In the name of full transparency we are posting all conversations leading up to the making of this foundation. These are the final conversations had about the foundation within the private dev slack. All others will continue in the new home for the group, on a designated discord server which is open to the public.

This is still very much in planning phase and we are doing our best to be as open as possible, which means the discord was opened to the public before channels were even organized. We are still working on getting it structured and hope you understand that sometimes these things take time.

Announcement post coming soon with more information on the next step for the group, but since the below dialogue is what lead to the making of the discord server it was decided this should be posted first for public record.

Steem Alliance Discord Server

Previous day's transcript

Sunday January 20, 2019 PST

llfarms8:25 PM
—————— New Archive Day ———-
8:29 PM
There has been a question put up to how many people should have the owner key and if it’s smart to send it to many or have a few elected. I’ll leave that here for discussion, as I can’t make that decision. (edited)

pharesim8:30 PM
it should be multisig as soon as possible anyway
8:30 PM
with one shared masterkey noone can be held accountable

llfarms8:31 PM
I would agree with that
:+1:
1

Microeconomics Zombie8:41 PM
joined #community-governance.

llfarms8:55 PM
We are being asked for a discord for people to meet in. Might want to take care of that somewhat quick

Instructor8:56 PM
i would suggest a new discord server just for this

pharesim8:58 PM
as i said earlier, @reggaemuffin set one up already together with @inertia, why not just use that
8:58 PM
just tried to create an invitation link, but only get discord.gg without id
8:59 PM
got it https://discord.gg/qPDyS9J from here https://steemit.com/witness-update/@reggaemuffin/let-us-the-community-take-steem-governance-into-our-own-hands

Discord
Discord - Free voice and text chat for gamers
Step up your game with a modern voice & text chat app. Crystal clear voice, multiple server and channel support, mobile apps, and more. Get your free server now!(62 kB)

Instructor9:00 PM
very good
9:00 PM
thanks

llfarms9:03 PM
The discord server is the Steem reform one?

pharesim9:04 PM
no, he called it steemcommunity

llfarms9:04 PM
Oh.. different one I guess
9:07 PM
I answered under the steemalliance account that we were still working on that part and would announce as soon as it had been decided. I have no issue with the where, but seeing so many people are missing not sure if we should announce that yet. Plus will need to ask owner to set up channels for the group etc.

Instructor9:08 PM
would be best if this alliance controlled the server rather than just having a channel on an existing one
:+1:
2

pharesim9:08 PM
yes, better to wait till @reggaemuffin is awake and can agree and then adapt the structure. the current role and channel setup there is void after today (edited)

therealwolf9:53 PM
joined #community-governance.

crimsonclad9:57 PM
Thank you for handling account stuff, btw, it's the first of many tasks for this group and getting it done on little to no notice is appreciated. I'm still trying to understand what I have to offer this group, what is most important to the people who nominated me, and how my skillsets mesh with the long term goals to be chosen here. I'm trying to get a reasoned, clear picture on whether being nominated (let alone actually elected) for a position like this would allow me to continue doing the most work/good with what I have and what I'm already doing.

fabien10:02 PM
joined #community-governance along with Powell.

reggaemuffin10:58 PM
Just catching up with everything, good work so far!
I would offer the community governance github organization, discord server etc for this cause:
https://discord.gg/qPDyS9J
https://github.com/SteemCommunity
https://steempeak.com/witness-update/@reggaemuffin/let-us-the-community-take-steem-governance-into-our-own-hands

We can talk about how to manage ownership of these and I would be happy as a trusted person until then. I already started getting some people involved and the objectives align well. (edited)

GitHub
SteemCommunity
SteemCommunity has 4 repositories available. Follow their code on GitHub.

SteemPeak
Let us the Community take Steem Governance into our own Hands! | SteemPeak
As you all have probably noticed, there is a lot of discussion about the powerdown, about the fork, about St... by reggaemuffin(2 MB)

11:01 PM
I have set up this discord server that discussion rooms are read only for everyone, so there is no private channel. I feel this is a good middle ground to reduce noise but maximize transparency and accountability
11:02 PM
So far I have set up three roles, planners, communicators and housekeepers.
Planners are the people who discuss how we go forward, communicators work to be a link between what the planners discuss and the community and housekeepers keep the github running basically
11:04 PM
If you agree on using the discord I have set up, I would give you all roles of your choosing and we can discuss further.
11:04 PM
With the discord being public it might also be easier to publish transcripts
11:05 PM
And yeah, if any of you have ideas, improvements, suggestions, feedback, things that are missing etc tell me and we shape this as a community effort
11:09 PM
I think the current roles are a good intermediate step so we don't hold ourselves up too much on naming and too specific roles and such. And my goal was to have the planners think about a better structure as one of their first task. So like @pharesim already said the current structure is an intermediate thing that should be changed long term and is a first try to see if such an organizational structure can work (edited)
11:12 PM
Posting the discord invite again for people who want a TL;DR; :slightly_smiling_face:
https://discord.gg/qPDyS9J (edited)

gargon11:45 PM
Sounds goods regge if we all have same roles there, algthoug it might be a good idea to call the discord server also steemalliance? (edited)

inertia11:45 PM
Yep. Clunky descriptive names are a good idea to start out with.

