As far as I understood the OP @chadrickm is looking for ideas and clarification around a few points. That’s stated pretty clearly.
I think it’s a good question. To have some form of governance, or to at least be aware of the intentions at the moment to avoid the problems of core code maintenance / decision making that have been plaguing bitcoin. A coop board or something for general network decision making.
Now is the time to clarify such things, before conflicts of interest arise which may be damaging to the network (such as a fork).
I know there’s been discussion of how client code works. But it’s not clear (as far as I’ve read) who will own the keys to the codebase (and accept PRs) once Maidsafe release the network.
And with this, I know there’s the intention to spread the 5% development stash far and wide. But is there already a system set up for this? (@dirvine, @nicklambert, or maybe @happybeing you know where we can find this info if it exists? ).
I’ve seen here talk about requiring SAFE Pods to form a consensus (Although then there’s the question of who/what qualifies as a safepod. Can I start one and get a vote?)
I think that might be one of threads you’re looking for @chadrickm. Although it concerns software upgrades, but not the dev bounties etc (which will dictate what upgrades become available / are considered worthwhile to work upon).
I wonder as well if SAFE will need such consensus. As it doesnt require a blockchain, there might not be any ‘hardfork’ issues with new code. Perhaps a variety of clients will exist and so long as they maintain minimum network requirements, it wont matter which ‘fork’ of the code you use? Though still there will be decisions about what core functionality gets added etc… Perhaps there is more flexibility with SAFE than bitcoin?
It’s noted here That network voting would be difficult (setting up new clients etc).
And while the idea of ‘money’ having a say, it might make sense for any ‘board’ of governance to have a minimum entry requirement to discourage voter fraud. I’m not sure how else this could be achieved… (anyone have other ideas?)
With this, though, there could be the basis for electing a ‘board’ which would define governance of the network. And might be in charge of alotting the 5% dev fund to any and all developers out there. (who would carry out maintenance etc).
Some variance on this might make sense. Or maybe this is all a bit complicated and there’s a simpler mechanism.
Ooooooof. Okay I’m going to stop now as I’m deep in the 234 post thread re: upgrades. It covers a lot of what I was wondering about, so I might bob back in here when I’ve read more.