[NXT] Community nominations to the funding comittee

[VanBreuk]

This brings up the issue of technical fund vs marketing fund.
Clearly we need experts of tech to control the technical fund and those who are good at marketing to manage the marketing funds.

According to the outline voted in the second poll,

The idea is that the funding committee would only have the right to approve or disapprove when a project is submitted for a bounty. Project owners would have to present the project itself in a feasible way to persuade the community and the committee funding accordingly. A project will be funded if it get the majority of funding committee votes. Funding committee member cannot vote for her/ his own project

We'd only need an odd number of members reasonably split between tech bias, market bias and community/consensus agents to solve bias conflicts, all in the same committee. Imho five is too few for a simple majority vote.

Unanimous resolutions would be ideal but perhaps not realistic.

[NxtChg]

How about 2 marketing aficionados, 2 techs and someone in between, like rickyjames or joefox?

[gs02xzz]

Damelon, Allwelder, Uniqueorn, VanBreuk, EvilDave

I appreciate (and am surprised by) the fact you brought up my name while picking in a pool full of world class talented people. I do have experience in online communities management, some age and a few burns from politics, but I cannot bring technical expertise... I'm no developer, no cryptographer, no economist. Unneeded for Nxt fund management? I'm not so sure.

My five picks keeping in mind the best interests for the community:

rickyjames, Klee, jl777, Anon136, joefox

Damelon and salsacz in the bench.

This brings up the issue of technical fund vs marketing fund.
Clearly we need experts of tech to control the technical fund and those who are good at marketing to manage the marketing funds.

We choose the trustees just for holding and disbursement of the fund. How to use the fund will be made by other people or consensus of the community.

[VanBreuk]

We choose the trustees just for holding and disbursement of the fund. How to use the fund will be made by other people or consensus of the community.

If this is so (I understood it in a different way according to the second voting results) then we'd only need guardians/executors, area of expertise is irrelevant and it boils down to a matter of trust.

I understood the committee was defined as such according to utopianfuture's definition of "funding committee + open bounty" approach, winner of the previous vote.

[utopianfuture]

We choose the trustees just for holding and disbursement of the fund. How to use the fund will be made by other people or consensus of the community.

If this is so (I understood it in a different way according to the second voting results) then we'd only need guardians/executors, area of expertise is irrelevant and it boils down to a matter of trust.

I understood the committee was defined as such according to utopianfuture's definition of "funding committee + open bounty" approach, winner of the previous vote.

Yes that is the idea. because we already have a treasurer :Cfb .

[gs02xzz]

We choose the trustees just for holding and disbursement of the fund. How to use the fund will be made by other people or consensus of the community.

If this is so (I understood it in a different way according to the second voting results) then we'd only need guardians/executors, area of expertise is irrelevant and it boils down to a matter of trust.

I understood the committee was defined as such according to utopianfuture's definition of "funding committee + open bounty" approach, winner of the previous vote.

Yes that is the idea. because we already have a treasurer :Cfb .

My understanding is that since cfb does not want to be the treasurer and he is leaving by April he want the community to find a group of trusted persons as the treasurers. In the mean time, we also need to figure out how to use  the fund otherwise it will be send back at the time he leaves. Maybe I am wrong.

[Zahlen]

I also would prefer if they weren't under a constant need to justify their expenses in the short term.

YES! We clearly have too large a coordination burden, we lose more from wasted time and energy than we do from the odd unconsented spending item.


(I would go further and suggest that more people get a small discretionary investment account (with the nxt held by someone else) which they can use for anything they feel is cost-effective and beneficial to Nxt, be it bounty, or compensating someone overlooked, or purchasing hardware/software/marketing materials. No consensus/voting needed to spend, only restrictions are they can't spend it on themselves, and all spending must be documented on a common spreadsheet which everyone can examine, and which will be regularly audited.

This is not the time and place for this discussion, let's decide on the committee first. I just want everyone to think about this idea, for now. I will bring it up again at another time.)


I nominate Damelon and jl777 as additional candidates. Will you guys accept the nomination?

[Damelon]

We choose the trustees just for holding and disbursement of the fund. How to use the fund will be made by other people or consensus of the community.

If this is so (I understood it in a different way according to the second voting results) then we'd only need guardians/executors, area of expertise is irrelevant and it boils down to a matter of trust.