reggaemuffin11:46 PM
So far the names are all temporary and we can rename it once we have decided on something for real in my opinion. Changing the Github name is a bit more bothersome so I rather not do that unless necessary.
:+1:
1

11:47 PM
Regarding roles, so far I have given roles to people who requested it, so write me here if you want a role

good-karma11:47 PM
joined #community-governance.

pgarcgo (cervantes)11:50 PM
Also: We should begin creating a fundational paper to agree on basic things such as a voting mechanisms / governance periods / rotation . Also I would recommend not to use personal / proyects / wittness accounts to post about the fundation. Communications should be done solely through the commonly owned account.

reggaemuffin11:52 PM
@pgarcgo (cervantes) if you join the discord and I give you the planner role, could you kick off such a discussion? Maybe with an invite only but publicly readable google doc?

pgarcgo (cervantes)11:59 PM
Before asigning roles we need to clarify ownership of the fundation discord. Who is owner / admin? It is key to avoid disconforts. Owning a discord give you implicitely a organisation power over the members.
Yesterday

gargon12:00 AM
I guess we all we have admin roles
12:00 AM
Pablo

reggaemuffin12:02 AM
So far I created it and therefore own it, as someone has to own it. I don't want to give everyone there is an admin role, that would be mayhem and chaos. I rather give people who want to do things roles, they then devise a better management structure and we implement that. Maybe with an admin discord account that no one owns or something, not sure how to best go about this.
12:03 AM
The discord is intended to be free for everyone to join, so they can read up on all discussions. But not everyone who joins should be an admin

pgarcgo (cervantes)12:04 AM
To be clarified before that discord grows.

reggaemuffin12:05 AM
It is what we make of it, so if you want ownership to be clarified, start the discussion about it. Get consensus and let us implement it

gargon12:05 AM
Mmm

reggaemuffin12:05 AM
I don't want to singlehandedly devise all structure
12:05 AM
So being the owner of the discord I try to not put my opinion in too much
12:07 AM
So far I thought of the planner role as the people who think about how to improve the structure and the communicators as the people who think about how to improve transparency etc
12:07 AM
so a discussion like this would fit the planners

gargon12:10 AM
I thing since this is going to be a fundation the discord should be owned by many, but let see what most people here think about it
12:10 AM
And how is the sentiment

reggaemuffin12:10 AM
technically there is one owner per discord

gargon12:11 AM
And see how is the sentiment

reggaemuffin12:11 AM
But I have created an admin role that I can give people if needed

pgarcgo (cervantes)12:12 AM
Yes. Thats why we need to find solutions. Perhaps discord is not suitabe for such a communiy owned system
:point_up:
1

reggaemuffin12:14 AM
As far as I know all such systems work with one owner in the end

pgarcgo (cervantes)12:15 AM
Then we need to create a voting system first to select who is the owner and how ownership should perhaps rotate in time intervals (edited)

reggaemuffin12:17 AM
Rotation sounds even more dangerous

pgarcgo (cervantes)12:17 AM
If it is agreed, not necesarily

reggaemuffin12:18 AM
well the risk is shared by more people having the ability to default with no security gained
12:19 AM
It would make sense to have an owner account that is multisig (which I think is not possible) and then multiple admins who can't remove each other
:+1:
1

12:20 AM
But anyway, in my opinion these are things we can think about when we actually have people who can vote, have a voting system, have a general goal forward and such things. Setting up a new discord should I default is not the end of the world. Waiting two weeks to discuss this topic first in my opinion is
12:21 AM
I personally am in favor of the move fast break things ideology, which is why I just created stuff and asked people to tag along with me in the hope that they later replace me with a governance body

pgarcgo (cervantes)12:22 AM
And it shuld not be about "I" but about "We"
:100:
1

inertia12:22 AM
Yeah, whatever works until it doesn't.

llfarms12:37 AM
Moved over from general, so it’s included in the transcript for transparency. (edited)

good-karma
Who is collecting list of nominates? left comment to above post
Posted in #generalYesterday at 12:06 AMView message
12:38 AM

Good-karma “Who is collecting list of nominates? Left comment to above post.”
12:39 AM

llfarms - “I volunteered to help collect the names from the post, being on the chain it should be easy to double check. Nominating on the post is probably the most transparent way but many have nominated here as well and Ned was keeping track.”
12:41 AM

good-karma “I see, thank you @llfarms . my short list for now (gt/g, fabie/n, nois/y) :slightly_smiling_face:”

firepower12:43 AM
joined #community-governance.

llfarms12:43 AM

llfarms - “Perfect, added them to the list. I will make a comment on the post of nominations so far before I head to bed. That way they are all in one place there as well.”
12:43 AM

llfarms- “I will be leaving out thedarkoverlord and Samsung though, unless anyone is against that :slightly_smiling_face:”
(edited)
12:44 AM

llfarms - “@good-karma are you ok with me adding your addition here to #community-governance so it will be included in the transcript?”
12:45 AM

good-karma “yes, please do… thanks!”
12:45 AM
end of transfer from general
:+1:
1

llfarms1:00 AM
Added the comment to the post of all nominees so far to try to make them easier to keep track of. Will update with additional names in the morning.

