Yesterday @Ned put out a call for nominations to form a community foundation to help with the funding and development of The Steem Blockchain.  Nominations were taking privately and publicly and the following are the nominees so far. @crimsonclad, @aggroed, @whatsup, @upheaver, @llfarms, @howo, @starkerz, @elear, @steemcafe, @gargon, @thecryptodrive, @pgarcgo, @bobinson, @reggaemuffin. ## The most important goal of this organization is to be as open as possible and because of this all chat archives will be released here. We also are working on a home for this organization that will be open to the public. # Open Call For Nominations This is about the community and while some public nominations were asked for, we only felt it was right to open up these to the entire community using the blockchain itself. ## Please read this document and nominate an individual you feel would be a good representative in the comments below.
All the information up to this point is listed below, and will continued to be done in the days to come. There will be no secrets, its all here.
aggroed [6:00 PM] joined #community-governance along with crimsonclad. aggroed [6:00 PM] set the channel purpose: Ned made progress on a foundation. We're here to discuss. whatsup [6:00 PM] joined #community-governance by invitation from aggroed, along with 11 others. aggroed [6:01 PM] @Ned For now I've started by inviting everyone to this slack. Only one who doesn't currently have an invite that has been nominated from what I saw was steemcafe apparently they aren't in this slack @gandalf slackbot [6:03 PM] Ok! I've invited @gandalf to this channel. gandalf [6:03 PM] joined #community-governance by invitation from aggroed. aggroed [6:05 PM] Current list of all "nominees" Crim, agg, whatsup, llfarms, upheaver, howo, starkerz, elear, steemcafe, gargon, cryptodrive, pgarcgo, bobinson, muffin llfarms [6:06 PM] I have his phone number as he was at the Tron conference and could get an email if needed. Someone might want to reach out to see if he would be interested though first, as I’m not entirely sure he would be. crimsonclad [6:09 PM] I'd like to broach the topic of ethical/conflicts of interests early that come with some of us currently being consensus witnesses and what that looks like in relation to what we're looking to create here. I can see points both for and against that are important to me, and I think that's one I'd certainly like a range of opinions on from all of you :slightly_smiling_face: aggroed [6:09 PM] I would want to know more about what Ned has in mind before assuming it's a conflict of interest crimsonclad [6:13 PM] That's kind of what I'm asking about, no? I didn't assume, but I like to think these things through thoroughly, even as potentials. Ned [6:15 PM] Aggroed -- I'm completely open to the governance structures And don't want to be in the way whatsoever >Anyone who is nominated, we'll get their emails and begin deliberating and finding one or more of the folks to be point person to finish setting up a foundation. I'd be happy to include you! >My plan is to fund it through inception -> then it's potential is to grow into an non-profit, mission oriented organization for Steem, that can flexibly add more to its doings as it raises more funds and shows success >Ned [2:56 PM] >A few months ago, Steemit made significant progress setting up a Foundation to support Steem sustainability. >Given the moment, it makes sense to find a person or two to fund and lead this. Is there anyone that comes to mind for you from the Steem community to lead this? >The general idea is hand the project to someone who will set up a Foundation governance that advances Steem, is transaparent, accountable -- is flexible for adopting more responsibilities as it grows. Take it through launch then launch fundraising efforts -- take it into actually executing given the funds it receives -- to which we would plan to donate a multiple of other initial donations >It is often the person most reluctant who would be best to lead > However, I believe the task should be manageable - we have contracted an organization that specializes in setting up >Foundations and can manage to the goals (edited) Somehow, it would be great to get the initial nominated group to deliberate in their own channel, with comms appearing publicly The funding I'm committed to is the initialization funding I expect once it is initialized that there will be a subsequent fundraiser for year one (edited) Based on fundraising goals, I expect it would attempt certain initiatives (edited) I expect it will raise significant funding for year one (at least), and am committed to making that happen Once an accountable structure is set up, I'm very optimistic is will become logical to put more responsibilities in this org Can we publish this channel publicly? Please :slightly_smiling_face: I don't want any seats in the org for myself or