Committee Refactor Proposal

Greetings Folks,

For the most part, the Committees are ghost towns (I currently have access to all of them). Marketing and Use Case see the most activity but progress there is slow. I suspect issues include being extremely busy with other work, lack of motivation by some due to FCT price, and/or lack of leadership. I also suspect a big one is what we refer to in the forum world as "forum dilution". Forum dilution is the effect you see what a forum admin creates too many subforums and there's not enough activity in them to spur ongoing discussion. As I say, nobody wants to join a ghost town but many are happy to join a burgeoning village.

As I take part in discussions, I have become increasingly aware that there is significant operational overlap between Committees yet efficient lines of communication are not present. For example, there will often need to be coordination between Strategy and Marketing or Use Case, Marketing, and Strategy.

I have a proposal to increase activity and operational efficiency:

1. Merge Marketing, Use Case, Strategy, and Exchange. Rename it, "Marketing, Use Case, Strategy, and Exchange Committee"

2. Merge Governance and Legal, and add "Documentation" to it and rename it, "Governance, Legal, and Documentation Committee"

3. Merge Core, Technical, and Code Deployment and Network and rename it to, "Core, Technical, and Code Deployment Committee"

4. I believe it was @Neo who suggested have one representative from reach ANO have access. I like the idea but propose we take it a step further:

A. Setup permissions where all members of ANOs have access to each Committee Forum but that doesn't make them MEMBERS of the Committee.
B. Let members of the ANOs step up on their own to be MEMBERS of the Committee. Chair, Secretary, Treasurer, Member.
C. One ANO proposed lowering their efficiency to be chair of a committee. In talking to others behind the scenes, I didn't hear much support for such a move but did hear support for future grants on specific items (that doesn't mean that ANO can't continue their request to lower their efficiency of course). For example, if a Committee comes up with X idea that will require a lot of work on the part of committee members, they create a grant that explains the goals and how to get there, requests additional compensation for those members, and funds the idea is funded if Standing Parties agree to it.

In the future, if these Committees become too busy, THEN we split them off into smaller Committees once efficient lines of communication are setup between them since there will always be some operational overlap and need for coordination.

I am tagging @gforst @Neo @xavierwjc @Matter of Fact @brooke @KiwiWithLazerEyes @HashnStore as they've been more active in the Committees area (sorry if I missed anyone!) but welcome all input.

If there is any support, I am happy to then bring this idea up during the ANO monthly meeting.
Last edited:
I agree completely with forum dilution. There are multiple points channels within the Factom Discord and then to find info here I find myself sifting, searching and sometimes moving on. Of course the market will always play a role with engagement; we're seeing this across the board from socials, communities, trading volume, etc.

So the merge is proposing three different committees?

Up until this point, were members from ANOs not able to step up?
I’m all for increasing “operational efficiency” and believe @DChapman has put forth a viable solution and I support it. I know from our side...its a time issue. I believe that it would be worth some inquiry to see if other members of the community at large had any interest in filling the spots as the official Chair, Secretary, Treasurer of the committees...out of the gate. IMO it would bode well for future applicants to be entrenched in the committees....
I like this.

One change I would make to this plan is keeping Strategy, maybe Strategy/Use_Case its own committee.

Strategy is a focused, step by step committee laying out a long term vision, whereas Marketing/Exchange seems a little more free form. Additionally, we already have an extremely well thought out roadmap for the strategy committee that its only a matter of executing on. Im hesitant to restructure that committees processes, and think it makes a good stand alone.
I like this.

One change I would make to this plan is keeping Strategy, maybe Strategy/Use_Case its own committee.
I agree with @Julianft that merging the Marketing, Use Case, Strategy, and Exchange committees might be too disruptive at the expense of maintaining the clear focus of each committee. Alternatively, we could merge Marketing with Exchanges, and Strategy with Use Cases. Both of these pairs have overlapping responsibilities that complement each other.
I agree the committees are probably too granular at this point in time.

The merge would significantly widen the scope of each committee and I agree that lack of leadership was probably causing some of the slow progress, so it's going to be essential in this proposed structure.

In regards to interest in filling roles out of the gate I could be interested in Treasurer.


Crypto Logic
Also support the refactoring of the Committees. The suggestion looks like a good option. We believe leadership of the committees will be important going forward and hope parts of the community will step up to take on those roles.


Block Party
I’m not sure making the committees broader is the right medicine. I think the problem is that we haven’t clearly defined their roles and responsibilities within the overall governance structure. For any committee to be effective, you have to define the desired inputs and outputs – i.e. what are they supposed to achieve? Committees should only exist when they are deemed the most efficient way to execute a given task. The problem is, we haven’t defined that task.

If the goal is more discussion, then broadening the committees may help, but if the goal is more effective action, we probably need to define their function more specifically. This should also help with operational efficiency. By clearly defining what each committee is responsible for, it should reduce the overlap.
I think we need to have the discussions first, before enacting into governance. I think it would help to have broader committees to facilitate more inclusive discussion for defining the scope, but proper leadership is key. Here’s how it could work with a chairperson for each committee -
  1. Chairpersons could drive the discussion around defining their committee’s scope and in turn have this ratified into governance
  2. Chairpersons could preside over sub-committees i.e. the current committees remain as sub-committees of the broader committees
  3. Chairpersons hold meetings, delegate work and report back at ANO meetings
Each committee should be run effectively & efficiently with proper leadership, especially if the grant system is to be utilized.


Block Party
Agreed on the points about a chairperson. I should clarify that I don't mean governance in the strict sense of something that is codified in the governance document. That definitely shouldn't stop us from moving forward with committees. I mean governance more in a loose sense of what the committee is designed to achieve within the broader community. We have to define that for them to be effective. If people on a committee don't know what they're there to do, then they're not going to get anything done.