Ilana (techslut)1:29 AM
joined #community-governance.

bobinson1:30 AM
replied to a thread:
Can we publish this channel publicly?
We can and we MUST & a new organization should be created from day 1 to avoid influence from any existing organizations / communities. This will give us a fresh start and innovate.
:100:
1

bobinson1:32 AM
replied to a thread:
I'm completely open to publishing it openly. It might be easier to host in PALnet considering discord can allow a role where anyone in here can type and view where as everyone else can just view
This should not be under PALnet or any other organizations / communities IMHO.
:100:
4

upheaver1:43 AM
People tldr'd that conversation and are just nominating their buddies without a clue what this is or what the job entails. Also the amount of people complaining that this convo is not on chain is disturbing.
:+1:
2

good-karma1:49 AM
There will be number of iterations for members like aggroe/d and ne/d mentioned, without that, it cannot be as inclusive as it wants.

1 reply
22 hours ago
View thread

reggaemuffin1:51 AM
"I did not read this" ⇒ "it is not public" :shrug: which is why it is important to have people like @llfarms pushing against that narrative explaining that the transcript is on chain

4 replies
Last reply 22 hours ago
View thread

bobinson1:53 AM
replied to a thread:
There will be number of iterations for members like aggroe/d and ne/d mentioned, without that, it cannot be as inclusive as it wants.
To add to this, we must also make sure that there are people with diverse experiences. For example, expecting me to know even one line of CSS will be a mistake. Similarly there will be people with background in sales, PR & marketing, accounting, DevOps, documenting etc.
1:54 AM
IMHO, an introduction about what each one is bringing to the table will be great.

upheaver2:02 AM
I suggest to take a look at other foundations and their staff to get an idea on what's needed - stellar and iota are effective examples
:+1:
1

1 reply
22 hours ago
View thread

Pinned by @bobinson

bobinson2:02 AM
Introduction thread - this thread can be used to share personal introductions. Its upto anyone to stay anonymous but experience/skill/expectations should be shared.
:upvote:
1

2 replies
Last reply 22 hours ago
View thread

bobinson2:05 AM
replied to a thread:
I suggest to take a look at other foundations and their staff to get an idea on what's needed - stellar and iota are effective examples
Agree - I think we can start with little older foundations like Linux Foundation, Python Foundation and then combine with Stellar/IOTA to get the best of both the "blockchain" world and before it ? The reasoning is obviously one being maturity and second being a thought that the blockchain space is full of acronyms which makes it difficult for people.

Fredrikaa2:07 AM
joined #community-governance.

reggaemuffin2:11 AM
related: https://steempeak.com/steem/@bobinson/re-emrebeyler-re-isnochys-re-steemalliance-steem-alliance-takes-shape-or-a-steemit-backed-community-governance-organization-20190121t100951834z
A public mailing list might also be an option but I don't know if that can be decentralized

SteemPeak
| SteemPeak
To add to @llfarms comments, we are looking for ways to make the entire discussion public like using public ma... by bobinson

bobinson2:13 AM
I think a combination of a public mailing list + discord / slack / zulip is the way to go ?
2:14 AM
slack like tools for asynchronous, short communication and mailing list for longer communication.

reggaemuffin2:14 AM
that sounds like a too many channels syndrom to be developed

bobinson2:14 AM
one of slack, discord or zulip - not all of them :slightly_smiling_face:

reggaemuffin2:14 AM
okay

reggaemuffin2:14 AM
and steem blockchain could well replace email in my opinion

1 reply
22 hours ago
View thread

reggaemuffin2:15 AM
for longer discussions

bobinson2:15 AM
replied to a thread:
and steem blockchain could well replace email in my opinion
Agreed :slightly_smiling_face:

upheaver2:21 AM
Added to your intro thread @bobinson
:muscle:
1

reggaemuffin2:34 AM
do we want to post these publicly as I don't think the thread will be part of the dump

1 reply
22 hours ago
View thread

reggaemuffin2:34 AM
not sure how easy it is to copy paste them out

bobinson2:36 AM
Right now we need to keep the conversation going and get some results - so lets get things done rather than going for the best alternative ? :slightly_smiling_face:

bobinson2:39 AM
Tried to summarize initial direction here : Please feel free to make changes. https://hackmd.io/s/rkXal7mQN#

HackMD
Steem Foundation - HackMD

Steem Foundation ## Announcement and Structure Ned [4:45 AM] Aggroed -- I'm completely open

12 replies
Last reply 21 hours ago
View thread

reggaemuffin2:40 AM
reminder that this hackmd link we be publicly viewable and editable later today

llfarms3:03 AM
Couple thoughts, than I’m off to bed;

1.) the word “governance” is confusing and possibly worrying individuals, maybe something to clarify on tomorrow. Even though we don’t know exactly what this will be here, we should maybe expand on that a bit.

2.) the nominations are going to be very high and some sort of guidance may be needed there. I assume once we have a place to interact some sort of voting process could be done (dpoll perhaps). I do think it’s important for each role to receive an appropriate and qualified appointee if this will be successful though. So we may have to come up with specific “requirements” for each role.. not sure, something to discuss before opening voting etc.

1 reply
21 hours ago
View thread

llfarms3:04 AM
3.) Conflicts of interest need to be brought up and discussed to see if it’s something the group should be taking into consideration. (edited)

bobinson3:07 AM
replied to a thread:
Couple thoughts, than I’m off to bed; …
1.) the word “governance” is confusing and possibly worrying individuals, maybe something to clarify on tomorrow. Even though we don’t know exactly what this will be here, we should maybe expand on that a bit. …
2.) the nominations are going to be very high and some sort of guidance may be needed there. I assume once we have a place to interact some sort of voting process could be done (dpoll perhaps). I do think it’s important for each role to receive an appropriate and qualified appointee if this will be successful though. So we may have to come up with specific “requirements” for each role.. not sure, something to discuss before opening voting etc.
agree to all three points.

Benjamin Fuks3:25 AM
joined #community-governance along with followbtcnews.

aggroed6:00 AM
Two things that seem like early considerations to me because they essentially determine a lot of other pieces are group purpose and group structure (legal)

For starters on Purpose I'd ask

1. What are the problem this group is trying to solve?
2. What is the vision for a group that tries to tackle that problem?

Structure

1. What legal structure is best to overcome those problems and enact the vision

Once we have a sense of those then we get into actual implementation, and that framework can be built into Discord.

For a Discord group I think we should start entirely fresh rather than adopt someone else's with whatever purpose, language, or use they had in creating it. There can only be one owner of a Discord group so I'm suggesting we should have people that feel compelled to make a Discord group do so and after there's a few options see where the group gravitates. I think especially if the Discord group creators structure the Discord group under the umbrella of group structure they envision it's clearer what this whole thing would look like in practice. Slack isn't ideal, but it's good enough for now to give people time to construct something that isn't "this is my domain so let's go there," but rather "this is the structure of Discord I would initially propose that gets us closest to the vision that solves the problem."

Suggestion: Create Discord groups, organize them according to principles, talk through options as a group, and then we move after having been presented with options.

As a reminder I'm inviting people to talk these through on Feb 3rd at 1pm EST on MSPWaves. Hopefully the timeline gives people time to get documents on chain, Discord groups created and organized, we have a set day we can talk through them, and hopefully shortly after Feb 3 we find consensus in the group or find that there's really more than one group in here.

Fredrikaa6:09 AM
It would be great if the new Discord also become the host of a continuation of the State of Steem forums.

1 reply
16 hours ago
View thread

reggaemuffin6:10 AM
Sounds good @aggroed I will continue to build the discord in a way I feel starts discussion and get's things done and will get people talking there :slightly_smiling_face:

reggaemuffin6:20 AM
If anyone feels like the discord I started is a place to discuss things, tell me and I give you a role

crimsonclad6:29 AM
So right now we have nominations for an uncertain position of leadership with an unknown path towards not yet defined goals for a group with an uncertain reach, an imploration to create multiple discords that may or may not be used that we'll choose from at some point, etc. and some tangential points as well. I'm always interested in helping facilitate things that push Steem to greater achievements... but I'm still very unclear whether even we truly understand if this group is to be a self funded addition to Steemit Inc (like it would take care of things that are outside inc purview in a complimentary fashion,) if it's meant to get large enough to fund multiple groups and Steemit Inc into the future in a bid system, or if this is simply a place to gather a number of people to talk and to slowly whittle them down to a smaller group that can at that point tackle some of these questions.

crimsonclad6:38 AM
I'm not trying to break the momentum that is growing here, but I'm trying to fully grasp if my nomination is the right fit and what the underlying driving goal is here. Anything I take on I will put my all into, so it's important to me to really understand so I can help facilitate the team around me to achieve what they set out to... If we don't understand this very well ourselves and are already suggesting multiple sets of places to potentially talk, etc. it's going to be hard to explain to everyone else transparently what we want to do, what types should be nominated, our understanding of the things like conflicts of interest (perception or actual) that we would need to have solidly thought so we can build addressing them into our structure and be openly accountable to the people who are going to rightly be concerned about them.

