# Steem Alliance Working Group --- Today after the new discord server was established Ned came into Steem Alliance and got things moving along. It was immediately decided that we needed to have a voice chat to discuss the direction of the group. The call started unannounced at 2:30 EST. It was recorded, but unfortunately the call audio failed. Logs are still available in [Steem Alliance Discord](https://discord.gg/nMZTcyq), and attached below. The general direction of the foundation; > Foundation structure proposals with a general goal of fundraising and fund stewardship, with a percentage of funds allocated to day-to-day task proposal adjudication and disbursement, and creation of and funding for internal task teams alongside proposals. All driven by mission statement, and a collection of community accountability/sentiment distilled into that statement. The consensus was that we first needed to ask the public what this foundation should look like, by opening up proposals from the community. Those proposals would be collected by the group and put to the community for a vote in an organized and fair manner. Many details were discussed in the text chat below and can be seen in the discord server above. Essentially it was decided in order for this to happen we needed a "working group" to organize and run this proposal election process. This group would have absolutely no power or voting rights. Their sole purpose would be to organize the proposal election to make sure the foundation was formed in the way the community deemed fit. After community had voted on a "direction" any boards, councils or voting representatives would be formed under the approved (by the community) proposal and the "working group" would no longer be needed. There was a round of nominations, all had to be seconded and carried. Essentially a non-voting, working group was established out of the ~30 call participants. The participants are: 
**Due to the fact that this process happened very organically and unplanned (and with the unfortunate fail in audio) it was later brought up that it was only fair that a new "working group" should also be voted by the community. So the task of the current "working group" became to organize the discord server for the many arriving members and plan an open to the public election of a new "working group." These individuals will be appointed by the community from the list of nominees that the community has brought forward in the form of a town hall election.** ## Task The current working group's task is to get a new working group more formally elected. An initial, working, draft purpose we consider to be: `Facilitate an election process for the working group who will in turn facilitate the community wide selection of a foundation governance model(s).` ## Open Town Hall We're inviting nominees to participate in the formal voting for the working group. The meeting and voting for the working group is scheduled to occur in the Steem Alliance Discord group at 1pm EST on Sunday Jan 27. ## Election Process On Jan 27th the meeting will be open to all nominees. During the start of the meeting the following will be explained. Any nominee can nominate themselves or another for a spot in the working group. Then there has to be a second from the audience. This goes on until no one else seeks the role. A private voting page that is restricted to reactions only is created during this process and in chronological order names are added. A thumbs up emoji is placed under each name. When all names have been added on the private voting page and each name has a thumbs up emoji it'll be switched to public mode. Anyone in attendance will have the ability to vote on as many of the participants as they choose to support. To vote simply click the thumbs up emoji. No other emoji's will be considered valid. The voting will be open for 12hrs. At the end of that the 11 people with the highest total will be elected as the new working group.
---------- VOICE CHAT TRANSCRIPT---------- **We apologize that due to audio issues there is no recording to this conversation and going forward will have multiple people recording to ensure we don't have the same problem. This was an unplanned meeting that organically turned into a conversation. We also will be working on a way to archive these transcripts on the blockchain in a more organized manner, but for transparency we believe they are important. All conversations can be seen by everyone in the steem alliance discord server.**
