Unprofessional how? I say this without malice. Greg, you're not much of an ambassador - leave the negotiations to someone else and stick with the tech explanations which you are very good at.
See Peter Todd's nice explanation on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/47cjb5/f2pool_to_withdraw_support_from_round_table_due/d0byl5aQuote
The Medium post wasn't officially released with Adam Back as 'Blockstream President' - you're thinking of the draft, which was released publicly by accident.
FWIW, Adam Back wasn't the person who actually typed in "Blockstream President" in the original Medium draft - IIRC the document was edited on Samson Mow's laptop and he probably actually typed it in based on what he assumed Adam Back would sign as.
Before the final copy was released officially Adam Back asked for that title to be changed to individual after consulting with others, including other Blockstream employees, as well non-Blockstream Bitcoin devs such as myself, both at the meeting and on IRC. That actual edit was probably made by Samson again.
The rational for that change was pretty simple: Adam Back didn't feel he could speak for Blockstream officially without further consultation with others at Blockstream. Similarly, rather than use the more common term 'Bitcoin Core Developer', we specifically used the term 'Bitcoin Core Contributor' to avoid giving the impression that the Bitcoin developers who signed were signing on behalf of all Bitcoin Core developers (edit: I personally argued for even more clear language along those lines, but everyone was getting tired so I decided to drop the issue, and instead I made it clear in my tweet rather than delay things even further).
FWIW, Adam Back wasn't the person who actually typed in "Blockstream President" in the original Medium draft - IIRC the document was edited on Samson Mow's laptop and he probably actually typed it in based on what he assumed Adam Back would sign as.
Before the final copy was released officially Adam Back asked for that title to be changed to individual after consulting with others, including other Blockstream employees, as well non-Blockstream Bitcoin devs such as myself, both at the meeting and on IRC. That actual edit was probably made by Samson again.
The rational for that change was pretty simple: Adam Back didn't feel he could speak for Blockstream officially without further consultation with others at Blockstream. Similarly, rather than use the more common term 'Bitcoin Core Developer', we specifically used the term 'Bitcoin Core Contributor' to avoid giving the impression that the Bitcoin developers who signed were signing on behalf of all Bitcoin Core developers (edit: I personally argued for even more clear language along those lines, but everyone was getting tired so I decided to drop the issue, and instead I made it clear in my tweet rather than delay things even further).
Since an earnest piece of confusion existed here the professional way to handle it would have been to first simply send an email "Hey, what happened here?" Not to issue a public ultimatum; especially when the subject matter in question was a title on a on a document, and doubly so when the party being attacked didn't even have the technical ability to change it themselves. Even in the least charitable interpretation of the facts, F2Pool making a public fuss and threatening to change their operating behavior over this matter does not give me an impression of a thoughtfully managed organization.
Mistakes happen, however, and I do not think they should be vilified for it, but nor do I think it should be flushed from history.
Cheers.
Too bad. No one cares what you think. It's clear that blockstream is fully of shady shit and subtle manipulation tactics like who signs as what are clearly important to your operandi. Miners are to do what is in their best interest, not what your shitty company tricks them into thinking is in their best interest. How does your own medicine taste?
