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.
Nothing is blocking you to submit the council version from being submitted as another doc ratification thread.
Yeah, what if both make it and I named it Doc 009? We'll have a separate Director and Council running the protocol. Let's not even attempt this. :p

I originally asked:

Would it help you if I worked on an amendment to this proposal so we can compare?
That's what I did. Some parts have been taken from it already, for which I am thankful. The obvious answer to @Matt Osborne is also no, because that's just a strange political trap. Actual elections are decided on a lot of things, but rarely on substance. I'll avoid that snake pit, thanks.

We have a potential win-win situation here. Don't mess with it. Vote for this proposal if you want a Director, and we'll have it. Don't vote for this proposal and we'll put almost the exact same structure up as a compromise, but with a council.
 
Yeah, what if both make it and I named it Doc 009? We'll have a separate Director and Council running the protocol. Let's not even attempt this. :p
Well we would have a director running the council running the protocol. Obviously not if both would be doc 009, because than it would be the last document that gets ratified ;)
We have a potential win-win situation here. Don't mess with it. Vote for this proposal if you want a Director, and we'll have it. Don't vote for this proposal and we'll put the exact same structure up, but with a council.
Okay that works as well obviously. Both votes need 60%, so we could still have a stalemate.
 
How the compromise would work:

1. The current proposal would be changed to the "Leader Proposal"
2. The "leader proposal" would allow the leader that was elected to implement their cabinet as they see fit as well as delegate power as they chose.

So, @WB could run as a "Leader" and then build your council via elections and distribute decision-making power accordingly.
And, @Niels Klomp could run as "Leader" and implement a traditional, proven management approach.

We have been deadlocked for months now and wasted hundreds and hundreds of hours. This approach resolves the deadlock.

@WB @Jason Gregoire @Mike Buckingham For the sake of the protocol, will you please join me in compromise so we can just let the standing parties decide in a head-to-head vote? As proven multiple times, this 60% voting barrier is absolutely killing us. This is the fairest compromise we're going to find.
 
As proven multiple times, this 60% voting barrier is absolutely killing us. This is the fairest compromise we're going to find.
This doesn't work simply because the ranked vote deadlocked as well. It didn't have a 60% barrier, but still ended in a draw (again, being kind here).

This is faster and more focused on the topic at hand. The outcome here immediately dismisses one option and based on the ranked vote, any subsequent vote (if needed) needs to pass because people indicated their second choice. Especially if there's been compromise in structure.

Elections will be about many things, but not about this central question.
 
Genuine question: How is this much different than voting for a director versus council approach? Apart from skipping the election for a director in case Niels gets elected?
If proposed as a Governance proposal (like this one), we need 60% approval to pass. Same with the old committee/steering council approach. We've been deadlocked at 50% for a few months now.

However, if we pass a proposal that allows a leader to craft their own cabinet/decision-making process, then we can have different "Leaders" with different styles run in an election.

As @WB points out, yes it can still end in a tie. But, I'd argue that the ranked vote was an "in theory" vote. People didn't know @Niels Klomp was going to run as Director. Also, people have no idea who these council members would be (serious question: Do we even have 3 people interested in sitting on the council???).

So, do we want to take our chances trying to get a 60% vote and spend more months doing it? Or, do we want a friendly model that allows for a runoff (especially when a current ANO is about to get kicked out of the authority set, putting us at an odd number of ANOs)?
 
Fair enough. So in essence we we would create a clever way to circumvent our governance requirement for a 60% approval. Could work.

It does raise one question however: If the "leader" changes in 9 months, can we then expect governance to change fundamentally with that person? I get that we need to break the deadlock and maybe having a leader with 50% support could work to simply get things moving. But eventually we should get firm on one approach or the other. If we have a codified council/director we can change out persons without removing the other council members/supporting roles, respectively.
 