I think all of you are exceptionally driven and the conversation and organization in here has been excellent, but there still some pretty huge questions and suggestions that are pretty unclear at this point and there will be more and more nominations today that will bring in more and more of both.

bobinson6:49 AM
@aggroed - can you share the steed foundation document link you shared earlier ? I am not able to find it

aggroed7:00 AM
This certainly feels nebulous. I guess I liken the first step to we are collectively buying building(s). A building could be a house, a manufacturing facility, a capital building etc. I think it’s easiest to figure out direction and leadership by making showrooms and giving us the tour. From there we can see the problem that the building/plan seeks to address, what the vision is, and how it’s organized to get a sense of the day to day.
After we have seen all the offerings then people could make a determination for themselves of what path they think is best. If there’s clear consensus we build in that. If there’s not we have another question to handle.
For anyone in the group that feels compelled I suggest they gather or join a team, build a discord with some founding documents and structure, and submit a post. Later today I’ll provide a template post on a hacked.io that I will offer as an optional guideline to use for some consistency in comparisons. Hacked.io let’s anyone edit, so feel free when it’s submitted to make some tweaks.
The first Sunday in feb we meet, get the tours, and then reconvene in here to figure out what moving forward looks like. It’s a two week deadline to get a team, design the thing, give the tour, and then maybe a week after that we will have a good sense of where people fall.

bobinson7:23 AM
@aggroed - IMHO, this will lead to the situation "too many people spoils the soup". As you rightly said earlier we need a "Decentralized but not disorganized" method. (edited)
7:23 AM
Sigh, If we can't even find a common ground to be on one server / location and work, I doubt how this foundation is every going to materialize.

crimsonclad7:26 AM
'we don't know if we're going to sell cars unless we buy a dealership.' not to sound overtly critical, but that's a bit how that reads.
:100:
1

pgarcgo (cervantes)7:26 AM
I think the best way would be to create a extensive paper, describing how many details as possible, let everyone contribute to the paper. Let finalize a first draft, review it, go trough it it several times, improve it while we seek consensus.

pgarcgo (cervantes)7:28 AM
Let this paper be anonymous, community driven while its creation.

1 reply
17 hours ago
View thread

bobinson7:28 AM
https://steemdevs.slack.com/archives/C2R5E5YBW/p1547409163571800?thread_ts=1547409163.571800

aggroed
I’ve been floating this around since December 24. https://hackmd.io/EzrGbFQdQ0yGRtrx4lGQ3w?edit

It’s come out of -12 hours of conversations called state of Steem. These have been recorded and have had attendance reaching 300+ Steemians at once.
Thread in #ideasJan 13thView message

pgarcgo (cervantes)7:29 AM
Post it with the fundation account as a first draft, to keep gathering comments and improving it.

howo7:29 AM
replied to a thread:
Let this paper be anonymous, community driven while its creation.
I agree on theory. On practice I'm afraid that too many people will contribute and it'll basically be a shitshow
7:30 AM
Basically this is also what's making me afraid with the 500 nominated people
7:30 AM
Too many people = too many opinions = conversations stall = nothing gets done (edited)
:heavy_check_mark:
1

7:31 AM
But it's also a good thing because I'm pretty sure 50-60% of the nominated will drop out at some point for various reasons

pgarcgo (cervantes)7:31 AM
Anyway the first deliverable should be a document. Nothing more.

howo7:31 AM
Agreed

pgarcgo (cervantes)7:32 AM
A document that will need t be translated to other languages by the way.

howo7:33 AM
I think if each one of us writes down on their side what they have in mind for such an org and what it's mission and vision and then we discuss each point from everyone to see if it should be added to the global document or not

pgarcgo (cervantes)7:33 AM
Letting other non english speaking stakeholders contribute.
7:33 AM
Agree @howo
7:34 AM
We can beging with the layout of the index of the paper, chapters and subchapters.
7:38 AM
Lets learn from existing open source fundations:
7:38 AM
http://www.apache.org/foundation/

apache.org
Foundation Project
Home page of The Apache Software Foundation
7:38 AM
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/

The Linux Foundation
About Us – The Linux Foundation
The Linux Foundation is dedicated to building sustainable ecosystems around open source projects to accelerate technology development and industry adoption.

7:39 AM
https://wikimediafoundation.org/

wikimediafoundation.org
Wikimedia Foundation
Visit the post for more.(91 kB)

7:39 AM
We do not need to re-invent the wheel

llfarms7:50 AM
So far, we have been given no power to do anything. What’s been communicated is some goal of maybe marketing (with more stuff possible too) with an undetermined amount of donations by Steemit Inc. to help fund as well as fundraising. I think to write a whitepaper and post this idea of the community governance with no real idea if this is where it’s going could be getting ahead of ourselves.

Right now, I see the people in this room already being questioned... while everyone is nominating everyone they can think of, for a job most wont qualify for. Just trying to organize that and somehow actually get the right people where they need to be will be a extremely difficult job. Transparency is good, community involvement is good.. but running this will not be easy and many (including myself) have no real place or the experience to do such a thing.

Being pushed to get something out may have made this job even harder, because before we even know what we are doing.. we have 700 more voices to weed through.

I suggest we first get a bit of direction, focus and a place to openly communicate. We then need to decide what sort of guidelines are required to be involved in certain positions within the group. There is room for all levels of involvement, but if we want this to actually work.. not everyone can do everything. That’s just the truth of it. (edited)

pgarcgo (cervantes)8:06 AM
Not to forget, a fundation is not the cure to all our problems, I cite an article of Simon Philliip, published in InfoWorld: “But it’s worth remembering that forming a foundation isn’t a cure-all for community problems within a project. Instead, it solidifies the solutions you devise together in your community, guaranteeing the trust and governance to which you have all agreed for future generations of your community. You need to solve community problems before committing to a foundation or risk making those problems a permanent part of your community governance. A foundation is not a magic wand -- or it could become one, with unintended consequences. Remember “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice?”

