Continue with monthly ANO meetings? If so, any format changes?

Public: Only invited members may reply

  • Viewed BI Foundation BI Foundation Bedrock Solutions Bedrock Solutions Blockrock Mining Blockrock Mining BuildingIM BuildingIM Crypto Logic Crypto Logic Cube3 Cube3 DBGrow DBGrow David Chapman De Facto De Facto Factom Inc. Factom Inc. Factomatic Factomatic Factomize Factomize Factoshi Factoshi Federate This Federate This Go Immutable HashnStore HashnStore LUCIAP LUCIAP LayerTech Matter of Fact Matter of Fact Multicoin Capital Multicoin Capital Prestige IT Prestige IT RewardChain RewardChain Stamp-IT Stamp-IT The Factoid Authority The Factoid Authority VBIF VBIF
  • Not Viewed Canonical Ledgers Canonical Ledgers

Should we continue to have monthly ANO meetings?

  • Yes

  • No


This poll will open after the discussion period ends. Results are only viewable after voting.

Timed Discussion

Discussion ends:

Secured
#1
The last Thursday of each month we have a monthly ANO meeting. These meetings were started very soon after M3 when Discord was the only real communication method and voting infrastructure. With Xavier passing the torch to me to run the meetings, I wanted to ask these two questions:

1. Do we want to continue to have the monthly ANO meetings?

2. If so, should there be any format changes and if so, what should they be?

This is a major discussion that will last 8 days.
 

Chappie

Timed Discussion Bot
Secured
#2
This thread is a Major Timed Discussion and I am designed to help facilitate efficient communication.

Only ANOs may take part in this discussion and vote. Unless this discussion is ended early or extended, it will end in 8 days after which a vote may take place. After 18 hours from the start of the thread or any point up until 24 hours are left in the discussion, you can make a motion to end the discussion immediately or extend the discussion beyond it's initial time frame by selecting the pertinent button at the top of this thread. If someone "seconds" your motion, a poll will take place and if a majority of voters vote yes by the time the discussion is scheduled to end, the time period will be extended for 72 hours.
 
Secured
#3
In my opinion, we can do away with the monthly ANO meetings. My reasoning:

1. We're an international coalition of companies which makes whatever time we choose for the meeting, difficult for some.

2. Almost everything done during the meeting can or should be done via the forum.

3. Voting during the meeting used to be important. It no longer is thanks to our voting infrastructure.

Yes, it's nice hearing some of your voices but that's not a great reason to schedule these meetings. Paul Bernier's wallet demo was great but I'm sure short recordings can be shared if people want to do that.

If there's great suggestions for format changes that make these meetings more useful, I'm all for it. But the current format doesn't make them worth our time anymore.
 
Secured
#4
Hi David,

I think you make some very good points and are right to challenge us on the value we get from these meetings. I think that we have made enormous strides in effective on-going communication. Factomise in particular is a fabulous example of that.

I would urge caution about disbanding a forum in which we can have a normal human interaction of talking with each other. Whilst we are an international coalition of companies we are also a group of people trying to work together as effectively as we can to move the protocol forward.

Indeed if we take this thinking to it’s logical conclusion do we also do away with the Factom Summit at which we aim to meet each other face to face?

Should we continue with the forum there are certainly improvements we could make to improve its effectiveness and get increased community engagement:

  1. Given our rightful and important drive toward decentralisation we should consider having a rotating chair. The advantages of this is that it gives more people the experience of running the meeting and should help subsequent meetings in which the participants understand what it is like to chair the meeting.
  2. One participant/voice per ANO.
  3. All committees produce succinct written reports which are circulated at least 2 days before a meeting.
  4. Community contribution to the agenda, which would be available 2 days prior to meeting.
  5. Cessation of parallel text channel, if anyone needs to make a point they can ask for the floor, thus ensuring all are simultaneously aware of it.
  6. More encouragement for people to speak.
  7. Full minutes with clear tracked actions, produced immediately after the meeting.
 
Secured
#5
Thanks for making the post David.

We believe that the ANO meetings serve no real function anymore, except for the human interaction it brings brought up by Mike above. We do however not think that it weighs heavy enough on the scale to keep having these meetings.

