FINAL OPEN POLL TO PICK MEMBERS WILL TAKE PLACE ON NEXTCOIN.ORG & NXTCRYPTO.ORG.
YOU CAN SIGNUP ON EITHER NEXTCOIN or NXTCRYPTO before the poll start date to be eligible to vote BUT ONLY IF YOU HAVE POSTED ON THE NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information THREAD BEFORE FEBRUARY 2nd.2014
And the account name must be the same.....if someone has squatted on your name then pls get in touch with the ADMIN.
THE NAME MUST BE THE EXACT SAME TO QUALIFY.
Topic: [NXT] Community nominations to the funding comittee - page 7. (Read 9904 times)
In case of voting about 20 members don't be afraid to add more names. For example I would love to have a female among those 20 people
Both 7 & 9 are great. 
5
- Pouncer
- Klee
- Damelon
- Anon136
- Rickyjames
7
- buybitcoinscanada
- 2Kool4Skewl
- Pouncer
- Klee
- Damelon
- Anon136
- Rickyjames
7
- buybitcoinscanada
- 2Kool4Skewl
Why nobody mentioned bitcoinpaul?
Thank you
but I think this community has enough great people for this small committee. I skip on this.
Oops! Sorry, Uniqueorn -- my brain is very full tonight and I've inadvertently mixed up all BTT usernames that start with U.
My point remains, though: with a large enough committee, a broad diversity of views and interests can be accommodated.
My point remains, though: with a large enough committee, a broad diversity of views and interests can be accommodated.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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
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?
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
- Jean_Luc
- Joefox
- rickyjames
- Klee
- opticalcarrier
- Joefox
- rickyjames
- Klee
- opticalcarrier
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?
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?
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!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).
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.
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! 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).
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).
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).
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.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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
Jump to: