Steem Alliance Working Group | Community Town Hall Elections Jan. 27th 1pm EST

in #steem2 years ago (edited)


Steem Alliance Working Group

Today after the new discord server was established Ned came into Steem Alliance and got things moving along. It was immediately decided that we needed to have a voice chat to discuss the direction of the group. The call started unannounced at 2:30 EST. It was recorded, but unfortunately the call audio failed. Logs are still available in Steem Alliance Discord, and attached below.

The general direction of the foundation;

Foundation structure proposals with a general goal of fundraising and fund stewardship, with a percentage of funds allocated to day-to-day task proposal adjudication and disbursement, and creation of and funding for internal task teams alongside proposals. All driven by mission statement, and a collection of community accountability/sentiment distilled into that statement.

The consensus was that we first needed to ask the public what this foundation should look like, by opening up proposals from the community. Those proposals would be collected by the group and put to the community for a vote in an organized and fair manner. Many details were discussed in the text chat below and can be seen in the discord server above.

Essentially it was decided in order for this to happen we needed a "working group" to organize and run this proposal election process. This group would have absolutely no power or voting rights. Their sole purpose would be to organize the proposal election to make sure the foundation was formed in the way the community deemed fit. After community had voted on a "direction" any boards, councils or voting representatives would be formed under the approved (by the community) proposal and the "working group" would no longer be needed.

There was a round of nominations, all had to be seconded and carried. Essentially a non-voting, working group was established out of the ~30 call participants.

The participants are:

Due to the fact that this process happened very organically and unplanned (and with the unfortunate fail in audio) it was later brought up that it was only fair that a new "working group" should also be voted by the community. So the task of the current "working group" became to organize the discord server for the many arriving members and plan an open to the public election of a new "working group." These individuals will be appointed by the community from the list of nominees that the community has brought forward in the form of a town hall election.


The current working group's task is to get a new working group more formally elected. An initial, working, draft purpose we consider to be:

Facilitate an election process for the working group who will in turn facilitate the community wide selection of a foundation governance model(s).

Open Town Hall

We're inviting nominees to participate in the formal voting for the working group. The meeting and voting for the working group is scheduled to occur in the Steem Alliance Discord group at 1pm EST on Sunday Jan 27.

Election Process

On Jan 27th the meeting will be open to all nominees. During the start of the meeting the following will be explained.

Any nominee can nominate themselves or another for a spot in the working group. Then there has to be a second from the audience.

This goes on until no one else seeks the role.

A private voting page that is restricted to reactions only is created during this process and in chronological order names are added. A thumbs up emoji is placed under each name. When all names have been added on the private voting page and each name has a thumbs up emoji it'll be switched to public mode. Anyone in attendance will have the ability to vote on as many of the participants as they choose to support. To vote simply click the thumbs up emoji. No other emoji's will be considered valid.

The voting will be open for 12hrs. At the end of that the 11 people with the highest total will be elected as the new working group.

---------- VOICE CHAT TRANSCRIPT----------

We apologize that due to audio issues there is no recording to this conversation and going forward will have multiple people recording to ensure we don't have the same problem. This was an unplanned meeting that organically turned into a conversation. We also will be working on a way to archive these transcripts on the blockchain in a more organized manner, but for transparency we believe they are important. All conversations can be seen by everyone in the steem alliance discord server.

Start of text in #voice-chat channel
Monday January 21, 2019
crimsoncladYesterday at 11:33 AM
MSP has a great listenership now but I really do dislike considering MSP as the general public or using an existing structure for voice meetings
people tend to read too far into things like that and is part of what this stuff is all being formed new right now
LLFarmsYesterday at 11:35 AM
I agree
It has the reach but everyone is trying to pinpoint “secret take over” on someone
crimsoncladYesterday at 11:36 AM
yes. It's very difficult for people to reasonably separate "I didn't know about it" from "it was purposely locked down and secret"
or "I perceived it to be in a space that is disinclusive of me."
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 11:38 AM
Also, @crimsonclad as you ahve mentioned elsewhere, it is important that it not have oth the APPEARANCE or actual Confilct of Interest.
crimsoncladYesterday at 11:38 AM
I think conflicts of interest can become points of strength if you acknowledge them and then work with addressing them in mind
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 11:39 AM
LLFarmsYesterday at 11:39 AM
@BluefinStudios headphones
There is an echo
Please :slight_smile:
crimsoncladYesterday at 11:39 AM
@BluefinStudios I muted you
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 11:39 AM
Sorry, forgot I was on Voice activity
crimsoncladYesterday at 11:39 AM
no worries
flip over to PTT and I'll unmute
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 11:39 AM
crimsoncladYesterday at 11:40 AM
Can we please be careful with how we use that widely cast "top twenty witness" net?
nedYesterday at 11:41 AM
A republic :)
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 11:41 AM
that's a nice representative method
crimsoncladYesterday at 11:42 AM
I really have not gotten a good handle on what I was nominated for
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 11:42 AM


The PERCEPTION of using Stake weighted, is that, well, then, we are now back to the same old, same old.
crimsoncladYesterday at 11:43 AM
I want to know that I'm good at it to accept it, and if I'm not to step back. I really have to understand what's wanted of me to be valuable in a space where people are asking for trusted tasks from me
I'm not convinced that this is even a business leadership group
it sounds more like an adjudication body.
LLFarmsYesterday at 11:44 AM
Yes ^
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 11:45 AM
so, to follow on what Crim is asking, is there a mission statement, or goal of this org yet?