*Start of text in #voice-chat channel* **Monday January 21, 2019** crimsoncladYesterday at 11:33 AM MSP has a great listenership now but I really do dislike considering MSP as the general public or using an existing structure for voice meetings people tend to read too far into things like that and is part of what this stuff is all being formed new right now LLFarmsYesterday at 11:35 AM I agree It has the reach but everyone is trying to pinpoint “secret take over” on someone crimsoncladYesterday at 11:36 AM yes. It's very difficult for people to reasonably separate "I didn't know about it" from "it was purposely locked down and secret" or "I perceived it to be in a space that is disinclusive of me." BluefinStudiosYesterday at 11:38 AM Also, @crimsonclad as you ahve mentioned elsewhere, it is important that it not have oth the APPEARANCE or actual Confilct of Interest. crimsoncladYesterday at 11:38 AM I think conflicts of interest can become points of strength if you acknowledge them and then work with addressing them in mind BluefinStudiosYesterday at 11:39 AM true LLFarmsYesterday at 11:39 AM @BluefinStudios headphones There is an echo Please :slight_smile: crimsoncladYesterday at 11:39 AM @BluefinStudios I muted you BluefinStudiosYesterday at 11:39 AM Sorry, forgot I was on Voice activity crimsoncladYesterday at 11:39 AM no worries flip over to PTT and I'll unmute BluefinStudiosYesterday at 11:39 AM done crimsoncladYesterday at 11:40 AM Can we please be careful with how we use that widely cast "top twenty witness" net? nedYesterday at 11:41 AM A republic :) BluefinStudiosYesterday at 11:41 AM ^^^ that's a nice representative method crimsoncladYesterday at 11:42 AM I really have not gotten a good handle on what I was nominated for BluefinStudiosYesterday at 11:42 AM __ The PERCEPTION of using Stake weighted, is that, well, then, we are now back to the same old, same old. crimsoncladYesterday at 11:43 AM I want to know that I'm good at it to accept it, and if I'm not to step back. I really have to understand what's wanted of me to be valuable in a space where people are asking for trusted tasks from me I'm not convinced that this is even a business leadership group it sounds more like an adjudication body. LLFarmsYesterday at 11:44 AM Yes ^ BluefinStudiosYesterday at 11:45 AM so, to follow on what Crim is asking, is there a mission statement, or goal of this org yet? I get that it is early on or is it still too early? crimsoncladYesterday at 11:46 AM But is this a solely business centric foundation? inertiaYesterday at 11:46 AM :thumbsup: crimsoncladYesterday at 11:46 AM this is a really crucial concept. ShadowsPubYesterday at 11:46 AM good concept @surfermarly a coordination point instructorYesterday at 11:47 AM we need more than one busines group as well aggroedYesterday at 11:48 AM I've started recording BluefinStudiosYesterday at 11:48 AM @LLFarms so, this is: An org that acts a voice for the community at large? for issues that need addressing? crimsoncladYesterday at 11:48 AM this isn't anti business, but the fact that no one knows really shows that we're not in a good place to make a proposal for voting. nedYesterday at 11:50 AM I have some formation docs to share Anyone interested? ShadowsPubYesterday at 11:50 AM yes aggroedYesterday at 11:50 AM please do nedYesterday at 11:50 AM Can I upload PDF here? svemirac (crowdwitness)Yesterday at 11:50 AM yes aggroedYesterday at 11:50 AM under 8mb yes crimsoncladYesterday at 11:50 AM there's a voting on a disbursement. It's not that the foundation necessarily has sub businesses to apply from within.... or does it? hence the questions BluefinStudiosYesterday at 11:50 AM @ned yes ShadowsPubYesterday at 11:50 AM I think we need to nail down the terms of reference first instructorYesterday at 11:50 AM be sure to pin hidden84Yesterday at 11:51 AM yes LLFarmsYesterday at 11:52 AM Exactly that Proof of brain No one small group With power crimsoncladYesterday at 11:52 AM what it sounds like right now is: "raise the money, steward the money, then solicit work based on generally agreed upon ideas that are pulled from the community" so that does push it more into an adjudication sphere vs. a truly business minded management setup. BluefinStudiosYesterday at 11:53 AM Most Foundatiosn have a Board of Directors, members with skills needed, and an EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, with the Executive Director as part of the Executive Committee techslutYesterday at 11:53 AM One person in control = one person with all the responsibility and work nedYesterday at 11:53 AM https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1_zdHbd9BCFDuaYkD0DfMgnCfbKsfEvINPgohgdn2VHg/edit?copiedFromTrash#slide=id.g3600a17fbb_2_434 Google Docs SRF F2F Meeting Slide Deck for April 11 2018_DRAFT (Recovered) Steem Research Foundation Face-to-Face Meeting, May 2018 inertiaYesterday at 11:54 AM Can we also briefly look at what went wrong with the previous attempt at this so we don't