What’s up, Adam? Been a hot minute. Nice to hear your (virtual) voice.
The vote currently stands at 8 to 6, which seems to indicate that folks are divided about it, not that there is a “large group of influential voters”. And while I’ve taken the time to explain some of my concerns, there is no mandate for voters to do so, or to debate to some degree in the forums. If you recall, PIP-22 passed resoundingly with 27 Ayes and 6 Nays, and there are only two more Nays here than that. Instead of speculating and demanding explanations, perhaps it’s a better idea to get the other 60+ voters in here to weigh in with their thoughts and votes. “I don’t like your vote” isn’t grounds to challenge intent, and to be honest, it’s insulting.
As noted in my previous reply, it isn’t about Ben at all. It’s about the Director role. It’s an important role that shapes the future of the protocol, and given that I hadn’t voted yet, I thought it bore further thought.
I didn’t bring the specific example because we resolved it with a community project that the Foundation supported, and I didn’t want to relitigate the issue. Ben was not an active part of that conversation, but the absence of a senior technical leader was what affected the outcome.
The board observer role is not currently filled, so you won’t get feedback on that front. My observations on the operational input about the observer role are based entirely on PNF’s communication about that role, but as it turns out, there’s a wrinkle there. More on that in a minute.
Much has changed since PIP-22, including many internal and external conversations about where the responsibilities of the future of protocol architecture and engineering lie. And PNF is deeply involved in decision making around ancillary tech aside from the protocol including the wrapped token, wallets, and other supporting tech. Until recently, Matteo was the senior overseeing that. Shane has now stepped in as a contractor to help fill the gap.
Show me a technology based organization where the engineers don’t answer to a senior technical lead, and I’ll agree with your sentiment. While CFO and COO are often later to be filled, CTO is generally an early and critical core component of the leadership team at any software based startup. And given PNF’s current role in shaping POKT’s technical landscape, we can’t argue they don’t have a responsibility there.
I pulled this out of order, but it was necessary to the context. The point is, that mandate is not the complete picture of the organization or its mandate, which has been ENTIRELY my concern.
I think part of the reason that a handful of folks have felt like this was a good place to lodge a protest vote for what appear to be various and disparate reasons is that this risk is not clear. As noted in the proposal, Ben is performing these tasks in his current role, is already a multisig holder, and has carried these responsibilities admirably without the Director title. I am quite open to being further educated as to the risks of the role remaining open a little longer.
But first, THE WRINKLE:
Thanks to a conversation with @doctorrobinson , it seems that the role I’m concerned about IS on PNF’s radar, albeit presented in a horribly underlit way which buries the lede, or perhaps just isn’t totally thought through yet. Although the post is titled Board Observer Application, it describes the Technical Leader role thusly:
Need 1: Technical leader/visionary
- Position: Technical Leader (Future Focused CTO concept) - Board Director (but can be an observer instead, depending on the circumstances)
- Why We Need This: PNF needs to steward the ecosystem. A core component of this is to capitalise on opportunities presented by technology advancement (technical partnerships, commercial opportunities) and to protect the ecosystem from threats (Existential technical shifts, time and resources rabbitholes/graveyards). The Technical Leader will support the board by acting as the main technical lead within the foundation and act as a conduit to technical teams across the ecosystem. They will play a major role in product strategy and evangelism for the ecosystem.
- Key Requirements:
- Knowledge: In-depth understanding of web3 ecosystem and blockchains, and particular knowledge of developer needs and trends
- Skills: Experienced as previous CTO or Technical leader of a web3 protocol, Excellent communicator and public speaker, Experienced leader ideally as a founder or founding team member for major rollup or protocol
- Attitude: Candid, Driven, Focused
This is EXACTLY what I’m talking about, but there seems to be some question as to whether or not this is a full board seat. I believe strongly that the foundation needs a proper CTO, not a technical observer whose input may simply be hand waved away, and PNF also appears to recognize the need, although it has not been presented well (I ignored this post for the most part because given the title, it appeared to be strictly for an observer role). Pulling this role out from the Observer post and making it a clear and highlighted standalone requirement would go far towards satisfying my concerns about the required technical leadership.
Of COURSE it is. All of the above (and more, to be honest) are exactly how one might vote against this proposal despite Ben doing a helluva job. Thus is the nature of politics. When relevant legislation and/or elections are occurring are when the voters express their thoughts and will. Sometimes in the form of debate responses, sometimes in the form of their vote. Both you and PNF’s leadership understand this quite well. While some folks along the way have (in dramatic style) called for Jack to be removed from the foundation, most voters aren’t willing to put their name to a proposal for that. They are, however, willing to vote against a connected proposal to express dissatisfaction.
Also, regarding the timing: I literally learned LAST NIGHT that Matteo had left and Shane was stepping in to cover that role. It doesn’t take a mathematician to see how that 1+1 led to a 2 of my concern around missing skill sets. I hadn’t voted yet, and talked to a handful of people including Shane about my concerns before making the decision that I did. And @shane can verify that in my conversations with him, I explicitly outlined my thoughts that we needed to pull in outside expertise with mature chain experience.