It does raise one question however: If the "leader" changes in 9 months, can we then expect governance to change fundamentally with that person? I get that we need to break the deadlock and maybe having a leader with 50% support could work to simply get things moving. But eventually we should get firm on one approach or the other. If we have a codified council/director we can change out persons without removing the other council members/supporting roles, respectively.
I'd argue it actually makes us more flexible. Instead of forcing us into months of largely useless forum debate that most people don't read (and endless deadlock) like we are enduring now, we can pivot quickly if need to. If things are going good, then we don't need to pivot. When we get big enough, then yes, we'll want tighter governance. But, I have a novel idea, how about we actually get big first?!

We're a small, borderline failing protocol. We need to move fast and use agility to our advantage. Sadly though, we are the slowest moving protocol in existence. We get outrun by glaciers.
 
I'd argue it actually makes us more flexible. Instead of forcing us into months of largely useless forum debate that most people don't read (and endless deadlock) like we are enduring now, we can pivot quickly if need to.
and that's why I said "and maybe having a leader with 50% support could work to simply get things moving" :) I am not much against the idea, just trying to make some predictions on where it will brings on what we should then do. More or less seems like we agree.
 
I entirely support this compromise. Lets let anyone who wants to craft what their version of the factom government looks like come to the table, and we will have a straight vote on it and live with the outcome. Their proposal will include delegation of tasks, as well as voting weight, to any "cabinet" members. I think this is the way and I am comfortable with that plan moving forward.
 
I am fine either way tbh. Problem is more that this thread will see the ratification poll in a few days and given the lack of interaction by ANOs in governance threads I doubt a leadership vote would take place first
@niels If the Council supporters decide to support a true compromise (the "Leadership" runoff approach), then we shouldn't have any problems getting it passed. The votes are easily there. So, I guess it's up to @WB and other council supporters in regards to if we want a true compromise so we can move forward, or if we want to continue being stuck in this tar pit.

For the sake of the protocol, I vote for the compromise.
 
If the Council supporters decide to support a true compromise (the "Leadership" runoff approach), then we shouldn't have any problems getting it passed. The votes are easily there. So, I guess it's up to @WB and other council supporters in regards to if we want a true compromise so we can move forward, or if we want to continue being stuck in this tar pit.
There's a reason we have 60%. It's to ensure there's enough buy-in for implementation and future related decisions. I think moving away from that and settling this kind of political/leadership system at the mercy of an electoral plurality vote (most votes wins) is very dangerous.

If we even assume two candidates and an achieved quorum - it could end 5/4/1 (director, council, abstain). That means five people voted for the Director structure/candidate and it wins. What if there are four candidates with a different structure each? That leads to even more dilution. Your chosen system risks being representative of a very small minority.

There's also the 'neutrality' of any discussion, because mixing this with an election will muddy the waters more than it does now. Candidate suitability becomes a real thing. What if someone discovered the perfect structure, but is not suitable as a candidate? What if someone's an amazing candidate, but the structure is weak?

Again, this is already a runoff vote. Vote for it if you want a Director, with Niels being the only candidate. Vote against if you want the same structure, but with a council. In that light, you could just change your proposal to be structure-agnostic already. Don't really need anyone's support, but I don't recommend it.
 
Last edited:
If we even assume two candidates and an achieved quorum - it could end 5/4/1 (director, council, abstain).
This is technically true of any election where there are two candidates, which makes your argument entirely moot.

Option 1: Vidale and his council
Option 2: Niels/Director approach

Two candidates, two different approaches (that can both live under the same "Leadership" doc 008 Governance). Not really different than any other election, really.
 
@WB
Since compromise is apparently off the table, I guess let's get back to "hashing this out."

One of the issues with the original Steering Council/Committee approach was that barely anyone wanted to sit on committees. We also had no idea who was interested in sitting on the Steering Council. As you referenced in your previous post, "structure" and "candidate" are very important. Other than yourself, we have no idea who would sit on the Council.

1. It looks like you decided to not include the "C Level Executive" that you were talking about earlier. Can you confirm this?

2. I'm assuming that you'll run for the Governance council seat. Who does the protocol have that has expressed interest in the Technology Council seat or the Marketing Council seat?

Thanks
 
This is technically true of any election where there are two candidates, which makes your argument entirely moot.
Sure. And that's why candidates are generally restricted to one thing. A person. Or an option. Not both.