do that again? Or did we already fix that problem (e.g.: now we use discord/more interest/experience). I'm referring to "Crowdsourced Marketing Protocol" from 2 years ago. ShadowsPubYesterday at 11:54 AM can you come on voice inertia? to speak to that ? nedYesterday at 11:55 AM Attachment file type: acrobat SRF_-_Institutional_Member_Agreement_-_FINAL.pdf 133.96 KB Attachment file type: acrobat SRF_-_Entrepreneurial_Member_Agreement_-_FINAL.pdf 143.08 KB Attachment file type: acrobat SRF_-_Bylaws_-_FINAL.pdf 327.01 KB LLFarmsYesterday at 11:55 AM Thanks for that BluefinStudiosYesterday at 11:55 AM which goes back to approaching each community and asking for the communities to nominate representatives If I may jump in, I have a lot of experience and can describe the governance of FOundations nedYesterday at 12:00 PM Set bylaws for Stake-wieghted voting to choose funding strategies, in one sub-sect of the Alliance's budget crimsoncladYesterday at 12:01 PM This group is to a) steward funds with a community minded bent and decide on proposals from the wider community b) gather a skilled group to build working teams to successfully take on as many tasks as are possible to handle with a growing scope while fundraising their own funding c) both of these things in a way that has an apportioned fund .... ? nedYesterday at 12:01 PM c except, be careful with "as many tasks as possible" BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:01 PM hehe crimsoncladYesterday at 12:02 PM worded differently for clarity. it's not an idea, it's a question to help us look at what our structure would be based on being fully impartial to incoming proposals looks different than building skilled teams to accomplish tasks BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:03 PM COMPLETELY agree, @LLFarms nedYesterday at 12:04 PM Less than 10 crimsoncladYesterday at 12:04 PM well, my idea of a board shifts with the main goals of the foundation. If it's mostly for stewardship, a board and an additional mechanism in place to keep transparency/accountability looks different than a board overseeing subcommittee business groups. LLFarmsYesterday at 12:04 PM Agree aggroedYesterday at 12:04 PM less than 10 10-20 nedYesterday at 12:04 PM Important piece is bylaws mandating stake wieghted voting on a portion of the budget allocation aggroedYesterday at 12:04 PM 20+ whatsupYesterday at 12:04 PM less than 10 BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:05 PM 5-10 11-15 16-21 21+ nedYesterday at 12:05 PM Are we assuming BOD members are paid? Or unpaid? If unpaid, I'll vote for more BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:07 PM DEVELOPMENT, DEVELOPMENT, Legal, Marketing, communications, PR, Technical, community relations crimsoncladYesterday at 12:07 PM this is pretty much what I said above. I can't find a number truly useful without some envisioning of the daily tasks and the main goals jackmillerYesterday at 12:08 PM Maybe to get the ball rolling and to introduce the concept to the public it would be logical to start with a small "team" (working group) and while starting with a smaller group, it can be made clear that once this endevour moves forwards the predefined numbers of BOD members could be lets say over 21 (with a clause that it must be an odd number). crimsoncladYesterday at 12:09 PM We have three of us nominated right now and I'm still not fully certain of what people nominating me require of me BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:11 PM So, 11 is the number for the WORKING GROUP paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 12:11 PM I would think to get this started, unpaid for sure BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:11 PM to define things going forward paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 12:12 PM :thumbsup: techslutYesterday at 12:12 PM Roles. If the whole board is developers or all board is marketers = issue. BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:12 PM EXACTLY @techslut ShadowsPubYesterday at 12:12 PM mixed @techslut techslutYesterday at 12:12 PM (Semi-here to represent Utopian. Joining a bit late so might repeat things already said.) LLFarmsYesterday at 12:13 PM Great point techslutYesterday at 12:13 PM Have a crazy day of pitches and presentations tomorrow with @elear hence the lack of participation on our behalf. crimsoncladYesterday at 12:14 PM this is why we need to come back to- we are now talking more about making task forces to work on specific things and to fundraise their own funding for that and so that moves away from working with community proposals and building up a steem wide governance body, so that's becoming a bit clearer. jackmillerYesterday at 12:15 PM The "working