Suppose, however, that your project is a good candidate: large, high-profile, and accumulating significant revenue. You’ve found solutions to your community issues, checked out available fiscal stewards, and feel that no existing group quite fits the needs your project. Before you create a new foundation, though, you’ll need to confront a truckload of questions. Which country to incorporate in? Where in that country? Which model to use: public benefit, cooperative, or collective benefit? What about staffing? Raising money?” (edited)

pgarcgo (cervantes)8:13 AM
Perhaps the first questions we should ask ourselfs is: what are the problems that need to be solved before creating a fundation? What are the problems that we think that a fundation can solve? (edited)
8:14 AM
For example, there are stakeholders that thinks that a fundation could not be able to achieve anything. why is that?

llfarms8:20 AM
I think something else needs to be done first.

We need to choose 2-3 individuals whose sole purpose is to help get this organized and then those individuals will step out of the way. It was mentioned that when co leaders were chosen, more information would be given. Maybe that’s where we start. Choosing individuals who don’t want the power and are willing to walk away is a good way to start in my opinion.

Otherwise, we will be here for weeks with no avail and all the same issues will be happening... we will just be too busy to make any noise about it.

I’m hoping this wasn’t the point of this all along, but my distrust is making me question the goal here. PR stunt on behalf of Steemit Inc.? Or actually trying to work together towards a goal that benefits the platform?

I think it might be good to choose a few “organizers” who are willing to step out of the way once this foundation is set up. Then they need to have the chat with Ned he offered and find out what the true goal is here. So we can figure out what our direction even is. (edited)
8:23 AM
These are only my thoughts though, and I’d like to open up a discussion about them.

gandalf8:31 AM

"OK, I guess I can help with shaping this if that's what those nominations are for."
8:32 AM
So #community-governance 101: What is it? What is it going to be?
8:32 AM
Good questions asked by @aggroed :

For starters on Purpose I'd ask

1. What are the problem this group is trying to solve?

1. What is the vision for a group that tries to tackle that problem?
   8:33 AM
   We are throwing "nominations" all over the place like it was likes on facebook. It's not about who we like or who we want to be in a group together.
   :point_up_2:
   1

pgarcgo (cervantes)8:34 AM
Agree, @gandalf.

llfarms8:35 AM
Exactly. The group will be open to all. Nominations shouldn’t be just people we think are cool. Not sure how to fix that now though. Might be able to be organized once In a server perhaps.

pharesim8:35 AM
oh, i've been nominated too \o/ :joy: - i'd be willing to be part of the organizers who step back later, no interest in a long term job
:heart:
1

llfarms8:36 AM
I’m with you. I have no desire to be in leadership, but if I can help organize to get it started and then step out of the way.. or do some small grunt work, I’m in for that.

gandalf8:36 AM
Lets think about a shape of this thing. For now it looks like a distraction, a toy for community to play. It makes sounds, looks fancy and smells good. How to change a toy to tool and make it useful?
8:37 AM
I'll tell you
8:37 AM
I don't know.
8:38 AM
But asking good questions (like @aggroed did) might help to find some good answers.

pharesim8:39 AM
i think to see if it can bring us forward with all the issues we need a commitment from stinc asap what they're willing to give up for the foundation.
8:40 AM
if the whole thing just gets thrown crumbs once in a while it's totally useless

pgarcgo (cervantes)8:43 AM
In my opinion, this fundation should:

• Be able to decide the priorities/roadmap of the steem blockchain.
• Be able to autonomusly develop/test software updates, bug fixing and hardforks.
• Be able to provide:
  • liquidy founding to start-ups willing to run their bussiness on steem.
  • training material and documentation to blockchain engineers and steem app developers.
• Launch Marketing Campaings to promote the Steem blockchain.

pharesim8:45 AM
i see a foundation more as an organizing body. it's more about funding other entities to do the work based on community decisions, not combine everything under one roof and de facto become a second steemit
:100:
2

pgarcgo (cervantes)8:46 AM
Could also be the right way, @pharesim To the point, we need to define first what we want, what is needed, since every stakeholder might have a different view on it.
8:47 AM
@aggroed questions are a good start to beging defining such a pitch.

pharesim8:48 AM
and frankly i don't see this going anywhere as long as steemit doesn't change their self perception to be just one of those entities, competing with others (when other come up, so far there's nobody else)

pgarcgo (cervantes)8:49 AM
But as I perceive it, they could be a good contributor to the fundation treasury.

pharesim8:50 AM
sure, that's an absolute necessity. if they don't fund it excessively we don't need to put work into it, it'd really just be whitewashing for them

pgarcgo (cervantes)8:50 AM
Other business might jump in as well, since they will trust a fundation more than they trust a incorporated profit oriented bussiness.