We're subjecting these elections to a term. So not only are we risking a structure (with oversight, treasury systems) with minority support. We're also risking changing it around every x months. And then we also risk substituting a solid structure for a sexy, new, charismatic candidate with a structure that leaves a lot to be desired for and might not even fit any new tokenomics.

Again, you're totally fine to change this into a leadership-agnostic proposal. I just don't think it'll change much for me personally.

1. It looks like you decided to not include the "C Level Executive" that you were talking about earlier. Can you confirm this?
A council should at least hold someone with this type of experience. Or the council recruits an interim manager with that kind of experience into a separate role (e.g. 'Director of Operations'). There can be many roles depending on what the council itself is deficient in, I didn't think you wanted me to outline them all. The good thing here is that such a separate role can be shielded from much accountability to the rest of the community unless needed. The council would assume that accountability instead.

I'm assuming that you'll run for the Governance council seat. Who does the protocol have that has expressed interest in the Technology Council seat or the Marketing Council seat?
I don't know. As long as there's one person in the council, they can be vacant spots? That's also why I suggested the Oversight Group needs to be holding these elections, and not the Director/Council, so a one-person Council/Director can't 'hold on to the power' and the seats get filled fairly over time.

Do we have five people who expressed interest in being a treasurer? Or in the Oversight Working Group? Who do we have for a Director role if Niels quits or something happens to him? I'd say a Council has better continuity and is ultimately easier to recruit.

If you want, we can draw up a possible model under a council structure that touches on all this (in line with the earlier compromise I posted). Maybe even reduce the amount of manpower needed (treasurers, etc).
 
Do we have five people who expressed interest in being a treasurer? Or in the Oversight Working Group? Who do we have for a Director role if Niels quits or something happens to him? I'd say a Council has better continuity and is ultimately easier to recruit.
1. Treasurers: Worst case, we have zero treasurers and hardcode payouts directly into monthly or bi-monthly software upgrades. So, no issue here other than we get slowed down a bit.

2. Oversight Committee: Yes, I will sit on it if need be, although I prefer not to. I know of one other person who also would. So, not too worried about finding a third. However, keep in mind that a minimum number is not established, only a maximum (5). So, no issue here.

3. Director: Well, Maarten would step-up. @Colin Campbell also expressed interest, just not this quarter. Traditionally, if you look at the millions of companies in existence, when they lose a leader, they are typically able to fill the role. So, I don't see filling the Director role as being much different.

I don't know. As long as there's one person in the council, they can be vacant spots? That's also why I suggested the Oversight Group needs to be holding these elections, and not the Director/Council, so a one-person Council/Director can't 'hold on to the power' and the seats get filled fairly over time.
The Director proposal gives the Oversight Working Group the power to override the Director on the matter of running elections. Therefore, the true power when it comes to running elections resides with the Oversight Working Group. This has previously been pointed to you. I'm not sure why you continue with this false assumption.
 
@WB
Getting back to the council... Is the below correct? Please correct me if I am wrong, thank you.

1. We don't know who if anyone is interested in running for a Council position (other than yourself)

2. You, nor anyone else to your knowledge, has reached out to people to see if we have any qualified people interested in sitting on the council

3. There are no leads/prospects for the C Level Executive that you would suggest the Council hire

4. We could have a council with only one member, entirely defeating the purpose of a council
 
The Director proposal gives the Oversight Working Group the power to override the Director on the matter of running elections. Therefore, the true power when it comes to running elections resides with the Oversight Working Group.
Just for optics alone, you don't let a Director/Council be responsible for the elections. Have we learned nothing?

Overriding sounds great, but then you need to be able to guarantee the Working Group functionally exists at all times (or is formed on time before an election) with sufficient membership. If we can't do that, it's just a risk.

Traditionally, if you look at the millions of companies in existence, when they lose a leader, they are typically able to fill the role. So, I don't see filling the Director role as being much different.
1. That's right. Not in this topic anyway.
2. I admit I have nothing for outreach, would @Colin Campbell ever consider it? I know @Hinamatsuri was interested in the Outreach committee, though this would be a step up. I'd be interested too. For governance, I'd ultimately want to get a lead at Maastricht University (law, corporate governance). Maybe W&M depending on how they progress. Even if I'd have to give up my own spot, if I had one. For tech, I have an interested management lead (award-winning data exchange platform). Because they're external, I really have no interest in disclosing them if we don't have the structure.