I get that it is early on
or is it still too early?
crimsoncladYesterday at 11:46 AM
But is this a solely business centric foundation?
inertiaYesterday at 11:46 AM
crimsoncladYesterday at 11:46 AM
this is a really crucial concept.
ShadowsPubYesterday at 11:46 AM
good concept @surfermarly
a coordination point
instructorYesterday at 11:47 AM
we need more than one busines group as well
aggroedYesterday at 11:48 AM
I've started recording
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 11:48 AM
so, this is:
An org that acts a voice for the community at large? for issues that need addressing?
crimsoncladYesterday at 11:48 AM
this isn't anti business, but the fact that no one knows really shows that we're not in a good place to make a proposal for voting.
nedYesterday at 11:50 AM
I have some formation docs to share
Anyone interested?
ShadowsPubYesterday at 11:50 AM
aggroedYesterday at 11:50 AM
please do
nedYesterday at 11:50 AM
Can I upload PDF here?
svemirac (crowdwitness)Yesterday at 11:50 AM
aggroedYesterday at 11:50 AM
under 8mb yes
crimsoncladYesterday at 11:50 AM
there's a voting on a disbursement. It's not that the foundation necessarily has sub businesses to apply from within.... or does it? hence the questions
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 11:50 AM
@ned yes
ShadowsPubYesterday at 11:50 AM
I think we need to nail down the terms of reference first
instructorYesterday at 11:50 AM
be sure to pin
hidden84Yesterday at 11:51 AM
LLFarmsYesterday at 11:52 AM
Exactly that
Proof of brain
No one small group
With power
crimsoncladYesterday at 11:52 AM
what it sounds like right now is: "raise the money, steward the money, then solicit work based on generally agreed upon ideas that are pulled from the community"
so that does push it more into an adjudication sphere vs. a truly business minded management setup.
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 11:53 AM
Most Foundatiosn have a Board of Directors, members with skills needed, and an EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, with the Executive Director as part of the Executive Committee
techslutYesterday at 11:53 AM
One person in control = one person with all the responsibility and work
nedYesterday at 11:53 AM
Google Docs
SRF F2F Meeting Slide Deck for April 11 2018_DRAFT (Recovered)
Steem Research Foundation Face-to-Face Meeting, May 2018

inertiaYesterday at 11:54 AM
Can we also briefly look at what went wrong with the previous attempt at this so we don't do that again?
Or did we already fix that problem (e.g.: now we use discord/more interest/experience). I'm referring to "Crowdsourced Marketing Protocol" from 2 years ago.
ShadowsPubYesterday at 11:54 AM
can you come on voice inertia? to speak to that ?
nedYesterday at 11:55 AM
Attachment file type: acrobat
133.96 KB
Attachment file type: acrobat
143.08 KB
Attachment file type: acrobat
327.01 KB
LLFarmsYesterday at 11:55 AM
Thanks for that
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 11:55 AM
which goes back to approaching each community and asking for the communities to nominate representatives
If I may jump in, I have a lot of experience and can describe the governance of FOundations
nedYesterday at 12:00 PM
Set bylaws for Stake-wieghted voting to choose funding strategies, in one sub-sect of the Alliance's budget
crimsoncladYesterday at 12:01 PM
This group is to a) steward funds with a community minded bent and decide on proposals from the wider community b) gather a skilled group to build working teams to successfully take on as many tasks as are possible to handle with a growing scope while fundraising their own funding c) both of these things in a way that has an apportioned fund ....
nedYesterday at 12:01 PM
except, be careful with "as many tasks as possible"
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:01 PM
crimsoncladYesterday at 12:02 PM
worded differently for clarity.
it's not an idea, it's a question to help us look at what our structure would be based on
being fully impartial to incoming proposals looks different than building skilled teams to accomplish tasks
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:03 PM
COMPLETELY agree, @LLFarms
nedYesterday at 12:04 PM
Less than 10
crimsoncladYesterday at 12:04 PM
well, my idea of a board shifts with the main goals of the foundation. If it's mostly for stewardship, a board and an additional mechanism in place to keep transparency/accountability looks different than a board overseeing subcommittee business groups.
LLFarmsYesterday at 12:04 PM
aggroedYesterday at 12:04 PM
less than 10
nedYesterday at 12:04 PM
Important piece is bylaws mandating stake wieghted voting on a portion of the budget allocation
aggroedYesterday at 12:04 PM
whatsupYesterday at 12:04 PM
less than 10
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:05 PM
nedYesterday at 12:05 PM
Are we assuming BOD members are paid?
Or unpaid?
If unpaid, I'll vote for more
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:07 PM
DEVELOPMENT, DEVELOPMENT, Legal, Marketing, communications, PR, Technical, community relations
crimsoncladYesterday at 12:07 PM
this is pretty much what I said above. I can't find a number truly useful without some envisioning of the daily tasks and the main goals
jackmillerYesterday at 12:08 PM
Maybe to get the ball rolling and to introduce the concept to the public it would be logical to start with a small "team" (working group) and while starting with a smaller group, it can be made clear that once this endevour moves forwards the predefined numbers of BOD members could be lets say over 21 (with a clause that it must be an odd number).
crimsoncladYesterday at 12:09 PM
We have three of us nominated right now and I'm still not fully certain of what people nominating me require of me
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:11 PM
So, 11 is the number for the WORKING GROUP
paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 12:11 PM
I would think to get this started, unpaid for sure
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:11 PM
to define things going forward
paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 12:12 PM
techslutYesterday at 12:12 PM
Roles. If the whole board is developers or all board is marketers = issue.

BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:12 PM
EXACTLY @techslut
ShadowsPubYesterday at 12:12 PM
mixed @techslut
techslutYesterday at 12:12 PM
(Semi-here to represent Utopian. Joining a bit late so might repeat things already said.)
LLFarmsYesterday at 12:13 PM
Great point
techslutYesterday at 12:13 PM
Have a crazy day of pitches and presentations tomorrow with @elear hence the lack of participation on our behalf.
crimsoncladYesterday at 12:14 PM
this is why we need to come back to- we are now talking more about making task forces to work on specific things and to fundraise their own funding for that
and so that moves away from working with community proposals and building up a steem wide governance body, so that's becoming a bit clearer.
jackmillerYesterday at 12:15 PM
The "working group" shall result into a "Tiger Team" which shall then go ahead and create the necessary momentum to get the endeavour rolling.
inertiaYesterday at 12:15 PM
Nomination Disqualified
surfermarlyYesterday at 12:15 PM
Blockchain Tech Dev, Product Development, Business Dev/Partnerships, Marketing, Community Management, PR, Financial Affairs/Funding,... I'd try to cover at least those
surpassinggoogleYesterday at 12:15 PM
I think this all needs a second discord talk
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:15 PM

11, so, 5 to 7 stake weighted, and 4 to 6 from other communities?
surpassinggoogleYesterday at 12:16 PM
I only do greylists
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:17 PM
which brings up ALTERNATES

11 with 2 NON VOTING Alternates
paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 12:17 PM
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:17 PM
in case of remove or inability to serve
paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 12:18 PM
no way......
techslutYesterday at 12:18 PM
Holy... 200?!
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:19 PM

whatsupYesterday at 12:19 PM
svemirac (crowdwitness)Yesterday at 12:19 PM
surfermarlyYesterday at 12:19 PM
shouldn't they be nominated for a specific role?
whatsupYesterday at 12:19 PM
if your election process would elect a blacklist problem
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:19 PM
@FollowBtcNews perfect
whatsupYesterday at 12:19 PM
then it is already broken
crimsoncladYesterday at 12:19 PM
It's honestly just a perceived popularity contest. Since we can't tell them what nominations are even responsible for, the nominations are a bit all over the place.
svemirac (crowdwitness)Yesterday at 12:20 PM
bring haejin here!
LLFarmsYesterday at 12:20 PM
He doesn’t want to be here
techslutYesterday at 12:20 PM
And bernie. And let them have at it.
LLFarmsYesterday at 12:20 PM
Spoke with him a few days ago
crimsoncladYesterday at 12:20 PM
Sure, but brains have different skills contained in them. The skills we need depend on our focus and goals as a foundation
and here we come back around. What comes first, the purpose or the board?
surfermarlyYesterday at 12:20 PM
the purpose!
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:20 PM
crimsoncladYesterday at 12:22 PM
Sorry. I know I seem single-minded but I'm nervous to take on anything when it's such a nebulous idea and leadership is a hard thing for me to even consider when I want to see us really define what we want to do.
My reticence here is are we meant to try to grow to a steem wide foundation for spending governance, or is our goal to become an entity that is working for task completion alongside the steemit inc roadmap
or are we here to do all the things we've asked them for that they aren't wanting to take on as part of their scope
whatsupYesterday at 12:24 PM
It's being handled backwards in my opinion....Decide what you want to support and why and let the groups bring forward suggestions
then pick one
crimsoncladYesterday at 12:25 PM
I've seen it a few time but it doesn't fully answer the question above. Let me go looking
one sec, ned~
paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 12:25 PM
Can I ask, does that include the current delegations by mrdelegation, to be worked by this board?
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:25 PM
building a foundation to direct funds toward projects, mission or purpose, to increase the functionality and value of Steem
aggroedYesterday at 12:26 PM
Needs- (Not in any order)
Build a Board
Design the scope and function of the foundation
Appoint executive leadership
crimsoncladYesterday at 12:26 PM
Ned [12:10 PM]

My plan is to fund it through inception -> then it's potential is to grow into an non-profit, mission oriented organization for Steem, that can flexibly add more to its doings as it raises more funds and shows success
Ned [2:56 PM]
A few months ago, Steemit made significant progress setting up a Foundation to support Steem sustainability.