llfarms8:51 AM
The foundation is a great idea. But no foundation is ran by random individuals off the street (I’m including myself in that :smile:). This needs structure or it will be nothing.

pgarcgo (cervantes)8:51 AM
agree @llfarms

llfarms8:52 AM
I agree with the goal as @pharesim stated. It’s to help organize and fund, not be in charge of everything and doing it all “under one roof”

pgarcgo (cervantes)8:53 AM
but still agree that we need to create a paper, how and who, can be decided..a small group of volunteers (perhaps elected) could be the right approach.
8:53 AM
(a lot of coulds and woulds since is all hyphotetical in my mind)
8:54 AM
until now there are only thoughs, posts, chat messages and discord channels

aggroed9:00 AM
I would suggest that everyone gets a chance to be heard. So far I've heard a lot of ideas

• put everyone together in one doc
• make it look like wikileaks
• build a foundation
• use this existing steem community
• build it like a EOSDAC
• build a council

I'm sure I'm missing some. I don't think I understand what all of those options mean and I don't think all the options are even in my short list yet. I don't think it's fair or wise to move forward without everyone getting a chance to present what they think is best.

So... let's give everyone a week to build something, a week for public review, a day we all meet to hear about the various designs, a week to mull it over and go from there. I'd suggest everyone get as many votes as there proposals and any proposals that have 50% or more of the total people of this group in support are still in the running by this group. Then those proposals/groups can decide if they should merge if close enough, narrow down for a single or at least fewer supported proposals, or part ways and have more than one group.

As for leadership, I think that falls out of whatever proposal(s) have the most support.

Rather than electing a leader first on a completely nebulous process, let's hear about all the options and follow the lead of the group(s) with the most consensus

pharesim9:01 AM
how should anyone write a serious proposal when we don't know what stinc really offers
:100:
1

whatsup9:01 AM
lol
9:02 AM
Exacty, I WANT TO DO IT... screams everyone. Interesting decision if you don't know what IT is.
:point_up:
2

firepower9:03 AM
Ned is yet to respond to Tim’s questions.

pgarcgo (cervantes)9:04 AM
I could agree on that if we define the tools to fairly vote and seek consensus. Stake heighted votes? Reputation weighted? 1 account / 1 vote?

llfarms9:05 AM
Update post comment, documenting here for public record and it’s written as myself to not reflect on the organization specifically.

UPDATE

This group will be open for all and representatives from all communities will be welcome and play active roles. These nominations are less for “who I think is great” and more for individuals that have the skills, time and desire to help get this off the ground. This is a volunteer position, no pay will be occurring and it might even mean due to conflict of interest.. specific members projects will not be up for funding (when and if there is funding). We are asking for nominations to help with the heavy lifting and those that may have the experience and skills to help in these areas of starting a foundation.

EVERYONE WILL BE ABLE TO ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE AND HAVE A VOICE, SO THIS IN NO WAY IS A LIST FOR “INVITES.”

We know information is limited, as it’s limited for us as well. But please keep the above in mind when nominating.
(edited)

Pinned by @Ned

Ned9:10 AM
Coming back in;

It seems we're ready for:

1 - A Discord channel that invites everyone who has been nominated.

2 - A townhall of these folks, nominees invited to speak, anyone invited to spectate.

3 - Elections of the three leaders. Nominees will vote; or credible community members will vote. I really need us to get to three leaders so that I can give them funding, give them documents, and they can give us planning (based on goals) milestones and progress.

Remember our aimed results:

We set up community-governed Foundation that advances Steem, is transparent, accountable -- is flexible for adopting more responsibilities as it grows.

Limitations on the rights of the Alliance were set to make sure spending is efficacious and community-directed.

The organization was flexible enough to handle marketing and grow into managing GitHub repositories and engineering outsourcing.

The leaders took the Alliance through launch, then launched fundraising efforts that brought in substantial capital.

aggroed9:13 AM
Scope is certainly hard without that knowledge, and it'll be hard to work with steemit if there's no faith that something can be worked out financially that empowers this group. I guess it's chicken and the egg. I imagine it's hard for steemit to commit to fund something where they feel the scope or mission is off or even worse at this stage where there is absolutely nothing concrete yet. Alternatively some of this could come from the reward pool if the stakeholders agree to that.

Regarding voting, Stake weighted voting would be great. I think we still need some help for tools/scripts to tally votes.

2 replies
Last reply 15 hours ago
View thread

Ned9:13 AM

bobinson [8 hours ago]

We can and we MUST & a new organization should be created from day 1 to avoid influence from any existing organizations / communities. This will give us a fresh start and innovate.

Is there a Discord channel we could all move to rn? (edited)

1 reply
15 hours ago
View thread

pharesim9:14 AM
:wave: gl guys^^

Ned9:14 AM
replied to a thread:
Scope is certainly hard without that knowledge, and it'll be hard to work with steemit if there's no faith that something can be worked out financially that empowers this group. I guess it's chicken and the egg. I imagine it's hard for steemit to commit to fund something where they feel the scope or mission is off or even worse at this stage where there is absolutely nothing concrete yet. Alternatively some of this could come from the reward pool if the stakeholders agree to that.…
Regarding voting, Stake weighted voting would be great. I think we still need some help for tools/scripts to tally votes.
We have committed to it financially, as long as a fundraiser is run.
View newer replies

pharesim9:14 AM
left #community-governance.

llfarms9:16 AM
The problem is we have hundreds of nominees that no one knows what they were nominated for. We have blacklisted plagiarists being nominated. We run an election and just see who is chosen? This needs some sort of structure before it can move forward.