Regarding 3 & 4:

All of this talk about wanting to run things like a company, but here I am giving the ELI5. I'll tell you how companies fill leadership positions. They have a recruiting process. They use their network (which is what I am doing) or draw up a profile of their preferred candidate, and post it as a vacancy. The board (ANOs) then interviews the candidates, and/or approve one if they agree.

We've never had a recruiting process. Never posted a single vacancy. Not for Guides. Not for testnet admins. Probably hardly ever posted them on Reddit. No, what we do is ask around in a topic, swiftly conclude we have no candidates, preferably before we even hold elections, and then just ditch the role entirely.

There's nothing wrong with having an open seat if we by any chance have 2/3 council seats filled. If anything, it means we'll have something worthwhile to publish.
 
We've never had a recruiting process. Never posted a single vacancy. Not for Guides. Not for testnet admins. Probably hardly ever posted them on Reddit. No, what we do is ask around in a topic, swiftly conclude we have no candidates, preferably before we even hold elections, and then just ditch the role entirely.
What would have been the point to go outside ? We never really had the means to pay anyone adequately so we had to really on token holders.

The ask price for Niels being a director is pretty "cheap" considering the value he can/could bring to the table. There is no guarantee FCT is going to recover, so 40k FCT for his time and connections looks good to me.

Could the people in favor of a steering council provide us with their vision AND salaries they would expect, so that we can clearly consider both propositions ?
 
You can have three people interested, but maybe only two get elected?
How is completely overhauling our Governance in favor of a completely untested model and then only having one person interested in sitting on a three-man council a good thing?

If that's actually a possibility, the Council idea should have been instantly placed in the category of, "this idea is not feasible due to lack of resources. Next idea." This is exactly why I had a multi-week thread for people to informally nominate Directors, and then I reached out to people that had been nominated (like you) to make sure that the Director approach was even feasible.
 
"Wait what? The council/director wants a secretary? Is anyone even interested?"

"Wait what? Sphereon is looking for a mobile developer? Is anyone even interested?"

I guess it's all about perspective. You either portray it as a sign of growth and opportunity, or as something negative. You can be left with open seats for a lot of reasons. Someone resigns and there's no immediate replacement. An election didn't make it. Maybe a new seat is added or changed.
 
"Wait what? Sphereon is looking for a mobile developer? Is anyone even interested?"
Totally off-topic: if you know some next to senior full stack developers send them my way please 😛

Back on topic. 3 to 4 months is the absolute minimal period you typically can get new hires working for you in the tech industry in NL.

Btw also a bit towards this question. Yes people are interested, except we have a pretty high bar and IT people are in demand. We pay 15k and upwards to recruitment companies to get people on board. That is simply to hire talent and we are a lucky company because we do cool tech
 
Last edited:
Btw we totally agree in the fact there is no hiring process ever done. Which is really odd, because how do you expect to find the right people in the right areas without having the proper foundation for that first.

We also agree networks are going to be a big help. I can start boasting about all the national and international parties in mine in central governments, local governments, eu commission representatives, eu development programs, academia, non-profit, businesses, financials, Healthcare, education and all kinds of interests and technology groups, but I rather have actual concreet results speak for themselves instead of saying who i would be approaching (because that list is rather long).

I rather have results like the South Korean Konkuk University doing/developing Factom credentials on the protocol for their students and together with their students. A project for which we have received nothing and for which we have put in expertise and hours for several months. Simply to help enabling blockchain for a good cause (education in general with a focus on education for people who would be left behind in an increasing highly educated society).

If people start using their networks to get the ball rolling after changes have happend then there is a big enough chance we will make it.
 
