RE: Steem Alliance Working Group | Community Town Hall Elections Jan. 27th 1pm EST
I like the conversation between 1:10 and 1:13. So happy to see such hatred because I expressed an opinion via a reaction emoji.
If opinions are not wanted, why ask people to participate in any of the selection processes? Or is it only affirmation that is sought? Is this going to have the same cheerleading-only atmosphere that has made Steem almost unbearable over the past nearly three years, where critical/dissenting voices are labeled, ridiculed, and dismissed (only to be ultimately vindicated, as we see today)?
It would be good to know this now, before I decide how far/long I may want to participate.
And for the record: Despite the attempts to label me as a troll and a do-nothing, my disapproval of members of this working group still stands, for the same reasons already expressed, particularly...
Anyone who proudly and repeatedly makes physical threats of violence against other users/people should be nowhere near any part of this organization and its processes.
If that makes ME the asshole, so be it. At least we know where the group stands.
I think a diversity of views and experience is crucial of the foundation is to have legitimacy and hold the confidence of a good majority of users and stake holders.
Regardless of the individuals personal trates, all views need to be considered and if they are to be dismissed, this needs to be made transparent and the process disclosed
The current group is simply doing some tasks. We are not setting up the foundation or deciding anything to do with money or how it is handled.
There is no need for transparency in every "task".
This is an informal process to facilitate putting the team that will actually make decisions.
Hi @whatsup, thanks for taking time to read my comment and reply.
Tone and context often get lost in text, so just to clarify, I am here to provide support and I want to see this initiative succeed and appreciate the work you are doing.
We do need to be mindful of the past and how we ended up here. As you can imagine, for many users, who often get information 2nd, 3rd or 4th hand, the optics of a group that appears within 24hrs with nominees that they have had no input in selecting doesn't look good. We then have another selection process that happens this sunday which doesn't seem to take into account that many users may be unable to be online at that time to provide their input. We are global community that live across many different time zones.
I feel that a more open process that includes a diverse range of people at this stage may lead to better results and outcomes in the future. As they say, "start as you mean to go on".
With the history we have on this blockchain, I do think every task does need to be transparent to regain the confidence of the community. This may slow things down, but I would much rather a slow process than one that rushes to the wrong ends.
@kabir88
There is nothing happening besides a group to pick the group who will organize the decision making communication, foundation, a request for proposals.
While I hear your concerns, it sounds like...
A group to elect a group to elect a group to elect a group. At some point someone just needs to pick a team to facilitate starting the process. That is all we are doing. The job will last about 2 weeks.
Keep in mind, the idea as I understand it is a private fund will be set up to be managed in the future by a public group in some manner.
The public selection and input on the process begins with the actual working group. We are making no decisions on what that will look like, how it will be funded etc. Literally doing some tasks.
"majority of users and stake holders"
Diversity and Views are equally worthless since the concept of 'majority' here, is defined by how much power one has. For the top 20 witnesses, 'majority' means a delegation from one famous account.
Everything else is just POLITICS.
i thought that this was a positive development until i seen the long time crypto scammer @fyrstikken listed as member,
what a joke
We have touched on this haven’t we? I can’t filter what others say, did you want us to? I asked you to please explain your downvote because your opinion was valid and if someone was not ok with the list, we wanted to address that.
The current working group will be done come Sat.. vote in who you would like to see there. As you can openly see in chats, some haven’t even been involved so far. Please don’t blanket the whole project together based on past history. No one is condoning anything said, we are just trying to do this the best way we can. Thank you.
You can certainly filter out well-known sociopaths from participating in the working group. The fact that he was even nominated and accepted is extremely disappointing. It has nothing to do with what was said during yesterday’s chat. The track record of threats of violence and accusations of scamming extend over many years and are known by many people involved in the process so far.
The last thing I expect to see from a group that wants to take itself seriously and be respected inside and outside the Steem community is to ignore that history and marginalize/dismiss anyone with valid concerns. Perception is critically important for establishing credibility.