>Given the moment, it makes sense to find a person or two to fund and lead this. Is there anyone that comes to mind for you from the Steem community to lead this?

>The general idea is hand the project to someone who will set up a Foundation governance that advances Steem, is transaparent, accountable -- is flexible for adopting more responsibilities as it grows. Take it through launch then launch fundraising efforts -- take it into actually executing given the funds it receives -- to which we would plan to donate a multiple of other initial donations
It is often the person most reluctant who would be best to lead
However, I believe the task should be manageable - we have contracted an organization that specializes in setting up Foundations and can manage to the goals
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:27 PM
Good points all Aggroed, but FIRST and foremost, define the scope and purpose, otherwise, we have no idea whether people are qualifed for that board.
crimsoncladYesterday at 12:27 PM
This is what I'm asking- is it a fund steward with adjudication on proposals, or is it going to take on it's own tasks
surfermarlyYesterday at 12:27 PM
Proposal for a vision for Steem:
"Become the best blockchain based host for tokenized digital communities in the world."

Proposal for the purpose of the leader board:
"Empower communities of the Steem blockchain to exactly fullfil that (above mentioned) vision."
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:29 PM
Would you mind reading Justmarley's comment into the recording?
whatsupYesterday at 12:30 PM
Only in the beginning
There isn't any expectation of stake weighted voting on a foundation that accepts donations from a private company
crimsoncladYesterday at 12:33 PM
no no
not for steemit inc to vote on
for the foundation to vote on
as a steward of the funding it raises
and it would require those people regardless
pgarcgo [cervantes]Yesterday at 12:33 PM
Fundation should be able to execute, create and deliver
crimsoncladYesterday at 12:34 PM
but if you're formulated to disburse funds first with a community consensus bent, that's different than overall fundraising and then just doing it yourselves
Yes, thank you
that's my question, definitely.
paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 12:35 PM
Capital management?
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:35 PM
thats a key skill set @paulag (steemcommunity witness) by a board member
Events is also a KEY board skill set
paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 12:36 PM
which would be needed if I understand ned
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:36 PM
paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 12:36 PM
it sound fairly open
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:38 PM
tally of 11 or so WORKING GROUP
crimsoncladYesterday at 12:38 PM
that's literally the job of the adjudication body, if you're talking about proposals made towards the mission statement.
f3nixYesterday at 12:40 PM
ok seems that I jumped in.. hello folks, I feel a bit like an eggplant in a basket of oranges but I'm honored to be here with you :v:
svemirac (crowdwitness)Yesterday at 12:40 PM
f3nixYesterday at 12:40 PM
yes sorry dead eggplant, I forgot :joy:
LLFarmsYesterday at 12:40 PM
@ned background noise
surpassinggoogleYesterday at 12:40 PM
things cant happen effectively in chats. real discussions need to hold. posts carry more effect in that regard, perhasp before an eventual chat
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:41 PM
So initial PROPOSALS for the Community Development of THIS Board
LLFarmsYesterday at 12:41 PM
I think marketing should come in in proposals
whatsupYesterday at 12:41 PM
Well that's a new conversation
aggroedYesterday at 12:42 PM
Working Title

Overview/Executive Summary
Primary Benefit(s) (of this structure)
Organizational Structure
Code of Conduct
Link to Discord Channel (please set the individual channels to your discord to view only so it's in "showroom quality")