Btw we totally agree in the fact there is no hiring process ever done. Which is really odd, because how do you expect to find the right people in the right areas without having the proper foundation for that first.
100%

Things won't be perfect. But let's get a supported foundation that is capable of creating these processes. I've never found the staffing question very interesting at all. It will take time for some positions, it will take less time for others. Use your network or get that vacancy out (through an agency or not). If we're lacking quality, a solid recruiting process will add quality to hires over time.

Could the people in favor of a steering council provide us with their vision AND salaries they would expect, so that we can clearly consider both propositions ?
Okay, let's cut to the fundamental dichotomy here.

The real vote here is if we want someone like Niels in charge so he can get things done, but still have him answer directly to the community. Or if we want a proposal where that role is absorbed into a slightly larger entity, which can offset a single person's negative qualities.

So if people are willing, let’s see if we can rally behind the below and make it part of the current vote (clean it up, sort out details, acccept some clunkiness, and integrate). I would be very happy with this kind of structure. If not, we’ll reserve it for a vote if this one fails. Important is that we also acknowledge the proposed token model so we have all the pieces we need to empower this structure into action.

Five principles:

1. Structure that is representative of the community and therefore lower in conflict.
2. Effective oversight
3. ANOs still have ultimate authority
4. No ANOs in day-to-day operations
5. KISS (keep it simple, stupid)


Overview:

For comparison to a traditional structure: a majority shareholder (ANOs) appoints a board (council). The board installs and oversees management for day-to-day ops (Director of Operations). The board is accountable to the shareholders. Management is accountable to the board but with a great deal of autonomy.

This satisfies all five principles - so to me, it represents a very good compromise between what all parties are truly seeking.

Remember what I said earlier:

Or the council recruits an interim manager with that kind of experience into a separate role (e.g. 'Director of Operations'). There can be many roles depending on what the council itself is deficient in, I didn't think you wanted me to outline them all. The good thing here is that such a separate role can be shielded from much accountability to the rest of the community unless needed. The council would assume that accountability instead.
1. The council would be more active than a regular board. At least initially, because there's so much to do. We still have the designated seats. Task them with strategic partnerships, exchanges, community engagement.

2. The council shouldn't get much compensation beyond a symbolic amount. I'd do it for $700 in FCT a month. Maybe between $0-2000 (in FCT). Pay the Director a much higher base compensation ($40k a year in FCT) plus bonus proportional to achievement. If anything, both the Council and Director can share the same bonus payment when they hit objectives. It would align incentives (participation and teamwork).

3. ANOs hold ultimate authority. They're a majority shareholder and therefore appoint and oversee the council. In the future, we can expand that ring to include tokenholders, users, etc. This immediately reduces the role of an ANO/Standing Party into something very simple. They can form an additional Oversight group for more active monitoring and adherence to any conflict of interest policies.

4. All the regular work (committees) continues and will likely see alignment. But there's no default expectation to participate.

5. We don't really need treasurers, we can just give the council a budget for token mints up to a certain ceiling. Require SP approval for larger mints. A lot of options here. Not a major obstacle. Like I said before, there are no perfect proposals but let's perfect it as we go along.
 
Btw also a bit towards this question. Yes people are interested, except we have a pretty high bar and IT people are in demand.
Yep, it's very hard. When I worked at a startup incubator, meetings regularly involved just one topic: how do we lure developers here when we don't have a big budget? I don't recall ever finding a satisfactory answer other than offering free office space (plenty of that to go around). Money talks, but so does the nature of the project. Not many were really doing ground-breaking stuff.
 
1. The council would be more active than a regular board. At least initially, because there's so much to do. We still have the designated seats. Task them with strategic partnerships, exchanges, community engagement.
This raises some issues. If the council has to play this active role and do strategic partnerships, exchanges and community, how will you keep it from interfering with the director?

5. We don't really need treasurers, we can just give the council a budget for token mints up to a certain ceiling. Require SP approval for larger mints. A lot of options here. Not a major obstacle. Like I said before, there are no perfect proposals but let's perfect it as we go along.
Why are you suddenly trying to implement a free running money press through the back door? We could have treasurers or have regular hard coded grants for all expenses at regular intervals. There are many options for not letting the supply float freely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top