[NXT] Community nominations to the funding comittee

[rickyjames]

I will serve if tapped to do so.

All I say is think ahead and plan for the future.  

This fund will be FAR more valuable, and will be able to do FAR more for NXT, the further in the future it is tapped.

[Zahlen]

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.

How does your second sentence follow from the first? A constantly updated OP in a discussion thread, or a proposal on a wiki page hashed out by many contributers, could simultaneously serve as both discussion summary and the proposal, wouldn't it?

EDIT: Regarding super detailed proposals, consider mine here: https://forums.nxtcrypto.org/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=710. (No takers yet unfortunately.) This was proposed by just one person (me!), took me some time to think through and to write, but certainly doable. It convinced jl777 to offer additional funds as bounty, so I guess it was detailed enough for him. I haven't accepted the offer though, I'd like to see whether this can work on tip offers and potential future tips, and general goodwill alone.

[Uniqueorn]

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.

How does your second sentence follow from the first? A constantly updated OP in a discussion thread, or a proposal on a wiki page hashed out by many contributers, could simultaneously serve as both discussion summary and the proposal, wouldn't it?

Sure in an ideal world a constantly updated OP would work.
You have to understand how marketing works. You send PMs back and forth, emails back and forth, skype back and forth.
hell I got more than 270 PMs on Nextcoin forum alone directly tied to marketing.
I got more than 100 email adresses directly tied to NXT marketing and SWARMing.

The only way this works is if the committee members don't have jobs and is ALWAYS ready to be updated with new info.

It is so much easier with real time chat (skype for instance) where you can discuss back and forth or on camera, have real conversations and work out details. Then you put that proposal to vote and if it gets passed through then you have a consensus and from that point you have to detail everything and publish it publically so everyone can see. And of course the committee must take notes from the community.

But having a disconnected community will only be a huge obstacle for a lot of projects that aren't static.

[VanBreuk]

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

The problem of all money in one person's hands is solved regardless by splitting the community funds between the comittee members, and having one buffer account to issue payments in one chunk. The safety measure is well worth the few extra Nxt in fees, I think this was discussed elsewhere. Sorry I cannot provide the link.

Marketing and development funds, and any discussion about project approval, will be more productive if both sections are connected. They have a lot of intersection, and it will be very positive to reflect that in the funding comittee. I vote for a mixed group, just my 0.02.

[dzarmush]

I don't think we need 2 or 3 or 5 committees. We need 5 smart trusted people to divide the money between them and create a committee.

[jl777]

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.

This is sign of apocalypse!
I keep agreeing with everything you are saying today!

[jl777]

I dont mind being on committee to decide how to spend funds, but i prefer not to be in the position of having access to actual funds.
As someone already with responsibility of allocating NXTcommunityfund resources, i want to stay on the allocation side of the fence, not the disbursement side

James

[VanBreuk]

Keeping both marketing oriented and development oriented people in one single comittee does not challenge the global budget allocation.

If the community decides to assign 6/3, the comittee should not move a dime from one budget to the other. Unless I got something wrong, it's their responsibility to

a) Store the funds,
b) Approve/schedule the funding of projects welcomed by the community
c) Issue payments

The question for me is whether in b) the comittee will also have veto power, and the ability to bounce back a project for further discussion with amendments. But even if they did, that should not imply those funds change their global budget allocation. Dev money will stay dev money, it's up to the comittee to approve the expense (or not) and time it, not to reallocate it.

[jl777]

Keeping both marketing oriented and development oriented people in one single comittee does not challenge the global budget allocation.

If the community decides to assign 6/3, the comittee should not move a dime from one budget to the other. Unless I got something wrong, it's their responsibility to

a) Store the funds,
b) Approve/schedule the funding of projects welcomed by the community
c) Issue payments

The question for me is whether in b) the comittee will also have veto power, and the ability to bounce back a project for further discussion with amendments. But even if they did, that should not imply those funds change their global budget allocation. Dev money will stay dev money, it's up to the comittee to approve the expense (or not) and time it, not to reallocate it.

Just make sure commitee members do not end up with both disbursement and decision making authority. Without separation, too much power.

Respective advisory committees to use their expertise AND community feedback to decide on what to fund and how to stucture. Then the trusted members make the approved payments. Only in extreme scenarios should the trusted members be able to veto an approved expenditure

Doesnt this make sense?

James

[bybitcoin]

I see so much of Nxt hunger here!
Who give all these new btt members with less than 50 forum history and not much of a trading or fund-running background to select and vote for each other?!

I personally vote for klee and Pouncer. (also come-from-beyond but he declined unfortunately).

[jl777]

I see so much of Nxt hunger here!
Who give all these new btt members with less than 50 forum history and not much of a trading or fund-running background to select and vote for each other?!

I personally vote for klee and Pouncer. (also come-from-beyond but he declined unfortunately).

If you are not on the list, you should be!

[bybitcoin]

I see so much of Nxt hunger here!
Who give all these new btt members with less than 50 forum history and not much of a trading or fund-running background to select and vote for each other?!

I personally vote for klee and Pouncer. (also come-from-beyond but he declined unfortunately).

If you are not on the list, you should be!

No friend, I declined earlier, and by my previous paragraph I didn't mean any newcomer or any new btt account.
I just see too much of pressure and hunger here, and well known leaders like CfB or klee or Pouncer absent.

By the way I here like to mention that people like you, slasacz, utopianfuture and also devs like nexern and Jean-Luc have already proved themselves as legit members no matter how much of a btt history they have.

[VanBreuk]

Who give all these new btt members with less than 50 forum history and not much of a trading or fund-running background to select and vote for each other?!