Add board members
crimsoncladYesterday at 12:43 PM
Board structure, based on fund stewardship, with a percentage of fundraised funds allocated to day-to-day proposal adjudication and internal tasks. All driven by mission statement, and a collection of community accountability/sentiment distilled into that statement.
paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 12:47 PM
a board and then sub committies for different things?
I missed the start, sorry for asking but the board will have a rotating Chair right?
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:49 PM
ShadowsPubYesterday at 12:49 PM
that was suggested yes paula
paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 12:49 PM
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:49 PM
it will be a legal entity which by definiteion does
paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 12:49 PM
same really in Ireland for set up
LLFarmsYesterday at 12:51 PM
@niallon11 hot mic
☜☆Aððîçtêð☆☞Yesterday at 12:52 PM
What channel is the voice broadcast?
pgarcgo [cervantes]Yesterday at 12:53 PM
the only audio channel in here
☜☆Aððîçtêð☆☞Yesterday at 12:53 PM
Got it thx
Ma1neEventYesterday at 12:53 PM
Hi all
fbslo [Witness]Yesterday at 12:53 PM
Hi :smiley:
crimsoncladYesterday at 12:54 PM
Steemit Inc. seed funding, then all outside fundraising, afaik is what was proposed.
nedYesterday at 12:56 PM
Seems like a great idea
Propose adding BlueFinStudios to the working group
Motion to add ^
paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 12:56 PM
crimsoncladYesterday at 12:57 PM
right, very important to specify that being nominated up front does not make us the board or in any place above others
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:57 PM
thanks @ned
or, maybe NOT???
pgarcgo [cervantes]Yesterday at 12:57 PM
In terms of funding: it is key that the fundation do not respond to any of the funding providers directly as soon as basic rules are respectedd (i.e. not forking out accounts in future forks)
the fundation should not be rulled by steemit inc or any other donnor
whatsupYesterday at 12:57 PM
For the first round I agree.
to narrow down
☜☆Aððîçtêð☆☞Yesterday at 12:58 PM
Is the goal a private foundation? Which must be incorporated at some point?
VictoriaBSBYesterday at 12:58 PM
pgarcgo [cervantes]Yesterday at 12:58 PM
yes, a legal entity in the mid.long term
crimsoncladYesterday at 12:59 PM
From earlier: board structure proposals with a general goal of fundraising and fund stewardship, with a percentage of funds allocated to day-to-day task proposal adjudication and disbursement, and creation of and funding for internal task teams alongside proposals. All driven by mission statement, and a collection of community accountability/sentiment distilled into that statement.
LLFarms pinned a message to this channel. See all the pins.Yesterday at 12:59 PM
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:59 PM
@crimsonclad Can you PIN THAT?
LLFarmsYesterday at 12:59 PM
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 12:59 PM
Ma1neEventYesterday at 12:59 PM
☜☆Aððîçtêð☆☞Yesterday at 12:59 PM
@pgarcgo [cervantes] Located in the US?
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 1:00 PM
To be determined
niallon11Yesterday at 1:00 PM
There are a lot of other groups trying to organize at the moment so if there is a solid proposal going forward there are plenty of people wiling to put work in. We are stronger as a group and can achieve a lot more.
paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 1:00 PM
SteemItQAYesterday at 1:00 PM
instructorYesterday at 1:00 PM
i second
Ma1neEventYesterday at 1:00 PM
@fyrstikken/fyrst-witness :thumbsup:
surfermarlyYesterday at 1:00 PM
me too
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 1:01 PM
pgarcgo [cervantes]Yesterday at 1:01 PM
I would also happyly contribute
LLFarmsYesterday at 1:01 PM
“Wants to be doing this”
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 1:01 PM
lanniebrocksteinYesterday at 1:01 PM
what about the idea of funding having a contract that includes an expiry date, along with an opportunity for that funding to be renewed each year (for example) if the Steem Alliance votes for it to be renewed?
pgarcgo [cervantes]Yesterday at 1:01 PM
(with a restricted number of week hours)
paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 1:01 PM
@pgarcgo [cervantes] second
techslutYesterday at 1:01 PM
I wish I had the time. I have my life full of Utopian. :frowning:
krnelYesterday at 1:01 PM
i just joined, so i dont know what is required
jackmillerYesterday at 1:01 PM
Would nominate @ShadowsPub (hell of a lot of experience in working with people and within organizations)
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 1:01 PM
Seconded on @ShadowsPub
instructorYesterday at 1:02 PM
2nd shadowspub
SteemItQAYesterday at 1:02 PM
Shadowspub would be great
krnelYesterday at 1:02 PM
can someone describe what is being asked?
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 1:02 PM
krnelYesterday at 1:02 PM
working group is what?
paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 1:02 PM
@pgarcgo [cervantes]
surpassinggoogleYesterday at 1:02 PM
I second shadowspub
instructorYesterday at 1:02 PM
steemcafe is in a meeting right now...
aggroedYesterday at 1:02 PM
We need someone technical so I'm nominating Raggaemuffin
pechichemenaYesterday at 1:02 PM
just got here , i'm a bit late
surpassinggoogleYesterday at 1:02 PM
fyrstykeen as well
ShadowsPubYesterday at 1:02 PM
second reggae
SteemItQAYesterday at 1:02 PM
Reggae yes
techslutYesterday at 1:02 PM
Re-nominating @reggaemuffin ~
crimsoncladYesterday at 1:03 PM
nor are they guaranteed to be on the board
techslutYesterday at 1:03 PM
Damn it. I typed too slow!!!
reggaemuffinYesterday at 1:03 PM
krnelYesterday at 1:03 PM
its to work on writing proposals?
svemirac (crowdwitness)Yesterday at 1:03 PM
supporting @reggaemuffin
fbslo [Witness]Yesterday at 1:03 PM
Me too :smiley:

