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.
@WB and @Mike Buckingham
I'm thinking that we write into the proposal that a board is to be formed after 9 months. Is this a compromise you can accept?

Thank you
Definitely makes sense. It even would be viable to hand over more reigns at that point in time. Basically the board right now handing the assignment to the director to get the protocol on its feet in 9 months, and then the board next to that assignment becoming responsible for different areas of the protocol. I would be totally fine with that. As I would be fine with limiting the seat to 2 or even 1 term, as I always have seen this as an interim management type of job. In a traditional environment there still is a board that is not a representation of an even bigger body (ANOs). They also typically bring in an interim manager to bring the change and give that manager the backing, without getting to sit on his/her chair in day to day operations. You need autonomy to make real change fast enough.

People that might be unaware of what interim management means:
 
The board helps because ANOs are prone to weak oversight. It also helps because a board is a better soundboard for a Director than 18+ parties with widely divergent opinions. It also helps because it shields the Director from being accountable directly to the stakeholders, which is especially important when we're getting some unpopular decisions. Like I said yesterday, I think this is the ideal compromise.

So this is what we need from the start. Not after 9 months.
As mentioned, having the board from the start is totally fine. As long as the role of the board in that period is overseeing the interim management part we need at this point. That the board becomes responsible for Tech, Marketing, Outreach, Legal and what not after that makes sense, because the plans for that should have already been set in motion by then.

I am not at all against accounting. I rather have a smaller delegation doing some soundboarding and overseeing work with regards to bringing change. As long as the lines from how to do that job are not crossed, unless the approach would be wildly out of line of course ;)
 
As mentioned, having the board from the start is totally fine. As long as the role of the board in that period is overseeing the interim management part we need at this point. That the board becomes responsible for Tech, Marketing, Outreach, Legal and what not after that makes sense, because the plans for that should have already been set in motion by then.
I think at this point it's best to just put something codified in place that represents this. Then we let you look at it. Is that something you want to handle, @Matt Osborne ?
 
Update: @WB and I talked over Discord

1. Vidale is going to take the lead and craft the first draft of a section that incorporated the board.
2. When the draft is complete, I'll make comments, etc.
3. We'll then provide the updated document to everyone, assuming everything lines up.

We are up against the gun and must extend this discussion ASAP. Otherwise, we won't be able to get the enhancements into the document before it goes to vote. So, please vote to extend this discussion immediately.
 
I think having the board and the director is a good approach for the protocol.

My thoughts:

1. From my experience of participating in different workgroups, the board should not be too large, otherwise people are not actively participating. I would suggest 6 people board + 1 director

2. Board members should be compensated as well (not big amount of money, of course, the compensation is needed to keep people involved in management on daily basis)

3. Director and board members are elected and re-elected (for the future periods) by ANOs

4. We should use Factom Protocol forum (or maybe Reddit is better to show that protocol is alive?) for public communications and discussions by the board members and director.
 
1. From my experience of participating in different workgroups, the board should not be too large, otherwise people are not actively participating. I would suggest 6 people board + 1 director
That is rather a large number at this point. Also we need to define whether a director would become an internal or external director. Meaning whether the director in the future is executive and outside of the board, together with other executives, or whether he/she is the chairman and inside the board. As explained the interim period (9 months max), needs to basically get us into a full fledged structure, where a proper board of directors is also setup and has its roles and mandate defined.

2. Board members should be compensated as well (not big amount of money, of course, the compensation is needed to keep people involved in management on daily basis)
Agreed on the remuneration. It really is not management on a daily basis at this point though. That is something to be decided for the future. If it really becomes day to day management, then you need proper remuneration in order to have the right people do the job.

3. Director and board members are elected and re-elected (for the future periods) by ANOs
I would leave out as much restrictions. Yes elections are necessary. Yes we probably need maximum terms, whether it really needs to be ANOs is something that needs to be seen. We need to move into a direction where other stakeholders start getting involved as well.

4. We should use Factom Protocol forum (or maybe Reddit is better to show that protocol is alive?) for public communications and discussions by the board members and director.
The board as well as the director in the interim period will provide regular updates. The director also typically has confidential info about partnerships, communications etc. That is really not something that you want out in the open. The board is exactly there to ensure oversight and have insight into what is going on. The information that can be disclossed will be disclosed at regular intervals. Using reddit and/or the forum makes total sense for that.
 
That is rather a large number at this point.
Yep. 6 being a representation of essentially 18 parties is a lot. Yes this should also include tokenholders, users, but we have no immediate mechanisms for those just yet. Hence why we should start with a low number, work on integrating more stakeholders, and then the board can just add another seat.

Agreed on the remuneration. It really is not management on a daily basis at this point though. That is something to be decided for the future. If it really becomes day to day management, then you need proper remuneration in order to have the right people do the job.
There should be a symbolic, low compensation for starting board members to be reflective of the active oversight, resourcing and communication they'll be providing. Maybe introduce a ceiling and let board members choose whatever they want below it.

The board as well as the director in the interim period will provide regular updates. The director also typically has confidential info about partnerships, communications etc. That is really not something that you want out in the open.
I agree here. We want the Director to be able to have no-nonsense talks with a board that might also include sensitive information. Similar case being the exchange group. So ideally what I want to see is the director chiefly communicates with the board, and the board conveys it to the stakeholders with whatever policy it develops.

_______

There's been excellent progress on the new draft yesterday. Very few issues remain, but I'm also monitoring some of the feedback here.
 
Last edited:
Thank You for everyone's patience!

Great news, we were able to find a middle ground and put together a document that we think will work for everyone.

Huge thanks to @WB for taking the lead on this revamp.

Here is the updated document. I would suggest reading through it in its entirety.

Note: I am editing my initial post of this thread to point to the new Doc 008.
 
This has been very constructive. I support this proposal and to me it satisfies the five principles I outlined earlier this week.

It solves concerns I had about continuity. If a Director steps down, instead of falling back to nothing we have an entity (council) that likely persists and is tasked with protecting the long-term interests of the protocol. That same Council plays a large role in Director appointments, allowing for effective recruiting policy. The Director has a great deal of autonomy in strategy and carrying out the day-to-day and will have an easier time consulting with a small council than with 18+ ANOs. Meanwhile, ANOs still have ultimate authority.

A lot of the dynamics here will be explored and discovered as we do this. That was always inevitable. Given the time constraints we were under, and the need to finally make change happen, I'm happy.
 
Section 3.2.1.6.1
If 70% of ANOs vote to disapprove the allocation, then the Council will not disperse funds for Director’s desired initiative
It should be "If a minimum of 70%..." or "If at least 70%..."

Section 3.2.1.6.2
If 70% of ANOs fail to approve the allocation, then the Council will disperse funds in accordance with the Director’s initiative
Should this be "If a minimum of 70% of ANOs fail to disapprove"?
 
Thanks for taking a close look at the doc @Alex

It should be "If a minimum of 70%..." or "If at least 70%..."
Should this be "If a minimum of 70% of ANOs fail to disapprove"?
3.2.1.6.1 reworded to: "If a minimum of 70% of ANOs vote to disapprove the allocation, then the council will not disburse funds for the Director’s desired initiative. Any other result shall mean that the Council shall disburse funds for the Director's desired initiative."

3.2.1.6.2 deleted

Sections 3.3.5.3 and 3.3.5.4 should perhaps be subsections of 3.3.5.2.
Updated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top