Question for Go Immutable from Niels Klomp

Chappie

Factomize Bot
@Go Immutable,

@Niels Klomp asked the following question:

As BIF we are asking all ANOs these questions.

  1. What type of parties would you see the protocol attract as users?
  2. Do you believe current governance to accommodate that?
  3. What is your take on current standing parties and types? Anything needing to change?
  4. Can you mention anything about decisiveness and decision making as well as direction?
  5. Do you believe you are qualified to vote on every single thing?
  6. Do you believe large institutions and governments could use the protocol with current governance as is?
  7. Do you believe parties can make long term commitments towards the protocol at this time?
  8. Do you believe you are doing everything in your power to address any concerns about the above?
 

Matt Osborne

Go Immutable
Legal Working Group
Website Committee
1. What type of parties would you see the protocol attract as users?
-We would like to see enterprises and governments. We do not really see any solid use cases for consumers, but that does not mean that they don't exist.

2. Do you believe current governance to accommodate that?

-Nope. We need a new constitutional convention that brings us to a Governance 2.0 version. We've learned a lot the past 2 years and it is time to incorporate our learnings into Governance 2.0. I view this as an event that should be celebrated and treated as a big achievement. It is not a failure, it is simply a natural progression of Federated-based decentralizaiton.

3. What is your take on current standing parties and types? Anything needing to change?
-Too many changes to list.

4. Can you mention anything about decisiveness and decision making as well as direction?
-While there are positives, we're largely a chicken running around with its head cut off.

5. Do you believe you are qualified to vote on every single thing?
-Nope, of course not. We already consult other ANOs in areas where we do not have proficient knowledge.

6. Do you believe large institutions and governments could use the protocol with current governance as is?
-It's in their best interest to use a private instance of Factom while we get to where we need to be Governance-wise

7. Do you believe parties can make long term commitments towards the protocol at this time?
-Nope, we're not stable enough yet. Too many unknowns.

8. Do you believe you are doing everything in your power to address any concerns about the above?
-Yep, and I have already started working on coming up with a rough framework for a Governance 2.0 proposal with a few other people.
 

Niels Klomp

Guide
BI Foundation
Core Committee
Thx Matt, appreciate the responses and insights.


3. Could you mention something with regards to standing types?

5. Are there areas you feel either very qualified to vote about and areas where you think you are less qualified?

6. Interesting take. Can you expand on why it would be in their best interest?
 

Matt Osborne

Go Immutable
Legal Working Group
Website Committee
3. Could you mention something with regards to standing types?
We need more standing parties (FCT holders, etc.). I have concerns about ANOs holding ANOs accountable :)

I think it is worth exploring other types of standing also (something like a "tech council") where these members are voted on by the standing parties and have certain powers (needs to be thought through much more). A very rough analogy would be how the Website Committee has certain powers, but the WC is overseen by the standing parties.

5. Are there areas you feel either very qualified to vote about and areas where you think you are less qualified?
Heavy-duty Technical matters. I'd have to dig into past votes to see what votes we asked for consultation on from other ANOs.

6. Interesting take. Can you expand on why it would be in their best interest?
While there are benefits to being on the public chain, I think we need to find our footing Governance-wise before we can expect enterprises and governments to embrace the public chain. From their perspective, I think this is a 100% reasonable request. Large enterprises and governments do not like taking unnecessary risks. It is unreasonable for us to expect them to take unnecessary risks.
 
Top