Topic: A small group of developers are deciding who is a bitcoin Press representative - page 3. (Read 6773 times)

Now that the votes are 11 to 3 for expanding the press center page, the two developers with an axe to grind (and one supporter) have declared that the only votes that count are from the developers who commit bitcoin code.

It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes.

So to summarize:

a) Two devs said they would not consider Matonis (or other candidates), unless there was sufficient community interest to do a pull request (something very few people even know how to do). There was no pull request, therefore the community was not interested

b) I did a pull request, to add several new members to the Press Center

c) The pull request was flooded with slander, and the people who objected to Matonis cast negative votes

d) Eleven other people came in and cast positive votes

e) Now losing the vote, I was blamed for ignoring the process (pull request), putting the devs at a disadvantage (they had to follow several pull requests) and intimidation (my words were more powerful than their commit access?)

f) Now the process has changed (again), so that only votes of the devs contributing to bitcoin code are relevant for the Press Center decision. Because devs should make all the PR decisions, obviously (?!)

I expect they will Close the pull request shortly. The "if only there was a pull request, we'd consider it" was a blatant lie.

Enjoy your new bitcoin.org. It does not reflect the community, it does not take input from the community and it is controlled by three people, basically, who decided they are press experts, even though they can't get a quote right and use slander to make points.

Add your voice here if you think this is not a good process or good way to nominate and approve press contact that (whether we like it or not) represent the community:

Add several independent voices to the Press Center page, beyond the devs pets.

He serves the community as an entrepreneur and also an educator. It would be a misuse of his talents to push him into a media role.

Absolutely not. I have not nominated myself. I would not accept any such nomination, if someone were to make one. I have plenty of interview requests and press contacts and I am not interested in being on that page. This has nothing to do with me or my involvement. Quite honestly, I don't know Matonis personally, nor do I care particularly about him being added as an individual. I don't know the devs personally either, though I am getting to see some of them in a whole new light.

They claimed the only reason for the exclusion was the lack of a pull request.

I know how to create a pull request so I tested that claim. Turns out, that wasn't the only reason

My motivation is simple: I dislike power grabs, I dislike attempts to exclude, I dislike arbitrary decisions and I dislike the sense of entitlement that goes way beyond code (for which I am very grateful).

Coders don't necessarily make good press relations people. Coders don't necessarily make good PR decisions. That doesn't mean they have not earned the right to have a big influence in the project - they have. It simply means that some decisions are better made in a much more open way and with broader input, to avoid the impression of bias and to make *good* decisions.

The process here was the exact opposite of open (despite claims), and it led to poor decisions - the poorest of all decisions was to engage in a political decision (which the press center is, whether they like it or not), in a forum like github. From that first poor decision many more have sprung.

I have *no* skin in this game, other than being a member of the community and wanting to see a better and larger roster of press center representatives and a more open process for selecting them.

That much I see but I'm curious if there's any hint of sour-grapes here too. Much better to see both sides of the story.

He is pointing out the obvious problems that are start to occur in this process for the benefit of everyone in the bitcoin community.

@aantonop - I take it you want to be on the press team?

You're welcome sweetheart.

For the record: There is no conspiracy, nor a concerted effort to do anything. I wish the whole things was that organized.

No, the problem was just a few individuals with a strong opinion against a candidate, who were comfortably shielded from broader scrutiny by an obscure forum. Once the lights shined on them, the comments became better substantiated, the misquoting stopped and the personal ad-hominem is largely in check. At this point it seems like we're moving towards a big expansion of the Press Center with several Finnish speakers, Spanish speakers... and even the initial lightning rod, Matonis.
Turns out there wasn't that much "support" to keep him out, it was only a side-effect of the closed forum. There are now 10 votes for, 2 against. I doubt the commit-access people will shut down the discussion this time, it's too public. We'll see perhaps I'm being naively optimistic.

As far as I'm concerned, my goal has been met. More people looked at this process, decided it stunk and got involved. It very quickly let to a change of tone, less specious arguments and a more productive proposal - to add several more people at once and to broaden to a world audience.

I am still looking for proposals for more non-English or English speaking press contacts. The bottom line is that at the bitcoin 2013 conference there will be so many press requests that the list needs to be bigger. See pull request #162 and please add proposals for Word-Press suitable candidates.

Thanks

Herpderp, the neckbeards conspiracy! This shall go far!!

Lmao.


