This ain’t no manifesto. This is just me jotting down a few thoughts about the way I voted as part of the Zcash Governance Panel. If you need sweeping, declarations of certainty and over-importance, just click on the Twitter tab you have open up there on your screen - there’s plenty of that over there.
I believe all the ballots are fairly consequential, but I wanted to write about just one for now - Question 1: the nominees for the board.
At some point over the next week, I will also write about how I voted on Question 5 - Serving Zcash users by focusing on the Zcash blockchain and responsible chain forks thereof. But it is Friday evening and I am Australian and if I they find out that I didn’t drink a fair amount of beer soon, they may never let me back into the country.
A little about me. I am one of the co-founders of HATCH. We are trying to solve the lack of Blockchain Engineers that everyone seems to complain about. Whilst grumbling about something is a lot of fun, we thought getting off our arses and actually trying to solve the problem may be even more fun. We will see….
At HATCH we source, screen and select experienced software engineers, put them through an intensive, live-taught course (complete with live lessons, assignments and portfolio building) and 'update' them out the other side as Blockchain Engineers, ready to contribute on projects.
We are into our second cohort now and are learning more and more and getting better and better every day. Our live-taught classes seem to be a huge advantage to what is out there. Well, that and also the fact that the education is free of charge for the devs that we are able to place into jobs.
I am trying to take my vote as a representative of the folks out there who are still to learn about these technologies and how our actions now will affect how and what they learn in the future.
Anyways….back to my vote -
I voted for Lawson Baker, Ian Miers and Arianna Simpson.
Before I get to reasons for them in particular, I will first have to explain how I see the board operating.
I believe the board needs to be collaborative. Each member needs to know where the others’ strengths and experiences lie and to know when to defer to those said strengths. This will not happen if two members have similar strengths. Particularly when an issue arises in their ‘field’, surely then a pissing-contest will ensue.
Variety for variety’s sake is vanity. Variety for the sake of avoiding show-boating and conflict is prudent and efficient.
I like that Arianna comes to the community as a person who has contributed to the growth of an array businesses and endeavors in the distributed-ledgers space. But what intrigues me more is her experience of coming of age on two continents. This may not seem as important to you, but it certainly does to me.
Whilst humans are the same everywhere, culture is not. Experiencing that as part of one’s maturing, breeds the ability to identify the difference between what is human nature and what is simply localised culture. We are growing a technology based so much on incentive and game-theory. The board is going to have to keep that in mind at all times. Arianna having the ability I described above, her voice will certainly come in handy on this front.
With regards to Lawson, I believe his experience navigating the waters of compliance will be a strength of his that should stand out amongst his peers. Whether we like it or not, compliance on a number fronts is going to be concern for anyone trying to grow a digital currency. Lawson’s experiences will prove handy in terms of forecasting unseen challenges around the corner. We need a voice of caution. I believe Lawson could be that voice.
And last, but certainly not least, is Ian. The greatests minds I have met in my life combine imagination with uncertainty. If you can’t imagine a better future or are certain that one will or will not occur, you never put in the work progress requires. Ian’s work was obviously critical to our community. Without his imagination and uncertainty (both of which are clear on the Zcash message boards), it is unlikely the Zcash currency would exist. Because of this, he should have a voice about where and how we grow.
I have seen some folks here insisting that Zcash O.G.s - whether that be early investors, owners or early developers - should not have a seat on the board. To me, that seems like bull-shit. To act punitively against someone because they were clever enough to create or imaginative enough to identify early potential, is counter-intuitive.
A board should not be about ‘giving everyone a turn’ and this is particularly relevant to here. The Zcash Foundation is nascent and still finding its way. The mission statement is strong, but it still leaves some particulars open to debate. Open to being hijacked. Having folks who have been there from the beginning serves to insure against that.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for Josh. I think he is a smart and strong man who will lead the board well. I believe he deserves to be armed with a great bunch of fellow board members. Excluding the smartest because they may hold a lot or a little Zcash is silly.
Contributions to Zcash and the community should serve as currency to the validity of your voice - not the other way around.
Ok….that’s enough….now, onto the beer...