pgarcgo [cervantes]Yesterday at 1:03 PM
Agree on your working group description. We should have it written: @LLFarms
ats-david [ats-witness]Yesterday at 1:03 PM
I’m here
lanniebrocksteinYesterday at 1:03 PM
decentralize the group by having more than one person elected?
LLFarmsYesterday at 1:04 PM
Read through lannie
aggroedYesterday at 1:04 PM
I nominate @eonwarped
SteemItQAYesterday at 1:04 PM
Inertia is the missing piece if he would do it.
svemirac (crowdwitness)Yesterday at 1:04 PM
nominating @emrebeyler
ShadowsPubYesterday at 1:04 PM
second eonwarped
PowerPaulYesterday at 1:04 PM
I would like to join, but i'm unsure, because my English is not advanced like yours. And maybe this would disable me. But i would be happy to support on every way i can.
aggroedYesterday at 1:04 PM
inertia is amazing, he's not here at the moment so I don't want to throw him under the buss
SteemItQAYesterday at 1:04 PM
it makes sense
nedYesterday at 1:05 PM
nominate inertia
SteemItQAYesterday at 1:05 PM
memes lol
aggroedYesterday at 1:05 PM
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 1:05 PM
IsariaYesterday at 1:05 PM
Wish I could listen in but I’m working
surpassinggoogleYesterday at 1:05 PM
inertia sure
emrebeylerYesterday at 1:05 PM
inertia +1
reggaemuffinYesterday at 1:05 PM
@BluefinStudios reggaemuffin not raggae :slight_smile:
and seconding inertia
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 1:05 PM
pgarcgo [cervantes]Yesterday at 1:06 PM
@BluefinStudios add me in the list, plz
ShadowsPubYesterday at 1:06 PM
nominate whatsup
krnelYesterday at 1:06 PM
i can volunteer then
eonwarpedYesterday at 1:06 PM
Sure I can help technical breakdown
surfermarlyYesterday at 1:06 PM
seconded @pgarcgo [cervantes]
paintingangels(serena)Yesterday at 1:06 PM
aggroedYesterday at 1:06 PM
I don't know who chris is
krnelYesterday at 1:06 PM
just not sure exactly what is required yet heh
josephsavageYesterday at 1:06 PM
Whatsup declined on the thread
jackmillerYesterday at 1:06 PM
Second @whatsup
aggroedYesterday at 1:06 PM
oh, I'm good with krnel
svemirac (crowdwitness)Yesterday at 1:06 PM
he's nominated already
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 1:06 PM
whatsupYesterday at 1:06 PM
There are plenty people volunteering I would be happy to add my thoughts
surfermarlyYesterday at 1:07 PM
crimsoncladYesterday at 1:07 PM
theaustrianguyYesterday at 1:07 PM
i could help with translation into german and getting information out to the german community
paintingangels(serena)Yesterday at 1:07 PM
I nominate @Pennsif
MahdiYariYesterday at 1:07 PM
still I can not connect to the voice :face_palm:
aggroedYesterday at 1:07 PM
I second pgarcgo
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 1:07 PM
lanniebrocksteinYesterday at 1:07 PM
@TruthForce#9168 mentioned that he would like to help.
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 1:07 PM

paintingangels(serena)Yesterday at 1:08 PM
That is a kickass list right there
paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 1:08 PM
I propose we accept the list
LLFarmsYesterday at 1:08 PM
Ma1neEventYesterday at 1:08 PM
whatsupYesterday at 1:08 PM
Several times... there have been many people volunteering
nedYesterday at 1:08 PM
paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 1:09 PM
well done
instructorYesterday at 1:09 PM
nice working group
aggroed pinned a message to this channel. See all the pins.Yesterday at 1:09 PM
surfermarlyYesterday at 1:09 PM
great! usually chats are not that productive. good sign :smiley:
juliakponsfordYesterday at 1:10 PM
someone gave a thumbs down do they have anything to say?
SteemItQAYesterday at 1:10 PM
@surfermarly usually, we meme right about now :smiley:
crimsoncladYesterday at 1:10 PM
so then add him and make it 13
dissention is not a bad thing
and this is an early working group
ShadowsPubYesterday at 1:10 PM
good luck getting him on voice
Ma1neEventYesterday at 1:10 PM
You're all lovely people :grin:
crimsoncladYesterday at 1:10 PM
I'm here to just help get people to a place for a board, none of us are voters.
aggroedYesterday at 1:10 PM
paintingangels(serena)Yesterday at 1:11 PM
nedYesterday at 1:11 PM
second :)
reggaemuffinYesterday at 1:11 PM
pgarcgo [cervantes]Yesterday at 1:11 PM
the one who speak best :smiley:
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 1:11 PM
instructorYesterday at 1:11 PM
second ll
techslutYesterday at 1:11 PM
reggaemuffinYesterday at 1:11 PM
worked very well so far
crimsoncladYesterday at 1:11 PM
definitely supporting
paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 1:11 PM
svemirac (crowdwitness)Yesterday at 1:11 PM
SteemItQAYesterday at 1:11 PM
he is a good sounding board though
paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 1:11 PM
not a fan either but we all need to have a voice
juliakponsfordYesterday at 1:11 PM
SteemItQAYesterday at 1:12 PM
we always need one good troll
crimsoncladYesterday at 1:12 PM
he's not even listening in voice, so there's that.
SteemItQAYesterday at 1:12 PM
who will rep the trolls?
svemirac (crowdwitness)Yesterday at 1:12 PM
alexvan (ro-witness)Yesterday at 1:12 PM
he is here
crimsoncladYesterday at 1:12 PM
either step up, constructive feedback on a non voting working group
or else chuckit in the fuckit bucket
whatsupYesterday at 1:12 PM
I actually think he is really smart besides his communication style. I would welcome his input... if he was a part of the team
paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 1:12 PM
looks like he came, thumbs down and gone again
pgarcgo [cervantes]Yesterday at 1:12 PM
a code of conduct should be defined - as written on the design layout...that include avoiding trolls, heavy language or destructive behaviour
paintingangels(serena)Yesterday at 1:12 PM
I think he's provoked a discussion about himself long enough anyway and move on
ats-david [ats-witness]Yesterday at 1:13 PM
I’ve never made a suggestion???
No, I was responding to Fyrst
I can’t right now. Baby.
paintingangels(serena)Yesterday at 1:13 PM
Apologies then..
SteemItQAYesterday at 1:14 PM
he can write a post about it.
move along.
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 1:14 PM
As agreed upon:

