Might turn out to be a terrible idea to let the Foundation be “run” by a selected group of Ambassadors…
After Parsons was removed there was a clear consensus (even expressed by Charles) that the new board is interim and will stabilize the situation, do some fire fighting and then look for 6-9 exceptional leaders around the globe who are fit to lead the Foundation. They have the network, influence, competence, experience, knowledge, motivation, integrity and reputation necessary for such a position.
Now it seems the council won’t change, and for operational governance we have the executive board from a large pool (50-100) of Ambassadors.
This is a top-down approach (easily corruptible and highly political) and if you would have had any Community representation on the Cardano Foundation that should be done via a bottom-up approach such as the suggested Cardano Social Council.
Let’s see what happens, but as a Guardian who led the operations to have Parsons removed, it feels alarming.
All my respect to the Ambassadors, but creating Cardano content, moderating and translating is very very far from being fit for participation on such a challenging board, with enormous responsibilities and super ambitious goals.
This role should be left either to the executive level professionals or otherwise make it as a democratic election process over the Cardano Blockchains liquid democracy capability.
@Nathan_Kaiser maybe it’s time to consult McKinsey ? … what is suprising is that when I asked you whether there is such a plan to have Ambassadors / Community members on the Board in January, you said clearly no…
Why all this complexity and not giving the board to a few outstanding leaders who are best fit to run it?
Btw Nathan & Manmeet did show some exceptional performance in the last months, so would be happy to see them long.
Hopefully more light on this new governance model for the Foundation will assure that something was seriously misunderstood in the above interpretation…