Committee Creation Core Committee - Factom Protocol Committee Application

Public: Only invited members may reply

  • Viewed BI Foundation BI Foundation Bedrock Solutions Bedrock Solutions Blockrock Mining Blockrock Mining Brian Deery Canonical Ledgers Canonical Ledgers Consensus Networks Consensus Networks Cube3 Cube3 De Facto De Facto Factable Solutions Factable Solutions Factom Inc. Factom Inc. Factomatic Factomatic Factomize Factomize Factoshi Factoshi Federate This Federate This Go Immutable HashQuark Kompendium Kompendium LUCIAP LUCIAP LayerTech LayerTech Matters Matters Multicoin Capital Multicoin Capital Niels Klomp Nolan Bauer Prestige IT Prestige IT RewardChain RewardChain Stamp-IT Stamp-IT The Factoid Authority The Factoid Authority Tor Paulsen VBIF VBIF
  • Not Viewed Crypto Logic Crypto Logic DBGrow DBGrow HashnStore HashnStore Nic R

Do you approve the Core Committee for official recognition in the Factom Protocol?

  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Abstain

    Votes: 0 0.0%

Have not voted

Guides Nic R

Authority Nodes Blockrock Mining Blockrock Mining DBGrow DBGrow Factomize Factomize HashQuark Multicoin Capital Multicoin Capital Stamp-IT Stamp-IT

  • Total voters
  • Poll closed .

Timed Discussion

Discussion ended:

Not open for further replies.
This thread is to ask the standing parties to discuss and approve the Core committee as being officially recognized in the Factom Protocol.

An earlier discussion about creation of this committee has been held here:

The below information about the protocol can be found here:

Committee name
Factom Core committee

The Core committee is responsible for everything related to Core and Technical development of the Factom Protocol, mainly factomd

The core committee is responsible for investigating Factom network related issues like pauses, troubleshooting and rebooting the network when necessary.
The committee is also responsible for the bug bounty program. Making sure selective disclosure and confidential handling of submitted bug reports is taken care of.

Given the sensitive nature in most of the work the core committee does, the committee expects its members to keep discussions and findings strictly confidential.

Meetings and reporting
The core committee has a voice meeting once every month, people that do not feel comfortable or have connectivity issues may join by chat. The chair makes sure this meeting is being held. Notes will be scribed for these meetings and held in a private storage location only accessible to committee members.

Every 3 months a written update from the core committee is presented to the wider community, only including information that can be disclosed publicly.

Expectations of members
We expect members of the core committee to be proactive and take part in discussions. Core committee members not participating in discussions for more than 1.5 months are eligible for removal by the chair unless the respective member has/had compelling reasons not to participate. Any such removals of members shall be made public in the committees designated thread on the protocol forum.

The maximum term of a chairman
1 year with max 3 succeeding terms


Maximum number of members

Joining committee
If there are less than the maximum amount of members currently in the committee, there will be an open spot which will be announced in the core committee thread on factomize. The chairman may prevent an open spot from arising by reducing the maximum member count when a member is removed or resigns - but the chairman shall not reduce the number of maximum members below the current member count. The chairman, if they so desire, may raise the number of maximum members in the committee at any time.

When applying for a spot the person should describe any relevant information regarding their experience with Factom, software development and/or hardware operations, as well as describe the motivation for why they want to join the core committee.

The chairman will make the final determination if the applicant will be allowed to join the committee after discussions with the rest of the members of the committee.

The suggested members (Factom protocol usernames):
@Niels Klomp
@Tor Paulsen
@Steven Masley
@Brian Deery
@Michael Lam
@Matt York
@Anton Ilzheev
@Paul Bernier

Any mandates of the committee for which no consultancy of the ANOs and Guides is required:
Operating the Discord ANO Alert Bot
Awarding bug bounties to bug reporters
Last edited:


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

Guides and 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.
What would be the purpose of the monthly voice meeting? What I am wary is that there will be a vague meeting held "because the core committee charter said to do so" but the chair won't necessarily know what to do with it and it will be a waste of time. So I'd say either remove that part from the charter and let the chair decide if he feels like leading such meetings, or write some specifics about what should be discussed during those meetings (I am personally in favor of the former).
Last edited:


Factomize Bot
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.
I tend to agree with Paul on not having mandatory meetings. I would point out that as written above, there are really only two responsibilities explicitly spelled out above: 1) investigate network pauses and rebooting, and 2) managing the bug bounty program.

I'd suggest that another explicit function of the core committee in the charter should be to produce yearly guidance (or 6 month guidance) on engineering priorities for development. Core committee should really be laying out the strategy for the technology and vision of where we'd like to be 1 year from now. It isn't necessarily true that the committee is responsible for doing the work related to that guidance. In theory the core committee is the best entity to understand the limitations, needs, and directions the project needs to go. A written document (doesn't have to be expansive, it can start out as simple bullet points) that gives guidance to other members of the ecosystem where our priorities lie. It can give guidance to people voting for grants, and it shows that there is some measure of planning and vision for the future of the protocol. Some interaction with the marketing committee may need to be performed to make sure we are aligned.
I suggest that we create a position specifically for the Testnet Admin. Past experience suggests it is much easier to coordinate testnet releases when the TA has been an active part of discussions leading up to those releases.

Also, I note that my name appears in the list of initial members, though I withdrew my candidacy.
@Paul Bernier @Michael Lam

I'd say that regular core committee meetings are necessary in order to address on going development issues. I'm happy if the meeting amounts to "Hi everyone! None of the members of the committee nor the community has raised any development issues or questions currently. Does anyone have anything to raise? No? Then I move the meeting adjourned. Second? All in Favor? Okay, you are adjourned!"

Odds of this are near zero, because there are generally a few things floating around in development to discuss or decide. But doing nothing and never meeting really has been the pattern so far, and raises questions about what it means for the Core Committee to exist at all.

I am not sure why the Core committee would be limited to issues around stalls or pauses, and bug bounties. Not sure how I'd word other responsibilities, but informing other developers around ideas around implementation ideas and improvements under development or consideration (refactoring, sharding, documentation, developer recruitment, support in core code of projects on Factom) should be part of it.
Not open for further replies.