First let me suggest that these conversations are a benefit overall: the more we question what science is and what we are crunching, the more everyone learns! Continuity of Education.

Now,

I think we need to build a process to add/remove projects. In the meantime, we can't go around voting to remove projects we think do nothing based on whims. What we want to include in the GRC reward system is a very serious and complex conversation that, if taking place 24/7/365 can distract us from the very real things we need to do. Things that will make this process so much smoother moving forward, such as defined poll parameters and a clearer voting structure and UI and perhaps a treasury system.

A major part of this conversation is that it seems to have come out of nowhere and the dialogue has been less than constructive. A process lets people prepare for the conversation and formulate points for both sides without getting egos and emotions involved (as much).

I have read and heard many foundations to some wonderful arguments both for and against Moo! and similar projects.

For now, I will vote to keep the project. I do this confidently as there are several proposals and serious conversations in development regarding adding and removing projects to/from the whitelist. Additionally, I expect that the conversation around what type of work we want to reward with GRC will grow as we grow as a community and network.

Interested parties should follow and constructively contribute to:

https://github.com/gridcoin-community/Gridcoin-Tasks/issues/194

and

https://github.com/gridcoin-community/Gridcoin-Tasks/issues/201