The initial criteria we used were to find people who would basically stay away from politics and stick to educating journalists about how the system works at a technical and financial level. That's it. Simple as that.
This is the issue; the standard for inclusion and it is likely determined based on the strategy for the Press Center.
Trace Mayer pushed for the standard for inclusion to be competence, professionalism and generally good reputation in the Bitcoin community. This would be to further the strategy that the Press Center should assist journalists in finding competent and professional individuals for whatever stories or segments they are producing.
Jeff Garzik, gmaxwell and Lukejr turned this into an issue by moving to strike Jon Matonis and Roger Ver, two established Bitcoin community members who present themselves competently and articulately, based
solely on their political ideas. Now, instead of discussing the topic of strategy and purpose for the Press Center, jgarzik wants to silence any debate. I think that determining the press strategy is very important.
I think the goal of this Press center should be to make the press's job easier and the standard used for inclusion should be competence and professionalism along with established reputations in the Bitcoin community.
I do not see why political ideology is relevant or should be used for any type of test or standard for inclusion.It appears, implicitly in their argument, that they want to politicize the Press center by making political ideology relevant as a test for inclusion. As a professional journalist myself I think that using political ideology as a test or standard for inclusion will be a disservice to the other journalists who visit this page seeking guests or commentators for pieces they are writing or segments they are producing.
Since the argument against inclusion is politically motivated, using political ideas as a standard for inclusion, therefore I doubt this issue will just go away after a 'cool-down period' and therefore needs to be addressed by logic and reason. Consequently, if Jeff Garzik, gmaxwell and LukeJR could please present the reasoning for their argument I think it would go a long way.