Eh get the fuck out. Who, "the volunteers who are working hard in their own time"? You? Never heard of you. Who exactly?

The volunteers who are working hard on their own time at being power rangers and forking the blockchain? The volunteers working hard on their own time at promoting various witch hunts a la "the only service currently giving value to Bitcoin is "spamming" it"? The volunteers working hard on their own time pushing various scams etc?

Here's a newsflash: the volunteers working hard on their very spare time are about as needed as feathers on a hog and about as useful too. The best thing they could do for Bitcoin is volunteering their own useless time somewhere else. Like a pizzeria or whatever. Something small and out of the way of people.

All this empty pretentiousness. Educating people. What, this? Is Amir Taaki one of your volunteers working hard on their own time? Who else, Nefario? Volunteers by lack of alternatives, it's either this, dicking around on wikipedia or else what, playing WoW naked? Fine volunteering, splendid spare time.

"Far less involved than they are" indeed. Take your volunteers, take your endless free time and shove the lot.

I'm trying to see a middle of the road approach here. My belief has always been to focus our community's media efforts on building an effective bridge to integrate new people into the bitcoin world. To do this in a comprehensive and straightforward way while still covering deep computer science concepts is a very difficult task. I could honestly care less what the foundation desires to do or who they attempt to exclude because they are pursuing things that are several steps ahead of where we are at as a movement.

One will never be able to unify anarchists, venus project enthusiasts, libertarians and communists. They are the extreme ranges in this community and they will not consent to being managed or controlled by any entity. They don't even like the sovereign governments they live under telling them what to do. Any foundation that asserts it seeks to benefit Bitcoin should focus on collecting, refining and effectively communicating a core set of information to anyone interested in Bitcoin that tells them how to self-integrate wherever they are comfortable.

You cannot mainstream Bitcoin to make governments and the media comfortable. It is a fundamental paradigm shift. Governments derive their power through controlling the money supply and if Bitcoin succeeds it will forever be a thorn deep in their sides. The media is always looking for ratings and will use Bitcoin as a tool to accomplish this goal. That tool only continues to work as long as people are ignorant about Bitcoin. Therefore, if we remove the ignorance from the mainstream as corporations did for the internet in the 90s, then we become unkillable. Regulation and brutal fights will come. We can never avoid them. Look at the battle against internet censorship. But we don't get to that point unless we can bring in a critical mass of diverse people from across the world.

This.  Anybody can criticise from the sidelines, but educating the public about Bitcoin is a massive undertaking and the volunteers who are working hard in their own time to take a chunk out of it can don't really need diatribes from people far less involved than they are.  If there was ever a time for the "we're all on the same team" line...

I think this is the crux of it.  If you're right, gmaxwell is conspiring, or just misinformed and exerting too much weight on the process.  So, where has someone credibly disproved gmaxwell on this issue?  The best source would be Jon Matonis himself.  If he's dying to be on that page, we should hear it from him.  I think this article is a coded response to this situation, particularly the last few paragraphs.  Is he being suppressed and silenced by the cabal running bitcoin.org? /sarcasm

I think it's a combination, really.  Some developers would prefer not to have him on the page, but he doesn't really want to be on it either.  He's disappointed that politics were what excluded him, but he would be making a bigger fuss if he actually wanted to be on the page.  What does he really have to lose for not being there, and what do his supposed opponents have to gain for keeping him off?  The answer "nothing really" to both is what makes me think this is not some grand conspiracy.

And those of you making this about the Foundation, they don't run bitcoin.org.  You strike me as the same type of people that would be campaigning against them controlling it, too.

No, I'm confusing what Bitcoin.org actually is with what they themselves claim - both in the Press Center and with repeated answers to pull requests to include others (constantly moving the goal posts). They portray the pull request as the open and fair process for community vetting.

This list of potential interviewees has been curated by Bitcoin community members with the intent to include individuals possessing a wide spectrum of experience, ideas, and geography.

Their methods put lie to their own proclamations.

I am simply calling them to fulfill their promises and live up to their own self-proclaimed ideals and process.

In the end, I don't expect them to do anything - I'm not stupid or delusional. I do expect the community to see this for what it is: a naked and transparent power grab with a thin veneer of excuses and a sham process to confuse people into thinking there is consensus or community input.

Most people aren't arguing that there's an absence of bias.  They're saying that the organisation itself has no obligation to be unbiased - it's totally free to choose it's own agenda and to decide who it wants to represent it using whatever methods it chooses.

