Amendment Batched Amendment – New Committee Framework

Should the document be ratified or amended as specified by the thread type?


All votes are in

  • Total voters
    18
  • Poll closed .
Factom Community,

I am pleased to submit this document ratification-amendment discussion on behalf of @WB and the Governance Implementation Group.

This batched amendment introduces two updated documents. Both have already been released publicly and although there has been no feedback, we believe the majority are aware of the contents. This post will try to keep to the salient point.


The two documents effectively introduce the new committee framework. What that framework enables is the following:
1. Better stakeholder management
a. Doc 001 has been redesigned to be more inclusive as a proper introduction to Factom governance.​
b. Adds a community secretary for information sharing.​
c. Wider stakeholder involvement. Committee membership is open without technical requirements, allowing participation in representative decision-making through the introduction of a Steering Council that follows standing committee recommendations.​
d. This resonates very well with the upcoming W&M research that examines Factom’s stakeholder management through agency theory.​

2. Better decisiveness

The Steering Council represents the breadth of committee opinions with a single vote. This is VERY strong for cohesion, rather than committees each voting separately and differently; which would only shift our current issues (conflict).​

3. Stronger committees

The involvement of committees in decision-making not only adds incentive, it allows for stronger mandates. By now, the need for dedicated, strong committees is more evident than ever. Governance participation is generally very low, so a mandated governance committee (for minor edits / QOL improvements), for example, has never made more sense. It also paves the way for better defined ANO expectations.​

4. Current committees can continue

They’ll be ad-hoc committees under this new Doc 006. They won’t have council representation and will need to seek oversight by a Standing Committee. What this does is enable a transitional phase, which is important for e.g. the Website Committee as it still has dedicated documentation.​


This framework is based on the GWG proposal, but has changed in a number of ways based on all the discussion we’ve had.
Most notably:

1. There are only three Standing Committees: Governance, Outreach and Technology. No more Diagnostics.​
2. Executive Committee renamed into Steering Council​
3. Council representatives aren’t installed and removed at will by the committee, but are nominated and need confirmation by Standing Parties. They’re also not elected as Officers, because an election implies a real choice. A Standing Committee only nominates one person for one seat. There would be no opponents.​
4. Standing Committees need to maintain an ACTIVE charter for Council representation. This keeps the Council from being unchecked and representing dead committees.​
5. This framework adds NO specific workload for Standing Committees. It suggests compliance with other docs (standing system, grant system) but those docs are still unchanged.​
6. The Steering Council has a 32% vote, the Authority Set is capped at 68%; distributed pro rata by the number of ANOs. The Steering Council casts a single vote (multi-sig when eventually voting on-chain). This model is one of the reasons we designed and implemented the new Doc 002 as it balances this power more fairly.​
7. Standing votes by the council strictly need a standing-party-approved scoresheet. This offsets concerns about ‘randomly booting ANOs’.​

NOTE: All listed document amendments are subject to a single vote in this Timed Discussion thread.

Please take the time to review the amended documents in full prior to the ratification vote. Thank you
 
Last edited:
Top