Steemit, Inc folks, btw - for clear corporate distinctions aggroed [6:20 PM] I'm completely open to publishing it openly. It might be easier to host in PALnet considering discord can allow a role where anyone in here can type and view where as everyone else can just view thecryptodrive [6:21 PM] I'm fine with it being public as well, does Slack not have a read only mode? llfarms [6:21 PM] I believe he means public to the community aggroed [6:21 PM] ^ Ned [6:21 PM] ^ llfarms [6:21 PM] Posts could be made with full transcript Channel open for all to see Ned [6:22 PM] Could someone be in charge of posting transcripts? llfarms [6:22 PM] Yes, that should be easy What account would we want to post them on? aggroed [6:22 PM] tbd llfarms [6:22 PM] Also, sent steemcafe’s email to you aggroed Ok Ned [6:22 PM] I'd so go ahead and choose one aggroed [6:22 PM] I forwarded to ned Ned [6:23 PM] I am stepping out of the way now Please appoint a leader aggroed [6:23 PM] Ned do you have a scope in mind of what the foundation should cover? Ned [6:23 PM] I will be here for support aggroed [6:23 PM] or a broad objective? Ned [6:23 PM] > The general idea is hand the project to someone who will set up a Foundation governance that advances Steem, is transaparent, accountable -- is flexible for adopting more responsibilities as it grows. Take it through launch then launch fundraising efforts -- take it into actually executing given the funds it receives -- to which we would plan to donate a multiple of other initial donations A foundation that can handle as little as marketing campaigns with flexibility to grow to handle GitHub repos and engineering outsourcing aggroed [6:24 PM] are you open to creating a process for delegations from misterdelegation under this group? Ned [6:25 PM] I would suggest something like that be baked in to be manage-able from the way the Foundation is setup. Whether that needs to be in the by laws, I'm not sure; I'm not sure it's not too specific. A process for incorporating a process like that seems adviseable, (edited) Short answer, yes. aggroed [6:27 PM] Do you have an initial budget in mind that would come from Steemit to support this initiative? Ned [6:28 PM] The initia lbudget is only to setup the organization That will cost between two and 15 thousand dollars llfarms [6:28 PM] Before appointing a leader, we need to contact all nominees as many are not present here currently. Set up a chat, and hash out some details including conflict of interest brought up by Crim. We also need to decide if nominees are the only ones involved or if it should be opened up more in the sake of transparency and other all inclusion. thecryptodrive [6:29 PM] So where would the rest of the funding come from, the community can't afford to fund such an organisation imo. Ned [6:29 PM] I have a series of communications, contacts and setup documents to share with the group once it is somewhat organized with co-leaders or leader, etc Ned [6:31 PM] replied to a thread: There needs to be a fundraising exercise once the organization is formed. I am committed to making that substantial for the first year, through some commitment later to a multiple of funds received for certain fundraising thresholds. This group must be willing to launch a fundraising campaign for this to work.View newer replies crimsonclad [6:31 PM] I don't even suggest it's the only or even a full conflict of interest~ but we have brains here that have so many valuable perspectives. There is nothing more important to me than doing right by steem so you may have to bear with me as I look at angles and ramifications of my (and others) actions and abilities to make sure that's what's achieved. It's not meant to slow down or confuse the process, but it is important to me. aggroed [6:32 PM] Well, hearing more from Ned now makes it easier to see what or what not might be a conflict. I think it's a good convo. llfarms [6:32 PM] And I think that sort of thought process is exactly how we need to approach this Crim, completely agree. aggroed [6:33 PM] I know you were looking at this a lot a year ago, did you see anything along the lines of technology grants that might be able to support a non-prof like this? Ned [6:34 PM] ^ seems worth creating a role for someone to look into (edited) Ok, I believe I need to help get this to one more step aggroed [6:35 PM] yeah, grant writer seems an imperative Ned [6:35 PM] The nomiated group should accept anymore nominees after soliciting from the first transcript post thecryptodrive [6:35 PM] What are the initial thoughts, operating the foundation as a trust with the Steem network as beneficiary or as a DAC? Ned [6:35 PM] After that, the nominee group should nominate each other for two co-leader positions The co-leaders shall be blessed by the group to pull the foundation to fruition (edited) thecryptodrive [6:36 PM] I would even say three incase of deadlock Ned [6:36 PM] That