As you stated David, the monthy ANO meetings were started when there was not proper infrastructure and framworks in place, and that is no longer the case. Some things to consider:

Meetings are not described in governance

Meetings are only for one standing party, with only that standing party able to vote.

There are weekly guide meetings were all standing parties can attend or bring up a thing to discuss. If there are something important which should be discussed an ANO can ask to have it add to the agenda and make an announcement a day or two before about it.

As said above, the infrastructure is now in place:
voting on factomize
discussions on factomize
process created for electing and removing guides (which before the ano meeting could be used for)
process created for changing governance and documents
removal process for ANOs
weekly guide meetings with cadence of 1 week
commiittees where relevant discussion is brought up

None of the list above is natural to discuss in the ANO meetings anymore, and taking in mind the fact that teams live all around the world in differnt timezones it is better to use the other forums for this in our mind.

We think the summit on the other hand can be valuable (human interaction aspecte), and it will most likely provide a better platform for networking than "structured" meetings where not many talk.
 
Secured
#6
IMO. I do value the ANO monthly meetings and agree that there should be some changes to the format.

I agree with Mike that “ALL” committees should produce a written report 2 days prior to the meeting and further, “ALL" ANO’s review those reports prior to the meeting (and any other linked document on the agenda). This could open up more of a QnA session…rather than simply having the chair or committee member do a summery of the report.

I believe if the format was changed and video recording was implemented…there is the potential to create some great podcast material and/or youtube material…take Paul B wallet demo as an example.

I also agree with Mike on opening up the meetings to the general community. Ultimately, this has the potential to expand our resources and strengthen the community.

As far as minutes…I would suggest that posting a recording of the meeting should suffice.

Zoom has some excellent features…such as a chat room for ongoing dialogue and also a “raised hand” feature that could be utilized to gain the floor.

In the end...yes, the format should be redesigned to make the meeting more engaging, interactive, informative, and fun
 
Secured
#7
The current ANO meeting is indeed a bit outdated, and there’s not much benefit to making people read prepared reports that could simply be posted. They aren’t regular enough to provide any real use.

Perhaps they should be reserved for situations that demand special attention on short notice.

The Guide meetings are useful to listen to and could easily absorb the functions of ANO meetings.
 

Chappie

Timed Discussion Bot
Secured
#8
We are now 18 hours into the discussion. You may now make a motion to extend this Major Discussion by an additional 72 hours or end this conversation by selecting the pertinent button at the top of this thread. This option will end when there are 24 hours left in the discussion.
 
Secured
#9
The current ANO meeting is indeed a bit outdated, and there’s not much benefit to making people read prepared reports that could simply be posted. They aren’t regular enough to provide any real use.

Perhaps they should be reserved for situations that demand special attention on short notice.

The Guide meetings are useful to listen to and could easily absorb the functions of ANO meetings.
Hi Colin,

Thank you for joining the debate. I agree that the current ANO meetings require some changes if they are to become more effective.

To try to address some of the points you raise:

The only benefit in getting people to read prepared reports comes from the quality of the report and the engagement of the community in asking questions and making challenges as necessary. These are important committees that the community sponsor, the people involved put in a lot of work and we should play our part in supporting them. Isn't a once monthly committee update sufficiently frequent?

I agree that we probably should have meetings that urgently demand special attention. However our current Factomise forum does a pretty good job of being able to disseminate briefing information and getting prompt responses. Either route requires careful preparation and management.

I agree that the Guide meetings are useful to listen to but the point here is that the ANOs should actively paricipate and have a voice. We should find ways of ensuring that whichever way this goes the ANO voice is encouraged and heard. After all isn't that part of the essence of decentralisation?
 
Secured
#10
Personally, I appreciate the ANO meetings, but I will admit being in the United States, the historical time is favorable to my schedule. I do not have a problem with ceasing the monthly ANO meetings, but would like to see more formal communication coming out of the committees on a set schedule to stay better educated on the many facets of the protocol. Community oversight of the committee actions must be preserved and currently the ANO meeting is one avenue to do so.
 
