You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Full Voter List | Full Transparency And A Call For The Community's Review
Here are the minimum rules for a fair election :
- You present the purpose of the working group
- you give at least 15 days for candidates to introduce themselves
- you present the rules for the election : number of rounds, tool to vote, date of the election, who is entitle to vote...
- you announce the date for the election at least 15 days in advance so voters can ask questions to candidate or at least read their presentation.
- you let a large enough period so that everybody can vote.
496 voters ? and you are happy with that ?
So now that the working group is elected what is its purpose of this group ?
I agree that this are good criteria for elections regarding the foundation itself. The working group is tasked to oversee future elections and for the sake of not waiting two months longer was not done in such a fashion. It is a group without power, the criteria will be higher for more important positions.
There will be calls for proposals on how such an election should be structured and I am looking forward to seeing your proposed structure there.
I propose to use https://votemobile.xyz/ for next elections, and a presentation of candidate and rules on Steem.
There are certain people that pushed this to fast and its not steemit inc. Your points are fair and very valid. Knowledge and skills are lacking and I can see this being a power struggle where some of the mouthy ones win out instead of the knowledgeable ones. I know many people that should have stepped forward did not for these very reasons. These are the reasons I abstained from voting. People do want change, and fair enough some people stepped forward ( which is more than I done) but their motivation, well lets just say I don't fully trust. When the power struggle and the need for fame dies down, I might begin to partake in all this. But right now let them at it.
Actually, the only rush was from an individual at Steemit Inc., so I’m not sure of this comment at all.. as you were there from the beginning. You should be the one voicing the truth.
Im not as mouthy as some. Not my gig. Thanks for your opinion.
Posted using Partiko Android
I didn’t realize speaking the truth made someone mouthy. It does seem much more beneficial to not do anything and then twist the narrative after, easier anyways.
I’ll continue with the truth, and the insults that come with it, I can accept that. Good luck.
There is a lot you dont realize
Posted using Partiko Android
I can admit to that, and do often. But no, speaking the truth is never a bad idea and if that makes someone “mouthy”, then so be it.
Did i call u mouthy. But i do say this, you have a habbit of thinking you are worth talking about. You version of the truth is not always everyone elses. My comment was not to you. Enjoy your day!
Posted using Partiko Android
Paula, read your comments..
I said “you should be speaking the truth”.. your response, “I’m not as mouthy as some”... me “I didn’t realize speaking the truth made you mouthy”... you, “there is a lot you don’t realize.”
I must have misinterpreted something there. I was never bringing up myself and don’t think I’m worth talking about at all.
I was just clarifying that as someone who was there in the original meeting, and seeing full transcripts, that the only person pushing this forward in a rushed manner is no where on that ballet. To say anything different was not the truth, and I said you of all people should be speaking the truth. That’s it.
do i look fat in these pants? good time to not tell the truth.
From listening to the radio shows this past week, I feel it was Ned/Steemit inc wanting to get the show on the road as quickly as possible. He's been told to slow his roll at times due to his shiny object obsession (my words not anyone else's) and eagerness to get started. Something like that anyway.
I do agree that some potentially worthy candidates have taken a step back and that this is a shame cause that leaves the door open for others, that's how it goes though eh.
Interesting to watch for sure.
ned nor steemit inc organised the voting, those facilitating it did. They could have just as easy said no to the rush. control of this was passed over from what I seen( although I got sick of it last week and havent gone to the discord since so I could be wrong) and the authors of the post on this account could have refused to do it. I don't know if steemit inc even has a copy of the keys for this account though which it was all organised. Anyways I dont really care anymore. its to negative for me and I dont want to focus on it to much. There is plenty of positivity and nice people that are looking for help and support trying to get by and thats where I will be.
And hay, I said shiny new object syndrome way way before you lol...I can prove it too lol
The new MD said it too, but I wanted to make clear i wasn't quoting you or her :P
hahah they are all taking my words.......well at least its in context lol
To ask the community to draft proposals for the future foundation and organize a process to gather/select/vote the best one (or the best mixture of them).
I agree the community should have needed more time for voting and more information about the purpose of this working group.
Posted using Partiko Android
You can find the purpose outlined in multiple posts as well as pinned in the discord server. This is not a position in the foundation but rather an election committee of sorts with secretarial duties who’s goal is to gather the proposals on the structure of said foundation from the community and put forward a fair election of said proposals. After this is done, the group would disband.