works IMV Who can volunteer for the first transcript post? llfarms [6:37 PM] I can do it once we decide on an account. Then can ask for nominations and collect crimsonclad [6:37 PM] Probably best to make one fresh, easily enough. llfarms [6:37 PM] Yes, just need a name thecryptodrive [6:38 PM] first order of business should be to name the foundation and account aggroed [6:38 PM] ok, Ned, I think we have enough to start llfarms [6:38 PM] Thank you aggroed [6:39 PM] I'd suggest we talk about Crim's comment about Witnesses and conflicts before going on we have a lot of witnesses in this group Ned [6:39 PM] That perceived issue could get resolved through the next round of nominations llfarms [6:40 PM] I don’t know that being a witness is a conflict of interest as it’s an elected official who is vested in the platform, but I know some would disagree. True Ned [6:40 PM] There also should be rotating board seats in the by laws, if not some seat reserved for STEEM-based votes, or some such thecryptodrive [6:40 PM] Almost all, if we remove them we have almost no one left and imo the consensus witnesses are in the position they are in because of their commitment to Steem. (edited) i would say annual elections llfarms [6:41 PM] It needs to be balanced with witness and community members then (edited) thecryptodrive [6:41 PM] for the board (greater community vote) and then the board elects leadership aggroed [6:41 PM] especially because some of this stuff will involve keys I think it needs to be a term that's at least a year Ned [6:41 PM] Lawyers can be contracted to help handle keys llfarms [6:42 PM] Yes, as a “non witness”.. some people aren’t capable of doing any of this. thecryptodrive [6:42 PM] same as a body corporate trust, once elected, trustees nominate chair and vice-chair usually crimsonclad [6:42 PM] Right. As I said, I'm not even married to the idea it's a conflict of interest that means you can't hold a position. Just one that is kept in the backs of our minds as we look at how we want to build, spend, and be transparent. Looking at the questions and concerns people may have early in the process means you can create a structure that addresses them early to be as transparent and representative of the community as possible. aggroed [6:43 PM] I guess my thought on the conflict is that I don't perceive one especially if Steemit isn't sitting on it. that wouldn't immediately cause one, but I think it makes it slimmer llfarms [6:43 PM] Agreed, and opening it up to the community makes it inclusive and balances it. As was said though, next round of nominations could make this issue void. Ned [6:44 PM] Let's choose a name, can be temporary and move fwd aggroed [6:44 PM] I guess my main thought is that it doesn't matter if I think it's a conflict or not people will vote witnesses based on if they perceive it as a conflict Ned [6:44 PM] steem research foundation was a working title we had months ago I believe we could do better aggroed [6:45 PM] I guess I ultimately believe the risk sits on teh witness thecryptodrive [6:45 PM] it has to fit a steem account length too steemfoundation is taken unfortunately unless steem.foundation aggroed [6:46 PM] Having formed a group before and got bitten by it before I would argue the first piece of business is actually settng community guidelines llfarms [6:46 PM] Not without everyone here Ned [6:46 PM] We need to solicit more member before setting organization guidelines, maybe community guidelines is differen Agree, we need everyone here thecryptodrive [6:46 PM] steem.foundation is taken llfarms [6:46 PM] Pick a name, make a post then guidelines later aggroed [6:47 PM] determining what's public what's not, and some interim thoughts on a plan of how others get involved determing acceptable behavior I don't think it's controversial now Ned [6:47 PM] Let that occur with nominations of leadership IMV for greatest inclusion llfarms [6:48 PM] Yes, which when opening up for “nominations” we do need an idea of what we are looking for. But I guess that could be worked out internally if it’s an issue after. aggroed [6:48 PM] Especially when involving the public and accepting any and all nominations as we currently do I think it's incredibly imporant this group has community standards, at least initial ones Ned [6:48 PM] st.eemfoundation steem-foundation llfarms [6:49 PM] Second one thecryptodrive [6:49 PM] steem-insitute aggroed [6:49 PM] institute is a good word thecryptodrive [6:50 PM] https://steemd.com/@steem-foundation this is taken Ned [6:50 PM] That works IMV thecryptodrive [6:50 PM] place thumbs up or down on steem-institute next thing we need to approve how the account will be created and how keys will be handled initially Ned [6:52 PM] I would trust whoever here registers it for the time being aggroed [6:52 PM] I'm not sure we have either a quorum (1/2) or half the voters in favor of it llfarms [6:52 PM] Well, I