This is not a bitcointalk issue, it's a Nxt issue. The fact some among us haven't been active in BTT for long should not limit our voting and commenting ability in an Nxt discussion, should it?

[bybitcoin]

Who give all these new btt members with less than 50 forum history and not much of a trading or fund-running background to select and vote for each other?!

This is not a bitcointalk issue, it's a Nxt issue. The fact some among us haven't been active in BTT for long should not limit our voting and commenting ability in an Nxt discussion, should it?

No that is right, but I see a lot of discussion about those 9M but always some of the key members (and their names) absent from the list or talk or consideration. If you are or want to be an active Nxt member, you should know those trusted leaders and let them in.

[okaynow]

- Jean_Luc
- Joefox
- rickyjames
- Klee
- opticalcarrier

[Uniqueorn]

Who give all these new btt members with less than 50 forum history and not much of a trading or fund-running background to select and vote for each other?!

This is not a bitcointalk issue, it's a Nxt issue. The fact some among us haven't been active in BTT for long should not limit our voting and commenting ability in an Nxt discussion, should it?

No that is right, but I see a lot of discussion about those 9M but always some of the key members (and their names) absent from the list or talk or consideration. If you are or want to be an active Nxt member, you should know those trusted leaders and let them in.

Except you clearly don't know all of the key people yourself.
Like I enlightened you of today: 4500 NXTers are active on nextcoin forum, that is a fucklot more than on BTT. BTT is just a nichè market really. VERY few come here to read that never ending Game of Thrones like thread.
A lot of the key people hold very little influence here and vice versa

[bybitcoin]

Who give all these new btt members with less than 50 forum history and not much of a trading or fund-running background to select and vote for each other?!

This is not a bitcointalk issue, it's a Nxt issue. The fact some among us haven't been active in BTT for long should not limit our voting and commenting ability in an Nxt discussion, should it?

No that is right, but I see a lot of discussion about those 9M but always some of the key members (and their names) absent from the list or talk or consideration. If you are or want to be an active Nxt member, you should know those trusted leaders and let them in.

Except you clearly don't know all of the key people yourself.
Like I enlightened you of today: 4500 NXTers are active on nextcoin forum, that is a fucklot more than on BTT. BTT is just a nichè market really. VERY few come here to read that never ending Game of Thrones like thread.
A lot of the key people hold very little influence here and vice versa

hehehe!

[Pouncer]

Just wondering...

Does it not seem odd that amongst the people proposed to be appointed/elected to take charge of a large sum of money for the Nxt project is someone who is in the development team of a Nxt clone?

[joefox]

I'm happy to accept a nomination, as I'm in this for the long haul.  But I think there are mechanisms that allow for larger committees.

In my IT-management-universe we employ a voting system to arrive at decisions on RFC (request for change) proposals.  A committee of more than 20 meets at a scheduled time each week to review submitted proposals, and that committee members subsequently vote "yes" or "no" on each proposal.  Simple majority rules.

The committee is intentionally made up of people from a diverse set of backgrounds, and members vote based on the information presented in the proposals and their consciences.  The size of the committee is not a problem, and people are occasionally added or swapped out as needs dictate.  If committee members are unavailable to vote, there is no penalty... but if a large number of subsequent votes are missed, the members' standing on the committee may be called into question by other regularly-voting members.

In such a committee, someone like Uniqueorn is completely welcome: the fact that he's interested in developing a clone of Nxt that embraces a more fair distribution does not invalidate his interest in Nxt or its future, and the fact that there are other people on the committee who may align with other interests actually ensures that a broad range of opinions are shared.  In my current work environment, it was eventually observed that there is a size for the committee that becomes too unruly... but a size of 20+ has not been problematic because the votes are scheduled, information is disseminated in advance of the vote, and a simple majority is viewed as a consensus opinion.

In a decentralized system, it is impossible to control or dictate the motivations of participants.  We can fight it or embrace it; and while the latter option is difficult, I think it's the better one.

[Uniqueorn]

I'm happy to accept a nomination, as I'm in this for the long haul.  But I think there are mechanisms that allow for larger committees.

In my IT-management-universe we employ a voting system to arrive at decisions on RFC (request for change) proposals.  A committee of more than 20 meets at a scheduled time each week to review submitted proposals, and that committee members subsequently vote "yes" or "no" on each proposal.  Simple majority rules.

The committee is intentionally made up of people from a diverse set of backgrounds, and members vote based on the information presented in the proposals and their consciences.  The size of the committee is not a problem, and people are occasionally added or swapped out as needs dictate.  If committee members are unavailable to vote, there is no penalty... but if a large number of subsequent votes are missed, the members' standing on the committee may be called into question by other regularly-voting members.

In such a committee, someone like Uniqueorn is completely welcome: the fact that he's interested in developing a clone of Nxt that embraces a more fair distribution does not invalidate his interest in Nxt or its future, and the fact that there are other people on the committee who may align with other interests actually ensures that a broad range of opinions are shared.  In my current work environment, it was eventually observed that there is a size for the committee that becomes too unruly... but a size of 20+ has not been problematic because the votes are scheduled, information is disseminated in advance of the vote, and a simple majority is viewed as a consensus opinion.

In a decentralized system, it is impossible to control or dictate the motivations of participants.  We can fight it or embrace it; and while the latter option is difficult, I think it's the better one.

I just want to clear up: it's UtopianFuture that is creating a clone. I have simply adviced him to take measures against duplicate accounts that all sign up to get a share, making NEMs distribution unfair. I'm 100% dedicated to NXT at this point and have been since mid-December. NXT is the only crypto I got in my "portfolio".
I work and have worked at least 8 hours on NXT related subjects almost daily for over a month.