Ned9:16 AM
replied to a thread:
Scope is certainly hard without that knowledge, and it'll be hard to work with steemit if there's no faith that something can be worked out financially that empowers this group. I guess it's chicken and the egg. I imagine it's hard for steemit to commit to fund something where they feel the scope or mission is off or even worse at this stage where there is absolutely nothing concrete yet. Alternatively some of this could come from the reward pool if the stakeholders agree to that.…
Regarding voting, Stake weighted voting would be great. I think we still need some help for tools/scripts to tally votes.
If it's not setup to flexibly respond to its budget, it's not set up to be resilient enough. The key is to follow the steps of good governance and let budget determine activities once funding amounts are real
9:17 AM
I suggest we move to Discord

llfarms9:17 AM
I know you want things open, as do I. But pushing this to be “open” over any sort of structure is making this difficult.

Ned9:17 AM
Where invite links can be distributed
9:17 AM
We can base voting on reps above 60

aggroed9:18 AM
The discord is easy. Why don't you make one ned that is just a general chat. That solves your immediate need to make this public. I don't think we should add additional structure to it until we've heard from anyone that has an idea to share about what it should look like.

pgarcgo (cervantes)9:18 AM
@reggaemuffin created one discord, that could serve to this purpose, @Ned. (still to be discussed in the long term, who owns it, and who have the ability to administrate it, creating roles and/or deleting comments) (edited)

llfarms9:18 AM
And it was said many times it needs its own place.

Ned9:19 AM
I nominate llarms to handle the administration in this nascent period
9:19 AM
If shes up for it

aggroed9:19 AM
second

llfarms9:19 AM
Why? Because I did so well with the first task?

Ned9:19 AM
Yes :slightly_smiling_face:

llfarms9:20 AM
Are you asking me to set up a server? I am in to help with whatever but would like to have some open communication to know what it is we are doing here.

bobinson9:20 AM
replied to a thread:

bobinson [8 hours ago]…

We can and we MUST & a new organization should be created from day 1 to avoid influence from any existing organizations / communities. This will give us a fresh start and innovate.…
Is there a Discord channel we could all move to rn?
https://discord.gg/WAZtZt7

Discord
Discord - Free voice and text chat for gamers
Step up your game with a modern voice & text chat app. Crystal clear voice, multiple server and channel support, mobile apps, and more. Get your free server now!(62 kB)

Ned9:20 AM
I nominate aggroed as her co-administrator
9:21 AM

open communication to know what it is we are doing here.

What's missing?

llfarms9:22 AM
I second Aggroed if he is willing but also think @crimsonclad and @whatsup would be helpful as well.

therealwolf9:22 AM
Ah, should have just written here

whatsup9:23 AM
No thank you

therealwolf9:23 AM
I would like to see aggroed and crimson as well

followbtcnews9:23 AM
crimsonclad,llfarms,aggroed
:+1:
2

aggroed9:24 AM
I'm happy to help coordinate, but I feel very strongly everyone gets a chance to present a design

followbtcnews9:24 AM
I agree ,and that will be the job of the 3 above to see its done

llfarms9:25 AM
Yes, and I will be stepping back once this is up and running. I have no desire to be in a leadership role at this foundation and believe those with the most experience should be there.

pgarcgo (cervantes)9:26 AM
Thanks @aggroed, @llfarms @crimsonclad. Could you create a clean discord server, with one general chat chanel and one audio channel to begin with? It is a streightforward process. And name it SteemAlliance ?
:+1:
4

9:27 AM
We distribute links, delete this channel and talk there.

aggroed9:27 AM
That makes the most sense to me
:+1:
3

llfarms9:27 AM
Yes, working on that now
:+1:
3

9:31 AM
https://discord.gg/DgKcG3

Discord
Discord - Free voice and text chat for gamers
Step up your game with a modern voice & text chat app. Crystal clear voice, multiple server and channel support, mobile apps, and more. Get your free server now!(62 kB)

9:31 AM
will make channels then share invites with others
9:32 AM
general is there. Roles and additional channels can be added

Ned9:33 AM
Great work llfarms

llfarms9:33 AM
I will assign the three admin rights as soon as they are in the server.

Ned9:33 AM
Let's close down this chan :slightly_smiling_face:
9:33 AM
Everyone can follow the link ^

Ned9:34 AM
archived #community-governance. The contents will still be browsable and available in search

----- End Of Transcript----

Please join us in the # Steem Alliance Discord Server to stay up to date. We will be doing our best to post important conversations here going forward in transcript form. All channels can be seen by everyone though, there are no hidden channels.

_{This post written by @llfarms}