RE: Going beyond committees - an answer to @pennsif and @starkerz
Committees have a few distinct advantages over less formar gatherings, that I think are too valuable to give up:
1: committees brings people to the spotlight. Members have a tremendous incentive to be as productive as possible, since it will get them a decent amount of followers, upvotes, resteems and witness votes. Informal structures will bring less motivation, and thus will be less productive as a result.
2: certain things require funds. When the work is immense, people need to cancel shifts in their day jobs, and expect to receive some STEEM/SBD for their efforts.
2a: committees can take care of that, by posting progress reports, and storing all the author rewards in a work proposal fund. Informal structures would have a hard time achieving it.
3: yes, committees are meant more for figuring out the most efficient and productive way to achieve something.
3a: but maybe there should be a mirror taskforce (a new buzzword is born :P) that will focus on the action side of things.
3b: the mirror taskforce can have the same, or different members, and should post progress reports, both for the transparency, and perhaps to allow the community to reward its members with some upvotes for their very hard work.
4: formality isn't profanity. Things can be formal, yet very effective. As long everything is flexible enough, the fact that we will have specific times for public discussions, and internal (though still public) votes on which projects get funded, does not imply that a significant trade-off is made. Look at Facebook, it's a corporation with lots of internal bureaucracy, and yet they dominate the social media sphere. So formality & flexibility seem to complement each other, rather than contradict.
I agree that these are all great things about ‘committees’. I think they should be called task forces or something along those lines however. I like the idea of having a committe and a separate but aligned task force.
voting in my view should take place live on the radio show. It will be easier to spot skullduggery.
I am very cautious about formal structure in a decentralised network. Our strength is that we are decentralised and all the things that brings from our own currency, transaction times, transparency. We should try to set these groups up in line with these key strengths of this blockchain. It is surely the top down, corporate like structures of Facebook we are trying to move away from?
This raises a question, whether someone who is unable to make it to the public discussion forfeits their vote. If the answer is yes, then voting should be allowed only during the live discussion. Otherwise, an absent committee member may cast their vote up to a certain amount of time after the discussion took place, 48 hours sounds fair in my opinion. I'm OK with either option though, both seem to have similarly significant pros and cons.
Regarding the other issue. I think that instead of looking at this as formal/informal structures. Its better to look at two aspects which both of them have in common:
1: how flexible they are. How much can they change direction, when logic dictates to do so.
1a: for instance, if a work proposal turns out to be much less beneficial after work has begun. Can the committee realocate the funds elsewhere? To some extent it would be a good thing, sometimes flaws are noticed after a delay, sometimes circumstances change midwork, sometimes talents quit and a proper replacement is not found. Having things not set in stone is a plus. We can't anticipate everything from the beginning. So flexibility is important. But
2: predictability is just as important as I see it. A talent wants to know that if he/she completes a certain task, they will be compensated by a certain amount. This is the formal part. Partially rigid rules, that set an environment that motivates people to work. When people know what to expect, they are willing to make greater commitments. An informal structure doesn't, or bately allows that.
I honestly hope enough of us can reach a consensus already, so that we can start forming stuff.
I'll try to start a pilot vote via dpoll, to try to understand where most Steemians (among those who participate in the poll) stand on committees task forces and the like.
We have incredible momentum right now, I really want us to heavily capitalize on it.
Hi @imacryptorick Many thanks for your thoughts on this. Concerning the general direction I think we are quite on the same line:
Our main point of discussion seems to be: do we need voting or other formalised procedures to establish structures with a formalised mandate of the Steem community or not. I think we definitely should not go for a formalised mandate via voting. Why?
What's the background of my proposals: I've been working with open networks for about 20 years now, and they work best, when they don't start with formalised procedures but with action. Going this way they'll identify, where formalism is needed. Very often the first step to formalise things is for example setting up a "code of conduct".
One last point:
Concerning the duality of committee and task force/circle of action: this is overdoing it completely. More structures doesn't mean the system works better. It just introduces more and more need to define who does what.
For visibility and progress reports we could use the SOS forums and the SOS daily news - we don't need committees for this.
I'm looking forward to further exchange on this topic wth you @imacryptoric @starkerz @pennsif
We can try to decide things on the next SOS forum. Although I fully prefer having an assembly to pick all the committee\taskforce members, set their obligations and limitations. And get this ball rolling.
I just hope we don't lose momentum until the next SOS forum, which is set in two weeks.
@impactn
Big like! We should stay away from centralised voting structures. It should be a scenario where the Person says “I’m happy to work on x anyone else with me?” And others can join. No formal leadership. Stays decentralised as far as possible. Over time as we work in this way, the wider community will decide the approach it prefers