Topic: Matonis replaced with Bitcon Mag (Read 2652 times)

Sirius has been kind enough to comment on the matter over on the original thread about Ver/Matonis getting censored. Him weighing in, combined with Gavin's previous statement, should be enough to once and for all resolve the dispute over the press representatives:

luke-jr and jgarzik have deemed Jon Matonis and Roger Ver "too radical" ... they have persuaded their 'webmaster' puppet this is indeed the case ... subsequently they have slandered and mocked Matonis and Ver in regards to their political leanings on IRC #bitcoin-dev when challenged about their schemings to have them blocked from the bitcoin.org "Press Center" page.

sorry but what is the actual issue with jon? just that he has 'extreme' views, or did something happen behind the scenes?

That is precisely what I meant by the distinction of "owned by" versus "controlled by".


If you are referring to theymos, you do realize he is the administrator of the forum and one of the most knowledgeable people around when it comes to such matters.

That would seem to be a basic Whois information protection service such as e.g. Namecheap and GoDaddy also offer. Still, perhaps "controlled" is a more appropriate word than "owned". I trust theymos to sufficiently know the pertinent history and facts when he says the domain is owned/controlled by Sirius.

Let's review the key facts of actual authority here, which are rather more fundamentally pertinent to this dispute than the dearly-held personal opinions of a couple of core developers:

• 1. The current delegation chain through which the website is maintained is Sirius (who owns the domain) to Gavin to the webmaster, as previously described. This structure does not directly include or involve the Foundation or the other core developers at all.
  
• 2. Sirius has not yet responded to this issue (he's reclusive these days) but has previous libertarian statements on record. It is hardly conceivable that he would himself censor Matonis or Ver, any more than Satoshi himself would have done so.
  
• 3. Gavin has explicitly expressed that he believes the process should be inclusive, not exclusive. It's very clear that he himself would not censor Matonis or Ver. (Particularly Matonis, who sits with him on the board of the Foundation.)
  
• 4. The webmaster, however, is at the moment choosing to ignore the views of the very people from whom his authority derives in the first place. The problem comes down him evidently placing more weight on the views of the core developers with whom he hangs out daily at the #bitcoin-dev IRC channel. This is understandable, in a way: they are his peer group, and peer pressure will matter much more than the ad-hominems shouted at him by people he doesn't hang out with.
  
• 5. Gavin seems reluctant to directly countermand the webmaster. He'd like the webmastering to stay delegated, which is understandable since he's a busy guy and the website isn't his top priority.
  

Keeping all this in mind, there are a couple of important implications:

Firstly, debating those core developers hostile to Matonis and Ver is bound to be ineffective, since they will rationalize their opposition every which way to Sunday (as demonstrated); but it also actually doesn't matter, except in so far as it might or might not affect the webmaster's view of the situation. It was clearly ineffective, and perhaps counterproductive, in the way it proceeded on GitHub lately, though it did at least serve to further illuminate the absurdity of the process.

Secondly, if what's needed is to overrule the webmaster instead of persuade him, that can only be done by Gavin or Sirius. (Satoshi would also carry enough authority, but he's unlikely to come out from well-deserved retirement.) Unfortunately, these gentlemen are not particularly assertive (as compared to, say, Linus Torvalds). Further, they are likely both at the moment "blissfully unaware" of the particulars of the dispute. So, barring a miracle, that's all she wrote.

That list omitted at least me, as well as many people who spoke up in favor of Matonis/Ver on the numerous earlier related issues and pull requests (at least #139, #145, #152, and #161, perhaps others) but gave up after it was clear that the process was broken. Not that it matters, as this was never going to be a vote.

I can't say I know much about the matter at hand except that I've been told it is a non-matter. I'll refrain from speaking further on the subject until I know more.

It's ok grubles, you don't get a vote either...

The vote was not my idea. I am simply stating I have more trust in the list of people I posted than the other voters.

Didn't you hear? they changed the rules. Only people who are recognized by their github ids get to vote. You must have missed rule change #17.

Then why even have a vote at all? You don't get to say, let's vote and then reject it afterwards because it didn't end the way you want.


