one is that stupid. I personally didn't agree you had any bad intentions, and was of the opinion we allow anyone to say what they want and discuss what they want.

Since the GWG and I both agree about the importance of conflicts of interest, could the GWG members (@Jason Gregoire @Mike Buckingham @WB etc) be upfront about whether they will be running for council positions (and thus have a conflict of interest when it comes to this proposal)?
I definitely would be, but would refrain from sitting inside a council with anyone who worked on the council proposal because of the perceived conflict of interest. I take that very seriously. (There's no actual conflict of interest because I'm not part of any ANO or employed with any intersecting organization).

I'm slightly confused here. You responded, "Working on it now" to my inquiry about the GWG modifying the current proposal so as to fit in both the Director approach and the council approach, and then deciding things via an election. Yet, the GWG's new proposal does not do that. It eliminates the Director approach and mandates the council approach, correct?
That's what I did though, I combined both proposals into one and created that compromise. Treasurers + oversight group + three 'Directors' each having the most say in their authorities. No committees, no soft powers.

Your suggestion seems to be that we let this proposal pass, and let me run for candidacy with the promise of "I'll have a cabinet elected by ANOs" and let Niels run with "I'll elect whoever I please". I'm not interested in running as a Director candidate, let alone let something this important depend on a popularity vote that'll deviate from the main question, so that simply won't work.

We need to very consciously choose for a Director with the one candidate we have or go for a council / triumvirate if we want any resolution. It's win-win either way.

Again, thank you for adopting the conflict of interest provision. I'd also see merit in letting the Oversight Working Group handle the elections.
 
Last edited:
But that makes the council proposal still a variation of what it was. That is totally something people can propose obviously, but the whole concept of a director on 3 areas without anything that is the director of that is quite obvious not in line with what the director proposal is seeking. So then either it becomes a separate ammendment thread or you try to get a majority vote first.
 
@WB So if I understand:

1. The GWG members will not be disclosing who would be running for council from the GWG even though they are pushing for a conflict of interest clause and multiple GWG members have said that they would like "to hash things out in this thread."

edit: I forgot to mention that the GWG refuses to provide information on their desired compensation. As pointed out, their compensation alone could easily be over 50% of the grant pool. So much for "hashing things out."

2. The GWG will not compromise on this current proposal to satisfy both the people in support of a single Director and people in support of a council, even though you implied you would do so earlier.

I'm simply after transparency, truth, and compromise so the protocol can move forward. It appears the GWG is after something else.
 
1. The GWG members will not be disclosing who would be running for council from the GWG even though they are pushing for a conflict of interest clause and multiple GWG members have said that they would like "to hash things out in this thread."
Contrary to what you seem to be insinuating, I don't have people on a leash. I only gave my own opinion.

As an interesting sidenote, the GWG doesn't actually exist anymore. We disbanded the GWG (guide removal / overall governance responsibility) and reformed for proposal implementation (GIG) - asking anyone to join. Colin would have been a member, but he was low on bandwidth. No one will care, or have read the reports, but just throwing this out there. I work with anyone.

I'm simply after transparency, truth, and compromise so the protocol can move forward.
Compromise is what I gave you. Win-win either way.
 
2 questions.

Who would be making the decisions in case of a stalemate?

What would this cost? I provided my number which is on the low end of the spectrum. As a protocol we have to be open to qualified external people as well, as such we have to accept that positions like these cost money. In this proposal it is at least 2 to 3 times as high as the director proposal. A protocol without much resources is going to pay for that how?
 
Contrary to what you seem to be insinuating, I don't have people on a leash. I only gave my own opinion.
So GIG members are choosing to remain silent instead of being forthright about conflicts of interest. I guess people will just need to read between the lines on that one and come to their own conclusions.

Compromise is what I gave you. Win-win either way.
You didn't compromise, you gave an ultimatum (3 Directors). You obviously don't want Standing Parties having the ability to vote between:

1. A single Director
2. A council

If you actually had compromised, we'd shortly have the above vote to solve this deadlock. You blocked it. At least don't pretend otherwise.

We should all be under the same goal here - to civilly work out a middle ground the community can live with and unite under in common purpose. Lets do that.
I agree @Jason Gregoire . That's why I proposed a compromise that allows for Standing Parties to have the ability to vote between:

1. A single Director
2. A council

In your own words, you are after "middle ground." This is the middle ground. Do you support this? Thank you.
 
@WB I like the "Conflict of Interest" clause and have added a COF clause to the current proposal.

If you'll recall during the Committee/Steering Council proposal, I asked who was interested in sitting on the Steering Council and was told by a member of the GWG that I was not allowed to ask this question. That person eventually deleted their post without an explanation as to why. Therefore, I'm glad to see that the GWG now finds transparency and conflicts of interest important.

Since the GWG and I both agree about the importance of conflicts of interest, could the GWG members (@Jason Gregoire @Mike Buckingham @WB etc) be upfront about whether they will be running for council positions (and thus have a conflict of interest when it comes to this proposal)?

Thank you.
I have no particular design on a council seat, my other commitments are too great to enable me to devote sufficient time to such a role. Given that the role is probably not (well) rewarded I think that in the first instance anybody performing the role would do it it out of sheer interest in the future of Factom, which is exactly the motivation I and others have had for working on Governance since the demise of the Guides.
 
You didn't compromise, you gave an ultimatum (3 Directors). You obviously don't want Standing Parties having the ability to vote between:

1. A single Director
2. A council
Huh?

First I organized a ranked vote for ANOs to choose between exactly that and would commit to the outcome 100%. It was tied (and I'm being gracious to you there). Now people can vote for a single Director by approving this proposal. If they want a council that compromises and adds a lot of structure under this proposal, they vote against this proposal unless you adopt my amendment in full.
 
Huh?

First I organized a ranked vote for ANOs to choose between exactly that and would commit to the outcome 100%. It was tied (and I'm being gracious to you there). Now people can vote for a single Director by approving this proposal. If they want a council that compromises and adds a lot of structure under this proposal, they vote against this proposal unless you adopt my amendment in full.
So you will start a separate amendement thread?

Obviously both cannot be amended using the same amendement thread.
 
So you will start a separate amendement thread?

Obviously both cannot be amended using the same amendement thread.
I can't start an amendment thread for something that's never been ratified. This is the normal process. Someone submits a document for ratification, people give feedback and suggestions for the document creator to add to the document (or not). That's how we've been doing it for years. I wish more people did it.

It's OK if not all of my suggestions make it. I'm happy with what's been added thus far, both from my comments inside the original doc and the amendments from the copy I created.
 
Screen Shot 2021-01-22 at 1.55.42 PM.png


@WB
Please read what you previously agreed to a bit closer, as your new proposal runs completely counter to the above. But, I am happy to ask again:

Will you compromise with me by reforming the current proposal so it makes room for both the current Director approach and the Council approach? Then, after this proposal passes, we have an election where the standing parties can simply vote for candidates representing these options:

1. Niels - Would implement a single Director
2. Vidale - would implement a council approach
3. etc.

Thank you
 

Attachments

I can't start an amendment thread for something that's never been ratified. This is the normal process. Someone submits a document for ratification, people give feedback and suggestions for the document creator to add to the document (or not). That's how we've been doing it for years. I wish more people did it.
Okay shouldn't have called it amendment. Nothing is blocking you to submit the council version from being submitted as another doc ratification thread. It is quite clear that in current form they are still mutually exclusive. It this thread would make it we have an outcome, if the other would make it we also have an outcome.

If none makes it, we will also have an outcome and are in trouble ;)
(and if both make it well.....)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top