Topic: Lingham, Perklin, Pouliot named to Bitcoin Foundation Board / Mission Statement (Read 1475 times)

The expenses listed on the 990 form for 2014 were made by a different administration than is there now.

The current expenses are low.

I'd ask people to judge the foundation and people involved by the actual acts they were or are responsible for.

It's harder to be a turnaround team when the new people are blamed for the actions of those they replaced.

Looking at the (finally released) 2014 financial statements there are lots of funds that simply can't be accounted for properly. I agree that the community itself is the real "foundation". A six figure salary for a "Chief Scientist" that does little besides work on his own fork of Bitcoin is ridiculous.

I'm sure The Foundation can get Roger Verified though. He'll shill for anything.

I don't remotely trust any type of self appointed Bitcoin Foundation. I think it stinks tbh & I'd rather place any trust I have in the miners & actual bitcoin community/users.

How long before this foundation start paying themselves obscene bonuses & acting like fiat banks.

Not for me sadly, I'm not interested in supporting them.

We know, you have repeated this like a drunk parrot about 1000 times in the past week. The mismanagement of funds ( including Gavin's salaray) is at issue here.

Just for reference the board and Executive Director are all volunteers,  the only paid staff are a part time bookeeper and a part time ops person

100% agree

I agree 100%. I would donate/fund a foundation with a clear set of guidelines and goals. I want a group that has a plan and will efficiently spend the funds they get towards something that helps Bitcoin...not the staff of a foundation.

Agreed. I wouldn't waste a single satoshi to buy water if one of the members was on fire. Pretty much all "The Bitcoin Foundation" is good for is kissing political ass and making the community at large look like thieves, liars, and preschoolers.

No thanks.


If this is true, return my donation from ~2 years ago. I'll call it a wash. /s

though the foundation has a nasty history. IF its reorganized so that people are not buying memberships or donating to a pot of funds that has not even been made clear how is spent. but instead organized so that people only put in any amount they want to a certain idea/project. and this scheme is advertised like kickstarter, then the foundation may actually find they see more people contributing

The Bitcoin Foundation's name is too tainted in my opinion and will never get much community support. They way Oliver was axed was the final straw for many I would guess. I like what you are trying Bruce, but you would be better off forming something new. How many people would be willing to donate to the current foundation after all the history it has?

Thanks for the productive comments.

The Bitcoin Foundation belongs to everyone in Bitcoin it's as much yours as it is mine or any other member or the boards.

I think the foundation was a joke and instead of wishing it to be destroyed I accepted a volunteer offer to work to fix it.

If we all put our heads and a little effort and acknowledge that the past is the past and say we've got this thing, let's do something useful with it then that is a positive.

Agreed!

whats needed is better commenting of code. maybe as a separate code repository where each line of code is commented to explain things better, back in my day we not only had to comment code, but also write 'pseudo-code' (laymans version) to help explain it better.

its ok to only write code if your the only coder and you understand where one line of code affects the other instantly.. but when there are strangers looking at it or taking over projects then it must be made as simple as possible for others to read the code and understand it without having to scroll pages of pure code just to find references and functions to get to know how it works

Sure!

**********************************
FOSTERING PROTOCOL DEVELOPMENT

The foundation seeks to foster continued advancement of the Bitcoin protocol by encouraging multiple protocol implementations and by increasing knowledge about the development process.  Not only do multiple protocol implementations improve code diversity and network robustness, but they also increase opportunities for new developers to get involved.   New developers can work with a team that shares similar ideologies and work ethics, allowing each new developer to contribute to her fullest, benefitting the overall Bitcoin ecosystem in the process.

The primary tool for this is the [__needs a new name__] conference series which is designed to "Develop the Developers" there have so far been three events: London, Boston and San Jose.

The events have included as faculty well known leading developers and technical experts such as Greg Maxwell, Gavin Andresen, Charlie Lee, Jeff Garzik, Andreas M. Antonopoulos, Matt Corallo, Jeremy Allaire, Michael Perklin, Sean Neville and others.

Additional work for fostering development is in the areas of exploring better ways to bridge the gap of knowledge between development and the public and corporations.

The foundation Chief Scientist is Gavin Andresen. The foundation also wishes to create a Technical Communications Committee which will be chaired by someone with significant knowledge about core development. The primary role of this committee will be to bridge the gap between protocol development and the public and business leaders by updating members of the industry on current events in development and what they mean to the Bitcoin industry.
**********************************

I like the suggestion of making it a placeholder and gatherer of ideas.

Not a fan of the elections in general, not efficient and don't seem to help us help Bitcoin.

Great point.

To you have a suggestion for wording?

This is an active document in GitHub as we speak

i too prefer the foundation to just be a signposting operation. not there to order things or control things. but just to aid the communication and guidance for many projects.
like a directory service, where you can find all of the projects, tutorials, and resources in one place (not stored, just listed directory)
where anyone can be part of.

i think that the whole 'only paid members can vote' thing, needs to be re-evaluated.. maybe leave it open(free)membership but then have the voting cost something using bitcoin addresses for each vote criteria and the funds of those votes go to that idea
(think mini kickstarter) (mike hearns lighthouse idea)

that way the foundation would feel less like an inhouse boysclub, and more of a communication hub for everything bitcoin, where all projects are not inhouse, but linked and signposted via the foundation

Why only foster Core development?  Why not support development in general--actually encouraging decentralization away from Core?

Definitely looking for member feedback on this mission statement as well as help crafting a plan.

I don't care much about what the titles are - it is often useful to have a champion of some sort who drives things and feels responsible / can push things forward.  Chair titles can also be useful in public facing matters like Marco Santori, Chair of Regulatory Affairs Committee -- he has more weight with than than just noting to the press or regulators that he's a really smart lawyer.

As for getting things done -- please judge the people involved on what we actually have done and not done.

We understand the problems you spoke of but that's the point of a turnaround.  I wasn't involved in the decisions you are not happy with -- just trying to look at where we are now and where we can go from here.

As far as the plan seems like the order we are thinking makes sense for project management is:
1st : Agree on what we stand for, what our priorities are and what we want to see happen (such as these three main areas)
2:  Decide what actions, based on our resources can be done to make progress in item #1
3:  Make a specific timetable, set of action items and assignments of people to implement

Would welcome input, especially on GitHub

im not interested in who the office bench sitters are. or what title or group name they are in.. im interested in what real world actions will be done..
not some fuzzy misdirected umbrella term that has no specifics. which involves spending days, weeks, months shuffling papers and creating group names to waste  time and money.

the best thing to do is forget about group names and just think about who will physically do what..

once you know who will/can do what. then get them to do it.. then as more people help out.. then and only then should you categorize them.. not for any other reason but to help those individuals communicate to each other

it can be achieved easily by setting skype groups or IRC channels. (no paperwork /monthly meetings needed)

because some actions may require some people to do different tasks and thus plopping them in a certain group now might be meaningless in a few days because they are jumping in and out of different projects/tasks.. which is then wasted time until the next meeting. just to discuss who fits into which group again and again and again..


you still have not defined a precise agenda.
there is no point setting up a politics committee until you know there are people willing to eg: fight/repeal the bitlicence by actually going to government buildings to lobby.
(i bet you have not even got anyone ready to lobby, but have already thought about setting up a committee for this current empty spot)
there is no point setting up a conference organizing committee unless you know that there are people in the area of desired future conferences to fully oversee it.
(i bet you have not even got anyone ready to organize the next conference, but have already thought about setting up a committee for this spot)

for years i have seen bitcoin foundation waste time giving people glamorous titles but never seeing actual actions/results

so please try something different.. real world actions first, glamorous titles second