I understood the committee was defined as such according to utopianfuture's definition of "funding committee + open bounty" approach, winner of the previous vote.

Yes that is the idea. because we already have a treasurer :Cfb .

My understanding is that since cfb does not want to be the treasurer and he is leaving by April he want the community to find a group of trusted persons as the treasurers. In the mean time, we also need to figure out how to use  the fund otherwise it will be send back at the time he leaves. Maybe I am wrong.

As I read the polls, this is the situation

Poll 1: There will be a committee that will administer the 9 Mio. fund.

Poll 2: This committee will disburse funds according to an "open bounty" concept, so not propose projects themselves. I guess it would be within the committees purview to keep asking people for projects and make it know the 9 Mio. is available. The committee probably should also set up some guidelines that projects should follow, but only in the formal sense as "state what you will spend the money on and what will be the benefit", not the sense of "the project should be about X", because that would be interfering with the content.

We are now at Poll 3, in which we choose the people we trust to be on this committee and who we will delegate the power to make the decisions about the money to.
It has not been decided who or what will actually distribute the funds.
This could be one or more of the members, but also (and maybe preferably) a trusted 3rd party. If this means we are going to have a long discussion about account keys being shared however, I say "nevermind"

In short, it's about investing trust and the responsibility over 9 Mio of funds to a small group of people.

Correct me if I am wrong.

[POPPP]

Hi every one,  i dont know where to post my project but i see you are researching what to do with the pool3 and where distribute the funds.
And this is an ecological way where we need some help,

Do you think its interesting ?

Creation of a Network of farm decentralized in permaculture with cheap ecological habitation, autarkic alimentation and energy, spinning off into subsidiaries every half year to grow into community connected by NXT, that could be the central tool of a new society.

To enter NXT into solid existance.

Pay your vegetables, your honey, your fruits, with your NXT.
Live on fertile land and common, in your individual cheap eco-home,
Participate with the creation of a common house, general technological quarters of your eco-foundation.
Form new groups following the same idea of decentralized system, who want to live in their optimate autarcy, always connected to NXT;
And allow them access to land, to the financing of their ecological agricultural project.

We are at the beginning of the creation of decentralized  farming :
•   the economical gestion of a common wallet filled by the artisan and farmer members, and exterior part-takers;
•   Decisions are taken in a democratic way : for exemple : draw out treasurers and leader of groups, or : the coolest project is accepted by members.
•   The food and energy is re-distributed

NXT is achieved to permet all of that.

We will sell products with NXT, services, allowing advantages never seen before for all community NXT.

Participate the most solidary and exciting experience.
Build with us decentralized farm network, that belong to you.
Free to come to the place following availability, free to participate with breaking up  into subsidiaries of our civilisation that go to the earth, and that breaks intermediarie, that parasiting the development of the common good.
Discution and vote, purpose to NXT will be major tools.

We need:
Some financement, between 75k NXT and 500k NXT for land (we’ve already got some lands), and for 50 personnes in a few time.

We offer:
The possibility for all members of the greatest decentralized community to take part of the society decentralized and the most advance marketing :  proof by exemple that a network of autarkic decentralized community by the  draw democratie, or the vote of the majority of the popular idea and not political grups. NXT is the central pillar of this transition, that permit the transparance of groups economie, and allow to put togeterh money, that helps to go back to eco-site by vote of member.

[Damelon]

Hi every one,  i dont know where to post my project but i see you are researching what to do with the pool3 and where distribute the funds.
And this is an ecological way where we need some help,

Sorry for cutting off the plan in the quote, but I want the thread to remain readable.

This thread is not for project plans, but for voting on a committee that will decide on funds that will specifically be spent on Nxt.

It may be that the people getting these funds will be used to fund projects like yours. But that's not up to the committee.

A request such as yours should probably be made to the Nxt community at large, maybe in the forums at https://nextcoin.org/ or https://forums.nxtcrypto.org/.

Good luck on your project!

[Damelon]

I nominate Damelon and jl777 as additional candidates. Will you guys accept the nomination?

I would accept. However, there should also be some backups for the committee.

I have some projects I possibly would like to put up for funding, which means that I would not and should not be allowed to vote on.
That means, to maintain an uneven number of members to avoid a tie in voting, there would need to be a substitute.

[Uniqueorn]

I nominate Damelon and jl777 as additional candidates. Will you guys accept the nomination?