think the account will just be for communication at this point. No funds are involved aggroed [6:52 PM] it's 12+ Ned i think llfarms [6:53 PM] I’m fine with the name, even though I think foundation goes more inline with funding and what other blockchains do. Ned [6:53 PM] Steem Institute, non-profit foundation for the advancement of Steem thecryptodrive [6:53 PM] all the iterations of foundation are taken on chain llfarms [6:53 PM] But the name isn’t that important really, it’s what happens after aggroed [6:53 PM] Crim, you're probably the best at branding here. Any thoughts on the name? llfarms [6:54 PM] Well, when you say it like that.. it works @crimsonclad Ned [6:54 PM] Let's quickly move to getting this transcript posted llfarms, woud you? crimsonclad [6:55 PM] I'm thinking on it right now, but institute is a great start. Suggests education and exploration. (edited) llfarms [6:55 PM] Yes Ned [6:55 PM] Thank you Do we have a second? aggroed [6:55 PM] second thecryptodrive [6:55 PM] ok are you guys happy to create the account? whatsup [6:55 PM] Why in PAL or something and not the blockchain llfarms [6:55 PM] I have an account credit available and will make the account aggroed [6:55 PM] cause you can't live chat on teh blockchain as easily whatsup [6:55 PM] We have a communication platform llfarms [6:56 PM] Share keys with whoever needs them whatsup [6:56 PM] and this is supposed to be a community fund llfarms [6:56 PM] We are working on putting this on the chain whatsup That’s the goal aggroed [6:56 PM] I still think we need 2 more before steem-institute is good to go thecryptodrive [6:56 PM] @llfarms will you share the main key with a few of us in DM as redundancy incase something happens to you crimsonclad [6:56 PM] We're placing all transcripts onto the chain. I don't think the idea was ever to have the foundation operating out of any entity. (edited) aggroed [6:57 PM] it's also going to be hard to read because upvotes will take things out of chronological order thecryptodrive [6:57 PM] also we need to consider the recovery account, should be blocktrades or something neutral (edited) crimsonclad [6:57 PM] AFAIK that was a suggestion to put them there until this was done, but we're moving straight to doing this first. I see no reason to choose any existing discord or community. thecryptodrive [6:57 PM] i know how to change the recovery account if needed upheaver [6:57 PM] just caught up with the conversation here, so far so good aggroed [6:58 PM] still need 3 on steem-institute (if ned's not actually on this he shouldn't get a vote) still good to know he supports though upheaver [6:58 PM] I like it llfarms [6:58 PM] @whatsup I’d like to hear from you aggroed [6:59 PM] scroll up and thumbs up please thecryptodrive [6:59 PM] @upheaver can you put a thumbs up upheaver [7:00 PM] I did in two places whatsup [7:00 PM] I'm fine with that was just asking a question. :slightly_smiling_face: aggroed [7:00 PM] I need to get a post out about my show tonight, a witness forum next week, and before this even started I was putting a community forum together for Sunday Feb 3 at 1pm EST 1800 UTC as an open opportunity for anyone to contribute thoughts on what governance should/would look like. Any objections to posting this? (edited) llfarms [7:01 PM] Just wanted to be sure. The goal here from the beginning is to make this open and no more behind closed doors. I will make account, share keys and post transcript. upheaver [7:01 PM] no objections aggroed [7:01 PM] ## Steem Community Gathering I want you to mark your calendars. At 1pm EST on Sunday Feb 3rd I'm going to host a community wide open forum. There's lots of ideas of community governance. I've been floating mine around, which I've called Steem Council, but there are others as well. I'm inviting anyone in the community that wants to share what they are working on, why it has merit, and why we should support it/ use it/ adopt it will be given a platform to share that. upheaver [7:01 PM] quick question, do we have any anonymous users in here? crimsonclad [7:02 PM] Do you mean, are our full names available on chain? llfarms [7:02 PM] Steeminstitute or Steem-institute? thecryptodrive [7:02 PM] I'm not anon upheaver [7:02 PM] not necessarily on chain, rather than known aggroed [7:02 PM] idk thecryptodrive [7:02 PM] steem-institute whatsup [7:02 PM] I don't know anyone's name nor do I care llfarms [7:02 PM] Ok I like that as well thecryptodrive [7:02 PM] without the dash is hard to read crimsonclad [7:02 PM] I prefer the dash, myself. Clearer. thecryptodrive [7:03 PM] plus https://steemd.com/@steeminstitute is taken llfarms [7:03 PM] Yes, easier to read. I’ll go with that crimsonclad [7:03 PM] I use my face and have introduced myself with my real name. If it became paramount, I would consider an on chain publication, since accountability matters. llfarms [7:04 PM] Real face/real first name.. if you look