Successful [WB-1] Continued Governance Work

[Chappie]

This is your grant tracking thread. Below, you will find information from your original grant.

Grant Proposal

Funded - [WB-1] Continued Governance Work

Executive Summary As someone who has become very familiar with Factom documents and governance, I commit to active governance work for the next three months. I will be available to assist in all governance matters, continue work on a Governance Committee under the documents most recently...

forum.factomprotocol.org

Team Member or Entity Forum Username
User: WB
FCT address: FA3Cac5xkEgvZc5uc3gWLhMK4CAvbw9Gi47FsFXydXEcBv3gcyDG
FCT: 1800

Total FCT Requested
1800

Start Date
2020-11-11

Completion Date
2021-02-11

Success Criteria
This is difficult, because generally not all of my suggestions will be desirable, making it hard to define any real success criteria like actually getting something ratified. Overall, I think my past efforts have been handled very fairly and honestly, and so I'd define success as maintaining:

Active community presence
Active governance work

Timelines and Milestones
Monthly update to keep the community informed.

Budget
I am asking for 1800 FCT at $1. This is purposely copied from the Guide payments.

 

[Chappie]

@WB

Today is your grant start date! We look forward to regular updates from your team.

When you are ready for the final determination poll, first summarize the grant and self score then go to the thread tools dropdown at the top right and select "Create Final Determination Poll".

 

[WB]

Time for an update!

1. Council framework

My early work was spent drafting the council framework. As a brief synopsis, the framework installs lower-barrier-to-entry bodies that nominate (but not appoint) a council with a large vote in the protocol. Separate process docs (for strategy, grants) would have distributed clear & powerful mandates following community discussion. That’s really it. This adds a great deal of flexibility, but overall I’ve come to understand that this flexibility is misunderstood or unclear.

Common feedback, after all, seems to be that the framework is rigid, creating ‘bulky, indecisive’ committees with uncertain membership and lacking strong mandates. This seems to stem from an unfortunate mix-up between the original GWG proposal and the framework as it exists now. The latter is vastly more light-weight and allows for mandates just fine. For example:

• A committee charter ultimately decides what a committee does, not the framework itself. If we approve a charter that a committee only helps monitor a council rep, then that’s all it does. At the same time, any mandates not placed or desired by a Council can stay with committees.
• The framework allows for any grant system (even if I’d disagree). Council with full control over roadmap, direction and rolling grants, for example.

The framework may have to be more explicit in this. Possible suggestions include installing strong council mandates (grants, hiring) directly in the framework and having less focus on committees. This would be more for optics, but I underestimated that impact in discussions. Note to self: Less detail, more flashy one-liners.

2. W&M research

I read and commented on the W&M research by @TroyWiipongwii. The general gist is that it looks at the different 'contracts' (rewards) we use in Factom - and with some digging it's not hard to see that there's a mismatch between them. I suggested some actions to take, but it's really something for later when we can take more decisive action.

Research like this rarely presents a clear path forward, but instead serves as validation for what we mostly knew, which can be just as powerful to make change happen.

3. Minor governance work

There's actually a decent amount of cleaning up to do across all documents. Examples that come to mind are removing separate vote procedures and reduce them to the Doc 002 standards, and tackling some standing changes. I was banking on creating a mandated governance committee to do this more swiftly.

4. Legal/academia outreach

This was also contingent on the creation of a governance committee or a governance rep - so for now I'm putting this on hold.

5. Governance discussion

I participated in some of the recent governance discussions, and will continue to do so. Overall I'm glad change is on the horizon, but I'll push for what I believe is the right change.

 

[WB]

Final update:

1. Council framework

This has been quite a ride. No one's oblivious to the details here, so there's little need to list it all again. This has evolved from a committee-selected council to a directly-appointed council, to a directly-appointed council (board) that nominates an autonomous Director for the day-to-day (except for the first interim appointment).

All parties have always been closer together than the public discourse insinuated. It was just a matter of overcoming factionalism to meet in the middle. As long as the middle makes sense. The outcome here is very promising and while not perfect due to time constraints, should at least catapult us towards some progress.

2. Minor governance work

I helped organize the multi-stage ranked vote. In my opinion, it was crucial to help us merge both competing governance proposals to get something that satisfies a large majority. In the end, the council+director proposal passed unanimously.

I'm currently still hosting the Director elections. It's not a very exciting election. What I still need to do is figure out what the process is for voting for a single candidate. In the past, single-candidate elections sometimes automatically 'gave the win', but I do feel ANOs still need to vote in some way. It may just stay as a plurality vote (most votes wins, but the options are yes/no) and have it hit quorum.

3. Further governance work

I did not apply for a new governance grant, so my activity will/has decrease(d) but I will consider running for a council position when the elections start in due time.

As the grant concluded four days ago, I'll start a success determination poll and self-rate it 8/10.

 

[Chappie]

The final determination poll has been created, and will be open for 5 days. Use the following rubrik when scoring:

Exceptional (9.0 - 10.0) - Successful
Overachieved (7.0 - 8.9) - Successful
Achieved (5.0 - 6.9) - Successful
Underachieved (2.0 - 4.9) - Failure
Total Failure (0.0 - 1.9) - Failure

 

[Mike Buckingham]

Having seen and been involved with the work that WB (@Vidale) has been doing I can testify to the professionalism, thoroughness and diligence in getting comprehensive and challenging governance development done in a difficult environment. He has been adept at working this through to a point where the community stands a better chance of cohesion than it has done in the past.

 

[Chappie]

The final determination poll has now closed. The final score is 8.69, with 13 total counted votes. The grant has been determined to be successful.