group" shall result into a "Tiger Team" which shall then go ahead and create the necessary momentum to get the endeavour rolling. inertiaYesterday at 12:15 PM https://giphy.com/gifs/12w45ho280Tg88 Nomination Disqualified surfermarlyYesterday at 12:15 PM Blockchain Tech Dev, Product Development, Business Dev/Partnerships, Marketing, Community Management, PR, Financial Affairs/Funding,... I'd try to cover at least those surpassinggoogleYesterday at 12:15 PM I think this all needs a second discord talk BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:15 PM WORKING GROUP/TASK FORCE 11, so, 5 to 7 stake weighted, and 4 to 6 from other communities? surpassinggoogleYesterday at 12:16 PM I only do greylists BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:17 PM Ahhhh which brings up ALTERNATES 11 with 2 NON VOTING Alternates paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 12:17 PM lol BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:17 PM in case of remove or inability to serve paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 12:18 PM no way...... techslutYesterday at 12:18 PM Holy... 200?! BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:19 PM 200???? Unwieldy!!! whatsupYesterday at 12:19 PM exactly svemirac (crowdwitness)Yesterday at 12:19 PM :joy: surfermarlyYesterday at 12:19 PM shouldn't they be nominated for a specific role? whatsupYesterday at 12:19 PM if your election process would elect a blacklist problem BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:19 PM @FollowBtcNews perfect whatsupYesterday at 12:19 PM then it is already broken crimsoncladYesterday at 12:19 PM It's honestly just a perceived popularity contest. Since we can't tell them what nominations are even responsible for, the nominations are a bit all over the place. svemirac (crowdwitness)Yesterday at 12:20 PM bring haejin here! LLFarmsYesterday at 12:20 PM He doesn’t want to be here techslutYesterday at 12:20 PM And bernie. And let them have at it. LLFarmsYesterday at 12:20 PM Spoke with him a few days ago crimsoncladYesterday at 12:20 PM Sure, but brains have different skills contained in them. The skills we need depend on our focus and goals as a foundation and here we come back around. What comes first, the purpose or the board? surfermarlyYesterday at 12:20 PM the purpose! BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:20 PM PURPOSE crimsoncladYesterday at 12:22 PM Sorry. I know I seem single-minded but I'm nervous to take on anything when it's such a nebulous idea and leadership is a hard thing for me to even consider when I want to see us really define what we want to do. My reticence here is are we meant to try to grow to a steem wide foundation for spending governance, or is our goal to become an entity that is working for task completion alongside the steemit inc roadmap or are we here to do all the things we've asked them for that they aren't wanting to take on as part of their scope whatsupYesterday at 12:24 PM It's being handled backwards in my opinion....Decide what you want to support and why and let the groups bring forward suggestions then pick one crimsoncladYesterday at 12:25 PM I've seen it a few time but it doesn't fully answer the question above. Let me go looking one sec, ned~ paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 12:25 PM Can I ask, does that include the current delegations by mrdelegation, to be worked by this board? BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:25 PM building a foundation to direct funds toward projects, mission or purpose, to increase the functionality and value of Steem aggroedYesterday at 12:26 PM Needs- (Not in any order) Build a Board Design the scope and function of the foundation Appoint executive leadership crimsoncladYesterday at 12:26 PM Ned [12:10 PM] 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 BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:27 PM Good points all Aggroed, but FIRST and foremost, define the scope and purpose, otherwise, we have no idea whether people are qualifed for that board. crimsoncladYesterday at 12:27 PM This is what I'm asking- is it a fund steward with adjudication on proposals, or is it going to take on it's own tasks surfermarlyYesterday at 12:27 PM Proposal for a vision for Steem: "Become the best blockchain based host for tokenized digital communities in the world." Proposal for the purpose of the leader board: "Empower communities of the Steem blockchain to exactly fullfil that (above mentioned) vision." BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:29 PM @LLFarms Would you mind reading Justmarley's comment into the recording? whatsupYesterday at 12:30 PM Only in the beginning There isn't any expectation of stake weighted vot