ats-david [ats-witness]Yesterday at 1:14 PM
Sure. Move on. I was just expressing my displeasure with some of the people. No big deal.
instructorYesterday at 1:14 PM
pgarcgo [cervantes]Yesterday at 1:15 PM
pcgarco = pgarcgo :smiley: (sorry for my strange name) you can also use cervantes
therealwolfYesterday at 1:15 PM
What am I missing?
aggroedYesterday at 1:15 PM
90% is recorded
I'll share later
PolluxYesterday at 1:15 PM
building a working group...
LLFarmsYesterday at 1:16 PM
The latest posts from . Follow me at @steemalliance.
svemirac (crowdwitness)Yesterday at 1:16 PM
everything :smile:
techslutYesterday at 1:16 PM
Well, gonna have to hear the rest on the recording. Time to crash.
pgarcgo [cervantes]Yesterday at 1:16 PM
second that fyrst
RivalzZzYesterday at 1:16 PM
@redpalestino you can mute your mic :smiley:
paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 1:17 PM
surfermarlyYesterday at 1:17 PM
awesome, transparency rules!
PowerPaulYesterday at 1:17 PM
aggroedYesterday at 1:17 PM
motion to adjourn
paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 1:18 PM
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 1:18 PM
I gave it a shot
paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 1:18 PM
a private island
ShadowsPubYesterday at 1:18 PM
second the motion .. even without the island
paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 1:18 PM
nice work
surfermarlyYesterday at 1:18 PM
Steem island
nedYesterday at 1:18 PM
nice work :)
Ma1neEventYesterday at 1:18 PM
BluefinStudiosYesterday at 1:18 PM
thanks all
crimsoncladYesterday at 1:18 PM
We should close this channel to being written in when there is no meeting on~ so we won't have any transcripts to keep track of outside of the day to day chatter
reggaemuffinYesterday at 1:18 PM
SteemItQAYesterday at 1:18 PM
@fyrstikken/fyrst-witness I'm all about Steemfiesta bro
pgarcgo [cervantes]Yesterday at 1:18 PM
thanks justine
eonwarpedYesterday at 1:18 PM
One step at a time :)
nedYesterday at 1:18 PM
crimson, second
PowerPaulYesterday at 1:18 PM
bobinsonYesterday at 1:18 PM
hiya all - dozed off (2:47 AM here) !!
crimsoncladYesterday at 1:18 PM
I will make this channel read only in about twenty seconds :thumbsup:
bobinsonYesterday at 1:18 PM
what a timing
therealwolfYesterday at 1:18 PM
Was there an announcement via everyone?
paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 1:18 PM
theaustrianguyYesterday at 1:19 PM
RivalzZzYesterday at 1:19 PM
no, this :smile:
paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 1:19 PM
lol @katrina-ariel
hot mic lol
love it
SteemItQAYesterday at 1:19 PM
paulag (steemcommunity witness)Yesterday at 1:19 PM
wish I still had all that innocence
thanks everyone
bobinsonYesterday at 1:20 PM
@katrina-ariel - I came right on time
crimsoncladYesterday at 1:20 PM
I'm closing up this room to read only until the admins open it for the next voice meeting. This means no transcripts will be missed alongside voice recordings~

Post written by current working group members


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.


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.

I can’t filter what others say, did you want us to?

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.

My dear Allies, I joined yesterday, late night and sleep overwhelmed me.

Maybe I've missed that part of the discussion.

I would like to propose a simple "database of human resources", Excel-like worksheet, where all the participants could write down their skills and interests related to Steem(it).

For example: promotion, development...
People have tendency to cluster around tasks and ideas.

Also worth mentioning, there is about 100 people on Discord already.

In military terms, it's a company. All the units are "natural", because that's how our brain is wired, so let's learn from them.

It would be useful, in order to articulate the ideas, to split the group into "platoons" (20-30 people, marketing, development...), split them into "squads" (about 10 people) and give them specific tasks.