I would accept. However, there should also be some backups for the committee.

I have some projects I possibly would like to put up for funding, which means that I would not and should not be allowed to vote on.
That means, to maintain an uneven number of members to avoid a tie in voting, there would need to be a substitute.

I actually disagree with this. I ahve a ton of ideas together with Klee, Nify, Salsacz and so on. We took the initiative for marketing back in mid December. If we aren't in the committee then nothing makes sense really.
We have barely been awarded anything for our work and we got a ton of projects upcoming.

We had a questionaire over at nextcoin where 70+ volunteers signed up, everything from graphics majors to PhDs in computer science and physics. But due to the communities inability to come to any consensus we have no NXT to give anyone for any work, so we have lost a ton of talent due to nothing but pure procrastination and that's just ridiculous.

[Damelon]

I nominate Damelon and jl777 as additional candidates. Will you guys accept the nomination?

I would accept. However, there should also be some backups for the committee.

I have some projects I possibly would like to put up for funding, which means that I would not and should not be allowed to vote on.
That means, to maintain an uneven number of members to avoid a tie in voting, there would need to be a substitute.

I actually disagree with this. I ahve a ton of ideas together with Klee, Nify, Salsacz and so on. We took the initiative for marketing back in mid December. If we aren't in the committee then nothing makes sense really.
We have barely been awarded anything for our work and we got a ton of projects upcoming.

We had a questionaire over at nextcoin where 70+ volunteers signed up, everything from graphics majors to PhDs in computer science and physics. But due to the communities inability to come to any consensus we have no NXT to give anyone for any work, so we have lost a ton of talent due to nothing but pure procrastination and that's just ridiculous.

I would refuse to vote on my own projects. I would have a conflict of interest. I would not even consider discussing one of my projects in any other capacity as submitter.
You're free to take another stance. I just want to make my position clear. It wouldn't be that much of a problem to just have a substitute to cast a vote on a project I would submit.

Maybe we are talking about different things, though. 

[NxtChg]

I think we will achieve much better results, if we just split 9 millions into 6/3 for dev/marketing, as many people seem to agree.

Then make TWO committees: one marketing and one dev.

They would work much more efficiently that way, because the polarizing issue of which type of projects to cover will be already decided by this split.

And this will also solve the problem of all money in one person hands.

[Uniqueorn]

I nominate Damelon and jl777 as additional candidates. Will you guys accept the nomination?

I would accept. However, there should also be some backups for the committee.

I have some projects I possibly would like to put up for funding, which means that I would not and should not be allowed to vote on.
That means, to maintain an uneven number of members to avoid a tie in voting, there would need to be a substitute.

I actually disagree with this. I ahve a ton of ideas together with Klee, Nify, Salsacz and so on. We took the initiative for marketing back in mid December. If we aren't in the committee then nothing makes sense really.
We have barely been awarded anything for our work and we got a ton of projects upcoming.

We had a questionaire over at nextcoin where 70+ volunteers signed up, everything from graphics majors to PhDs in computer science and physics. But due to the communities inability to come to any consensus we have no NXT to give anyone for any work, so we have lost a ton of talent due to nothing but pure procrastination and that's just ridiculous.

I would refuse to vote on my own projects. I would have a conflict of interest. I would not even consider discussing one of my projects in any other capacity as submitter.
You're free to take another stance. I just want to make my position clear. It wouldn't be that much of a problem to just have a substitute to cast a vote on a project I would submit.

Maybe we are talking about different things, though. 

I am definitely ok with not voting specifically on our own submissions, but when you submit something and it's put up to vote and you just refrain from voting, then it's basically the same thing

From experience it doesn't work quite as "binary" as you seem to suggest. In my experience one guy comes up with an idea and then you discuss it back and forth. Some people chime in with ideas, build on eachothers ideas and suddenly it's no longer "one person" who did X, Y or Z.
A committee must be able to communicate and collaborate with eachother. Otherwise shit will just become a neverending debate.

[Damelon]

I think we will achieve much better results, if we just split 9 millions into 6/3 for dev/marketing, as many people seems to agree.

Then make TWO committees: one marketing and one dev.

They would work much more efficient that way, because the polarizing issue of which type of projects to cover will be already decided by this split.

Could work.
The only "problem" is see there is that a committee of experts is not always totally good.