Secured
#12
I like the ANO meetings, and I'm flexible on meeting times to accommodate other geographies.

Question. Are committees limited to ANOs? Is this really ANO meeting, or a committee reporting meeting? Maybe there is a labeling problem?
From what I can see Paul the ANO meeting agenda usually has a lot of time devoted to Committee feedback. So I think you raise a good point.

Shouldn’t we let the ANOs have a large say in what the agenda is by inviting input and circulating the agenda ahead of the meeting?

Perhaps we should consider where the committees report. It may continue to be via this forum or some other way.

We could also consider how the committees report. We could possibly opt for regular brief updates which could be as succinct as “we are on-track against plan”. Fuller updates could be made at longer intervals. In this way we could focus on a particular committee dependent on either an urgent unplanned event or an important milestone.
 
Secured
#13
Good conversation everyone, definitely some well-thought out responses.

My High level thoughts:
1. Committees should be providing reports. Some do (legal and marketing). We tend to look at this through an ANO lens, but we will have FCT holders as a standing party within the year. FCT holders should be able to ask questions and participate as well. Therefore, Factomize is a more ideal medium than a monthly ANO meeting. We dont want to have committees and working groups answering the same questions multiple times. Having a written record on Factomize helps alleviate this issue.

2. I'm wary about adding more responsibility to committees and working groups. Time is at a premium and as we know, some committees and working groups are already having trouble pushing the ball forward. Therefore, I am against adding more responsibilities to their plate other than requesting a report/update.

In general, our project is in "start-up phase." We have limited resources, we wont be able to do everything well. We have to pick and choose. We need to be nimble. While I think there's benefit in what the "Pro Monthly Meeting" crowd has suggested above, I'd rather have people working on more pressing matters. However, as we shift out of "start-up" phase to a more mature phase (1-2 years from now), I would like to see the community make the shift to something similar to what the "Pro ANO Monthly Meeting" crowd has suggested above, as I think their is definitely value there.
 
Secured
#14
Good conversation everyone, definitely some well-thought out responses.

My High level thoughts:
1. Committees should be providing reports. Some do (legal and marketing). We tend to look at this through an ANO lens, but we will have FCT holders as a standing party within the year. FCT holders should be able to ask questions and participate as well. Therefore, Factomize is a more ideal medium than a monthly ANO meeting. We dont want to have committees and working groups answering the same questions multiple times. Having a written record on Factomize helps alleviate this issue.

2. I'm wary about adding more responsibility to committees and working groups. Time is at a premium and as we know, some committees and working groups are already having trouble pushing the ball forward. Therefore, I am against adding more responsibilities to their plate other than requesting a report/update.

In general, our project is in "start-up phase." We have limited resources, we wont be able to do everything well. We have to pick and choose. We need to be nimble. While I think there's benefit in what the "Pro Monthly Meeting" crowd has suggested above, I'd rather have people working on more pressing matters. However, as we shift out of "start-up" phase to a more mature phase (1-2 years from now), I would like to see the community make the shift to something similar to what the "Pro ANO Monthly Meeting" crowd has suggested above, as I think their is definitely value there.
Hi Matt,

I agree that Committees should be producing reports and that Factomise would be a great place to hold them. They work hard and unnecessary reporting is inappropriate. The suggestion that the committees could be relieved of potentially time consuming regular reports may make a difference here although it would be good to balance that with less frequent fuller reports at the right times.

This has become part of this topic because the ANO meeting has regularly had Committee reports on the agenda.

I also fully understand the need to be nimble and not burden the community with undue bureaucracy. This debate needs to focus on how the ANOs and other standing parties engage with each other in our start-up phase. I agree that at a later stage other changes may be required.

Thank you for ensuring we stay focused on the community’s current and real needs.
 
Secured
#15
I'm in agreement with David on this topic. Since M3 we have built a good system for governance on Factomize which allows participation to occur from any time zone.

I also wonder if any vote taken during a meeting would actually be binding under our current governance structure?

For those whose first language isn't English, the written word is easier to read and respond to because there is no time pressure to form and communicate an idea. I would support all ANO discussion being held on Factomize for this reason.

As for committee reports and announcements, these can both be done on Factomize as well.