Topic: NXT - Voting on the scope of authority of the funding committee - page 3. (Read 3679 times)

Don't be afraid of higher status. Official can be a good way to differentiate between similar groups.

Works for me. Basically the "coordinated" marketing is as much a project as any others. No need to give it higher status. That just leads to epithets like "official".

Thanks for helping me get that straight. Been racking my brain to formulate, but it's been a long day

yes, there could be a bounty for:

"Planning, coordinating and executing marketing campaigns"  (something like this)
(it actually is written in the table - organising campaigns)

I think version 2 could include version 1. For example salsacz could ask for a big marketing bounty and when it is approved she can plan and implement it in details.

So we decentralized detail decisions to project and bounty owners.

Voted 2, but am a proponent of a hybrid version: funding committee plans and has its own agenda ánd gives out funds to open bounties.

Otherwise we will keep having problems that marketing efforts will be largely uncoordinated.

Open bounties are a good idea, and need to be there, though, if only as a means to get as many people involved as possible. Some people don't like to work in a team environment, and we shouldn't force them.

Open bounty, volunteer commitee. If a whale wants to reward them somewhere down the line, fine, but it shouldn't be a case of "let me on the commitee, give me some of that lovely free NXT"

bounties put the incentives in the right place

thank you

Sure committee members should not be paid.

Can we divide the funding 50/50 for both ways?

Only if members of such foundation are NOT paid.

can you please make that clear that it would be a commitee that is NOT paid in any way.?

thank you

Pin

I voted for detailed plans, but I like the bounty system too.  Hopefully bounties will have some earmarked funds in any detailed plans.

I agree with the open bounty system, when committee needs to approve submitting for a bounty..

These tables are very similar:

This is a follow-up voting to our first voting on the 9 million common fund here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/decisions-on-9-million-common-fund-418695

So I think the consensus is that we should have a funding committee sooner or later. But imho, we need to define what kind of authority that funding committee could have on the common fund before we can move on to the next step to vote for individual members of the funding committee. I would suggest to think about it in this framework.

On the one hand the committee would make plans to spend the funds in details, the committee will then select qualified people to carry out each detail ventures, they would also monitor each project in details.

On the other hand, the committee could follow my principle of "open bounties" as outlined here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4604220.  
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

The third option is not to have a committee. So basically every single new projects, small or large would have to get the community consensus before getting funded. It could work but could be very time consuming.  

Voice it if you have some other opinions.  


Note: Criterion for being a committee member could be discussed later but don't expect that committee member are being paid. It is very likely to be a volunteer work so think about it when casting your votes.  

It should also be clear that an independent treasurer will have the responsibility of holding the fund and acts according to the community of funding committee's decision. For now our  treasurer is Come-from-beyond.