Otherwise, our coordination will be scattered all around

I would like to propose a simple "database of human resources", Excel-like worksheet, where all the participants could write down their skills and interests related to Steem(it).

For example: promotion, development...
People have tendency to cluster around tasks and ideas.

The Circa team is a working on an automated process to do this utilizing the Steem blockchain. We created an Alpha post yesterday to test the registration process.


Alpha Test

This is great but why can t you make it in the morning in the US ? 1pm makes it after midnight for many Asian countries... Don t we all have a say on what s happening?

I suggested a 24-hour voting period for exactly this reason a couple of times. I think it was ignored.

I'd suggest 3 days. Lowering the voting window to 12 hours is, in my opinion, unjustified and will only prevent people to vote in time. It seems that some people scaled the idea according to their needs only.

These voting times are just for the selection of the new, formal working group, so three days may be excessive. But 12 hours is definitely too short and a bit exclusionary for a global community.

@exyle wrote a post titled The Birth of a DPOS Religion, or something along those lines.

I think it would be more accurate to say we are witnessing the birth of Steem-based Politics 😐😑

Just a suggestion -- could we get some basic formatting on the transcript above, rather than a quick and dirty copy paste?

The only reason this stuff is readable in discord is because of the different coloured usernames and line shading -- this is practically unfollowable.

Or maybe some actual meeting minutes with action items and takeaways that correspond with an agenda? I realize this meeting was a bit spur-of-the-moment -- but perhaps something to consider for next time.

It isn't meant to be formal, it's just a log on what was said in the process.

Totally understand -- just merely suggesting that rather than providing an unformatted chat log; putting a few moments into formatting to make the lines with authors and timestamps bold (or something similar) so they stand out from the discussion a bit better, would make this substantially more digestible (at least for myself).

But maybe I'm the only one.

Considering that one of the tension/drama points in the whole Steem-alliance / SteemitInc discussion over the last few weeks was related to the stake from a ninja-mine (which was largely possible, from what I understand, because the mining information was "made available" but poorly documented to a point where people had a hard time making heads or tails of it) -- starting this initiative with an emphasis on communication and clarity might not be a poor decision.

Quick Edit: I realize this entire initiative is about communication and accountability, and in itself is a great stride towards that goal. Just tossing out some feedback. Sometimes it's nice to keep things tidy for those of us who don't read so good.

I think the suggestion was fine. :)

Consider it a trascript vs. a formal communication.

I just realized there is a section missing at the 12:12- 1:08 Mark. Must have got lost in transfer, I will fix now.



On my birthday. Yeah!

appreciate the structured communication.

I do appreciate you guys making this much of your conversations public. I have many questions. Whom do I direct these queries to? Would one or 2 of you be so humble to maybe join me this coming Sunday, after your planned meeting, come on my show? So many keywords in the above transcript really raise an eyebrow and what it might mean as a whole to this community of steemit. I don't claim to know you ALL well, but I hope a few of you comrades would do me a solid and allow me to try and better understand what exactly you plan on governing?
I look forward to hearing from ya'll.

On Sunday we will likely be doing a lot of answering questions and counting votes. If you wanted to try to ask some of your questions here or on Discord. I am sure any of us would be happy to do our best to answer them.

Thank you for the reply. My show is hosted in Canna Curate discord. I go on 2PM PST every Sunday. I will leave the invitation open to any would come and share with the community the developments of this project. I feel it would go a long way for the confidence building you guys will need to actually win over the steemit community by venturing out to the community. Feel free to message me anytime here or in discord..I AM Fracas Grimm there as well.

A good move. Let's keep all proceedings as transparent as possible.

You have my vote for the elections :)

For European members: 1pm EST is 7pm CET:

I need to prepare my phone to be present :)

Congratulations @steemalliance! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

You received more than 100 upvotes. Your next target is to reach 250 upvotes.

Click here to view your Board
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

Support SteemitBoard's project! Vote for its witness and get one more award!

We're inviting nominees to participate in the formal voting for the working group. The meeting and voting for the working group is scheduled to occur in the Steem Alliance Discord group at 1pm EST on Sunday Jan 27.

On Jan 27th the meeting will be open to all nominees. During the start of the meeting the following will be explained.

Any nominee can nominate themselves or another for a spot in the working group. Then there has to be a second from the audience.

The nominees are those from ? So they were nominated for a working group and as foundation members?

That list is for foundation members. It was established before the expressed desire to more formally elect a working group.

Nominees for the new working group will be raised at the upcoming meeting as per the process outlined at the top of this post.

While time is of the essence, a 12-hour voting window is a terribly small slot for a global community to respond.

With everyone involved that runs bid-bots, this info should be boosted to the top of trending so the majority of active users have at least a decent chance of seeing this, and further vote alerts. These posts from an account nobody is really following (only 174 at the moment) is going to risk only a very small well-informed niche that'll be aware of this, if the intention is for a fair community vote.

I suggest some reconsideration in these regards.