I'd actually welcome a few people outside of PR and marketing on the marketing committee, if only because they would provide a counter.
It also leaves the committees open to accusations of only funding "pet" projects.

My ideal would be a mixed group that has a definite deadline to finish discussing about a project (say two, three days or any other number shorter than a week) after which they had to vote. All should be committed to get all "fors" or "againsts" on the table in that time.

After that: a binding vote: yay or nay.

It will never be perfect. The "voting" discussions already proved that we can only approach it.

That said

I would support any plan that allows us to move more quickly on some key points.

From experience it doesn't work quite as "binary" as you seem to suggest. In my experience one guy comes up with an idea and then you discuss it back and forth. Some people chime in with ideas, build on eachothers ideas and suddenly it's no longer "one person" who did X, Y or Z.
A committee must be able to communicate and collaborate with eachother. Otherwise shit will just become a neverending debate.

I see we are talking about two kinds of committee. I am talking about a committee that just approves and disburses, but won't tamper with the plan. You talk about a committee that would become co-collaborator in plans. I thought that the prior votes (vote 2) had already established that the committee would be responsible for giving out funds for open bounties and not initiate its own projects? In that scenario, my argument makes sense. In yours, it is indeed not workable and rather artificial.

[NxtChg]

I am afraid we either end up with US Congress or won't make it in time, because, well, "we're so decentralized..."

[gs02xzz]

I think we will achieve much better results, if we just split 9 millions into 6/3 for dev/marketing, as many people seem to agree.

Then make TWO committees: one marketing and one dev.

They would work much more efficiently that way, because the polarizing issue of which type of projects to cover will be already decided by this split.

And this will also solve the problem of all money in one person hands.

+1

[Uniqueorn]

It will never be perfect. The "voting" discussions already proved that we can only approach it.

This is the only guarantee, so...

That said

I would support any plan that allows us to move more quickly on some key points.

From experience it doesn't work quite as "binary" as you seem to suggest. In my experience one guy comes up with an idea and then you discuss it back and forth. Some people chime in with ideas, build on eachothers ideas and suddenly it's no longer "one person" who did X, Y or Z.
A committee must be able to communicate and collaborate with eachother. Otherwise shit will just become a neverending debate.

I see we are talking about two kinds of committee. I am talking about a committee that just approves and disburses, but won't tamper with the plan. You talk about a committee that would become co-collaborator in plans. I thought that the prior votes (vote 2) had already established that the committee would be responsible for giving out funds for open bounties and not initiate its own projects? In that scenario, my argument makes sense. In yours, it is indeed not workable and rather artificial.

I think the idea of a disconnected committee that is just going to be handed proposals is extremely time consuming and detrimental.
You'd have to write up a super detail proposal every single time you have an idea. This is not a healthy ecosystem.
The committee should definitely be dedicated members and not just dictators who aren't really qualified to say yay/nay to anything.

Co-operation has got us this far. I see no reason to fix what ain't broke. Just look at the fuckfest that is started everytime we try to bring in people to vote on something they haven't been a part of: it doesn't work.


Obviously everything must be transparent and the community shall be able to see exactly what NXT is being spent on. This is what is important: transparancy. But we shouldn't mess up efficiency.

[Zahlen]

I nominate Damelon and jl777 as additional candidates. Will you guys accept the nomination?

I would accept. However, there should also be some backups for the committee.

I have some projects I possibly would like to put up for funding, which means that I would not and should not be allowed to vote on.
That means, to maintain an uneven number of members to avoid a tie in voting, there would need to be a substitute.

(This post is predicated on a "hands-off" style committee, as decided by Poll 2)

One backup would suffice, if it's done this way: all members with a conflict of interest abstain from voting. If the vote is not a tie, then the decision is carried out. If the vote is a tie, the backup member casts the deciding vote.

It's a simple solution, but maybe too simplistic? Could maybe too many members have a conflict of interest, so you end up with only say 3 members? Should a 2-1 vote be considered decisive?

My ideal would be a mixed group that has a definite deadline to finish discussing about a project (say two, three days or any other number shorter than a week) after which they had to vote. All should be committed to get all "fors" or "againsts" on the table in that time.

After that: a binding vote: yay or nay.

I like this way much better, decisions are clearer. We could try it out first, see if it works? If such a committee keeps getting deadlocked, then we could switch back to a majority vote style.


(I have no comment on whether or not to split the funds and committee. I don't know how to value tech against marketing.)