That is all. Smiley

This is just me but, I trust the people on this list:

>luke
>gmaxwell
>midnightmagic
>saivann
>emansipater
>someoneweird
>jgarzik
>aardeem



moreso than the opposite voters. Mostly because I have never heard of, or from, the opposing voters (except cypherdoc [I think]).


That is all.

Just got a PM from gmaxwell with the following gem, just to double-down on the tone-deaf attitude. He didn't have the brass to post it publicly of course, he's a cowardly weasel through and through:

>counting?
>« Sent to: aantonop on: Today at 11:22:12 PM »
>« You have forwarded or responded to this message. »
>Quote  Reply  Delete 
>At the time you claimed 16/7 my count was:
>
>aantonop
>flix1
>pelle
>masterkrang
>simonk83
>sunnankar
>joecoin
>gbilley
>dgenr8
>cypherdoc   
>junisBell
>msngui


>luke
>gmaxwell
>midnightmagic
>saivann
>emansipater
>someoneweird
>jgarzik
>aardeem


>13 vs 8.

>Not that it matters, doubly so with you hitting multiple threads encouraging people to comment without reading the ?background, and promoting your position on the forum— in threads you didn't bother linking to (and so I'm just now finding) with deceptive statements (e.g. claiming that all of my matonis quotes were other people).


To which I responded:

Wait, so you lost the vote, cancelled the vote and are now telling me that you lost it but BY LESS THAN I CLAIMED?

The you accuse me from gathering community input (Wow!), which is what y'all said was needed.

Have you no shame?

At 17 for expanding the press center and 7 votes against, @saivann, the appointed webmaster closed the vote declaring it a loss (invalidating the 17 votes)

It was a sham all along, trying to distract from the power grab underway.

bitcoin.org's press page is run by 3 unelected developers with not a clue about press relations. Rejoice!

I think the problem is a bit more systemic than you'd like to admit. The foundation in my opinion really could care less about what we think. They have a plan and are executing it perfectly.

This not "the foundation", this is three or four developers who are so tone-def and insulated in the little authority they have through the commit flag that they've come to think they are press directors, not glorified webmasters.

A bit of sunshine and they will go scurrying away. All I have to do is quote their rules back to them and they tie themselves in knots trying to make it all appear less than capricious.

It appears to me that the foundation really doesn't care about our suggestions.

Update for those interested.

The developers who are playing a power grab of bitcoin.org set the rules for nomination - a pull request. Then they changed the rules 15 times in a row, as I met every requirement.

To summarize:

* All I need is a pull request to nominate someone
* But only if I get support with votes
* But only the devs get a vote
* But everyone gets a VETO
* Unless it's me, I don't get a veto (I veto'd jgarzik, since everyone gets a veto)
* For that I have to do a pull request for VETO (30 seconds after I stated my veto)
* But only for existing Press Center members (30 seconds after I said I'd do a pull request)
* "Vetos for real reasons are real. Vetos because you want to create problems are not". @luke-jr get to decide which is which.
* Votes keep coming in (16-6 in favor of expanding the list), with people opposed voting as if the vote matters, but votes in support being ignored.
* Voting will continue until I lose in votes, or I lose by veto, or I Iose by having the pull-request closed.
* "Counting votes, after trolling specific audiences for votes on outside forums, just makes a vote even more meaningless". (ie, getting support from the community at large is somehow suspect- that's YOU everyone!)
* "As we see here, the loudest voice -- i.e. the person who posts the most -- just drowns out everything else". (Before there was no support, now there's TOO MUCH speech in this voting process, once I started getting support)

You may add you comments here - suggest constructive solutions, don't bash the individuals, that's what they want to call it a troll. Nominate more people, offer your own substantiated vetos and stick around to defend your positions.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162

Because he has to make a commitment to serve. I see what you're trying to convey, but this isn't the same. I have outlined a very clear set of goals and a purpose that I think this community can embrace. If he wishes to help, then I will not say no. Out of respect for those who have already committed to serve, he must be proactive enough to contact me. There is plenty of work to go around and we could use him.