Great to hear @WB !!!
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.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?
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.