It sounds like you're confusing what Bitcoin.org actually is with what you believe it "should" be.

Seriously, this kind of crap happens with every movement ever - civil rights, feminism, HIV/AIDS, to name a few.  Unfortunately, it means a lot of energy which could be spent on creating better alternatives is spent on trying to tear down or reshape whatever already exists.

If you ever want an example of how someone who is extremely influential in the early stages of a movement becomes irrelevant over time, look at Germaine Greer.  Modern feminists can't identify with her at all, and the rest of us wish she'd just shut the fuck up and realise we're no longer living in the 1970s.

gmaxwell has repeatedly posted quotes that were inaccurately sourced and put words of others in Matonis' mouth.

Several others reposted those in every pull request mentioning Matonis.

I think it is not a conspiracy theory to say that someone who is publicly posting false quotes, again and again, to exclude someone from a press list they control is biased and allowing that bias to influence their decisions unfairly.

I question the authority of these individuals to make the decision, given their obvious bias.

You don't have to like Matonis or me to dislike the process and blatant bias shown on this issue.

Yeah, I got a kick out of this from gmaxwell:


Granted, there are more people "being censored" (Roger Ver), but Jon Matonis' name is all over this thread, everyone's fighting for his right to be on the page, but he doesn't even want to be.

Or we can just go full tinfoil hat and think gmaxwell is lying to suppress Matonis.  And if he does get added, complain he's not first on the list.  And if he gets onto the first line of a two-column table of people, complain that his placement is biased towards not being first for native left-to-right or right-to-left language readers, depending.

Possibility 1:  Tyranny once again raises its ugly head in an attempt to subjugate the masses for a nefarious plan.

Possibility 2:  It's a little more complicated than you're making it seem.

The truth is, it's not just one or two power hungry individuals trying to force everyone else to do what they want here.  Anonymous internet voices are fine and all, but a significant portion of the real life individuals who I know to understand press and publicity are strongly in favour of listing people who will talk about Bitcoin rather than their personal politics.

Jon already has a significant platform for his views and will (I guarantee you) be receiving plenty of press requests from those familiar with his stance _without_ being listed.  He already has to defer a lot to the press list.  The point of the inherently incomplete list at Bitcoin.org is to note some people the press don't _already_ know about who can speak intelligently, with poise, and without politics.  As I noted on github, we're not looking for Richard Stallmans here, despite the respect and value we place on the voice of people like that.  For any given political opinion the vast majority of people out there are at odds with it, so focussing on Bitcoin itself gives everyone the chance to hear about it and understand it without having to undergo an existential crisis.

This whole pitchfork raising thing is pretty unprofessional, imo.

I hope Litecoin is taking notes.

My problem is the assumption that private organisations have some obligation to consult the community at large.

Bitcoin.org divorced itself from this messageboard because it did not like how this messageboard reflected on Bitcoin.  It's pretty much their right to decide how they want to portray Bitcoin to the outside world.  Likewise, it's the right of Bitcoin Foundation to set their own agenda.

If you want to argue the need for a more inclusive umbrella organisation, I'm not going to dismiss that idea.  It won't create itself, though, and you need to decide in advance how you're going to handle the reality of the Bitcoin movement as a whole having factions with conflicting agendas.  If you take the democratic route, then you're still going to end up with some groups not having a voice because they don't have the numbers.  

There's a reason why over time grass roots movements tend to spawn a lot of organisations each pursuing their own agenda - their individual goals are often irreconcilable.

The answer isn't to try to hijack Bitcoin.org or Bitcoin Foundation and make them into something they don't purport to be.  It's to create an organisation which is more inclusive and promote the hell out of it.  Nothing at all prevents people - including high profile people - belonging to more than one organisation.  Things it might not be appropriate for high profile people to say as official spokespeople of one organisation can be said as ordinary members of another organisation or as individuals.

Yes, its all very incestuous at the moment but that's true of any grass roots movement in its early stages.  You find the same few people popping up everywhere because they're the ones who initially pulled together the beginnings of organisation.  It does pass, if only because eventually there's too much "everything" for them to continue being involved in every aspect of the movement and they start narrowing their focus.

the crazy thing about it is that of all the ppl who have been interviewed about Bitcoin heretofore, Matonis has been by far the most articulate and poised under some difficult questioning.

can you imagine Luke even opening his mouth in front of a camera?  and JG?  well, we know how he feels about long arms...