Re-establishing the Website Committee

Unrestricted Public Thread

  • Viewed Bedrock Solutions Bedrock Solutions BlockVenture Blockchain Innovation Foundation Blockchain Innovation Foundation Blockrock Mining Blockrock Mining Consensus Networks Consensus Networks Cube3 Cube3 DBGrow DBGrow De Facto De Facto Factom Inc Factom Inc Factomatic Factomatic Factomize Factomize Factoshi Factoshi Federate This Federate This Go Immutable HashQuark Kompendium Kompendium LayerTech LayerTech Luciap Luciap Mike Buckingham PrestigeIT PrestigeIT RewardChain RewardChain Stamp-IT Stamp-IT The Factoid Authority The Factoid Authority VBIF VBIF
  • Not Viewed CryptoLogic CryptoLogic HashnStore HashnStore
Hi,

The Website Committee was not re-established when the role of Committees and Working Groups was redefined in Doc006.

Given the significance of the website to the protocol the purpose of this post is to relaunch the Website Committee with a purpose very suited to the circumstances we now face. It is designed to enable potential committee members to volunteer and to promote a discussion about the committee charter. Once complete a separate poll will be launched with the proposed charter and committee membership for the Standing Parties to vote.

The rationale
Committees are executive and empowered, they are a more permanent part of the protocol structure and should generally work without timetable unless self-imposed. A Committee will have the authority married with an ongoing responsibility to manage something as fundamental as the protocol website.

The ownership of Factomize, our debate and decision making forum, may shortly transfer from Factomize, the ANO, to the protocol at the conclusion of this grant round. To enable the management of Factomize, the forum, it is proposed that for a period it’s future governance come under the control of a Committee. It is proposed that the committee be the Website Committee because the disciplines required to manage domain(s), software licenses and hold funds or pay expenses are very much aligned and having the website and forum under the same umbrella could simplify navigation for users.

The community’s outward face is very much the face of our website and our forum. The importance of making this simple, effective and appealing cannot be overstated. It is vital that people have clear entry points and easy navigation to straightforward information and messages that avoid duplication. By linking these together there should be no need for people to search for the right route to access information, neither should there be the risk that they find duplicate or possibly conflicting information. To ensure this clarity requires oversight.

There is a current grant proposal by the ANO, Federate This, to enable a new website to be designed and built which will focus on inspiring investors, and telling a story. Should this grant be approved a Factom Protocol website with ongoing governance via a Website Committee will be an enabler.

Suggested purpose

The goals of the Website Committee should be set by them, once formed. Initial suggestions are:

  • Promotion of one website as the primary public face and single entry point for anyone engaging with the protocol
  • Ensure adequate signposting of relevant routes for: new visitors, enterprise customers, potential ANOs, those involved in forums for communication & decision making, testnet and mainnet users for example
  • Maintenance of an associated repository of authoritative information
  • Management of all related assets
  • Creation and delivery of the website development plan with appropriate community consultation

The process
The Community Website Governance is defined in Doc 004 and the general process for Committee formation is defined in Doc 006.

These require that:

  1. The creation of the Website Committee shall be voted upon by the Standing Parties and must pass with a majority of votes cast.
  2. The Website Committee shall consist of natural persons who have indicated an interest to join, up to a maximum of six (6).
  3. In addition, the Website Committee shall include one member from and appointed by the Grantor of each Website as shown in Appendix A of Doc 004.
Consequently a Committee can be formed if the community responds positively in this topic. This topic is therefore here to enable people to respond positively or negatively to this idea, discuss what it should or shouldn't be, and for members to vocalize their intent to join. It will be followed by a separate poll.

Points to note
Grant funding for the expenses of the Website Committee may be secured however, as is customary the work on a Committee or Working Group is normally unpaid.
Active membership of effective committees may in the future help to inform standing.
 
Uncanny, I had a post like this I was writing up, but yours is more thorough :)

Reason being, that we are actually finish up a full redesign of the website right now and we wanted to make sure we were all on the same page for what the working group / committee structure was so that we can get final feeback and approval before we did any substantial updates to the website.

I fully support the formation of this.
 
This topic will be here for 8 days to facilitate discussion about Website Committee goals, membership and get other points of discussion going that can lead to a charter.

Once that's in place and we have a charter, post-discussion there will be a separate topic with the actual vote to have the committee formally recognized.

I'll tag the former WC committee members to see if they're still interested in joining.

@Spencer B
@Matt Osborne
@Keith Pincombe
@Gieril Lindi
@Anton Ilzheev

I personally won't be joining the new Website Committee, as I'd be spread too thin, but I do hope others step up as it's going to be a very critical piece of our infrastructure, and ideally, an initial point of introduction for prospects and leads. On that matter, I'd highly recommend WC members set up domain-specific email addresses, i.e. anton@factom-protocol.org, miguel@factom-protocol.org, etc.
 
Non functional email addresses (eg personal addresses) have been traditionally 'banned ', because most individuals cannot speak on behalf of the protocol (no mandate, decentralized, no checks) and there are no proper continuity guarantees when personal addresses are being used
 
Non functional email addresses (eg personal addresses) have been traditionally 'banned ', because most individuals cannot speak on behalf of the protocol (no mandate, decentralized, no checks) and there are no proper continuity guarantees when personal addresses are being used
Functional ones are fine by me too. They probably already exist, but I don't think they're common knowledge.

I fully support the formation of this.
DBGrow is a grantor, will you be appointing a member to join?
 
Top