This looks like it's coming together quite well.

The linked doc needs some tweaks just for readability as there are many mentions of boards, but it can get confusing as to which board is being referred to.

Some questions:

When you refer to the initial population of the boards with working groups one and two. Are these new working groups or the same working groups from the steem alliance?

The Board of directors are volunteering, will that be the same for the other boards? As much as some rewards can help compensate people for their efforts, there is the risk that it will attract the wrong type of people.

Is the US the best location for a fiat based foundation? The reason I ask is the possibility of ending up under the SEC spotlight.

Finally, my view is that the best way to ensure success and have wide spread involvement of the whole community, is to make sure we involve a diverse range of steemians. How do we ensure that happens? By diversity, I mean those from different geographical locations, experience, skill sets and activity levels. We don't want the whole foundation to be full of those who can shout the loudest or run around the most.

Otherwise I think this is a good proposal. I like the level of transparency and it looks workable.

For full disclosure, I did join a call with the design team and make some updates to this proposal via the various shared documents.

@kabir88

Posted using Partiko Android