Adding to what @Bullish wrote:
If we consider the petitioners as an elite group then we should all be happy because that group is now 1.6K strong 
As of this post 1,610 people are onboard âthe elite group â by signing the petition.
Please correct me if that is the wrong way to look at this?
The Guardians selected each other as best they could. In my world âordinary guyâ is not an insult, far from it. And being basically ordinary guys, despite having some relevant abilities and experience, we got some things wrong, for which we are sorry. If thatâs not good enough for you, too bad.
Everyone has the opportunity to research, look up and investigate what has happened and what is still happening. No one has said that the mission has been completed and all problems have been solved. To be honest: Please show your efforts, bring in your skills and inform people about your (I recommend) proven and reliable results.
No one has denied anyone to think about what happened, to contact other members, to exchange some thoughts, to spend time, to get to know each other, to build and share trust and knowledge. I can say that the last weeks have been incredibly intense, very many very nights,⌠but also incredibly great things have happened and I have learned a lot.
To be honest, I canât imagine how you can do that efficiently with any team size. In addition to the trust that had been building up over months, it was also important to have the necessary skills in the growing team and to organize the teamwork and consensus building around the globe, without suffocating in your own discussion.
This was never really about forming an elite group. In fact, there were some rejected ideas because we absolutely wanted to avoid that impression. We didnât want to stand in the foreground, but the community, whose development we didnât see sufficiently supported by the management. The last and most difficult decision was whether we should publish as an obscure anonymous group or with our clear names. We decided against the option that in many parts disturbs us so much at the Foundation and its chairman.
Rather than say what you didnât like, can you please tell us what you would have preferred to see happen instead? Iâm not being flippant but I think itâs more clear and constructive for us all to think about if you phrase it that way.
well, you all failed cause that is the resounding impression you gave. iâm really quite puzzled by that seemingly lack of self awareness.
if those really were your intentions, please explain the incompatible manner you went about your actions.
why were these conversations or investigations done secretly behind closed doors amongst yourselves? why did you not engage the wider community? anticipating you claiming that it being public would have led to âcovering up of evidenceâ - how? then why the theatrics? and what appears to have been coordination with iohk/emurgo? from the perspective of a person within the community it seems like there was some hope that the overblown theatrics would translate into price action with the beneficiaries of this information asymmetry - you, the self appointed âguardiansâ.
again, if those really were your intentions, selflessly representing the community as you claim - please explain the incompatible manner you went about your actions. cause the psychological intentions and motivations math ainât adding up!
side stepping the dubiousness ofâŚ
said the person uses/has used âguardianâ power - i mean admin privileges to censorâŚ
therein lies the problem.
iâll be creating a thread to expand on this.
I am sorry but I cant take you seriously. You come off as someone looking for negatives for the sake of negativity. You ask why the letter where not public yet this exactly what it is at this point, you claim with no shred of evidence guardians wanted to move prices yet ada has been stable on the 0.07 mark. If you want to do something more usefull for the community fact check the open letter and look for errors. These guys are only human and I am sure they made a few mistakes in the 100+ questions and it would be helpfull to correct these.
this is is the sort of healthy actionable perspective and approach we as a community need to collectively be about. trust but question and verify, always QUESTION AND VERIFY. not just âfuddingâ or âshillingâ like people without minds of their own.
It really is disappointing to see such disheartening division coming from the actions that a few people took to strengthen the community, I kind of get an understanding of the viewpoint of the perceived secrecy but I want to defend the decision that was made to do things behind closed doors and also the decision some of us have made to discuss things in the lounge where a new member cannot participate. I posted the following on July 23rd 2018 in the Lounge.
After my post in the lounge was not acted upon at a level that I could be happy with i was looking at other ways to stir up the community to participate in the development of a stronger community,I started to get the idea that something was holding the CF employees back on little issueâs, when I found the opportunity to make a real difference to support the community without the over watch of the CF I took it, and I put my name to the Guardians letter proudly! It was about 4 weeks of collaboration by some very hard workers that spent time away from their families and friends to do this right.
When the Guardians came together it was hard to know who to trust, and there was only 9 people involved! 9! imagine trying to collaborate with 50 people on the letter that came from the Guardians in an open thread like this, I think it would be very very difficult and all 50 people most likely would not put their name to it.
The letter was the first of its kind from the community to challenge the CF leadership and if anyone of us had not spent the time to understand how things were operating at the CF over an amount of time, then that person would never have understood why the rest of us wanted to look into what the hell was going on.
Do not try and tell me that I did things wrong just cause you might have done it different, please.
I am sorry @misteraxyz that the developments do not have your approval, but please⌠please give me a good suggestion of how you would have done it.
@Risus76 I truly am sorry that you took offense to some of our comments on the announcement thread, we really did not decide until last moment to reveal ourselves, I hope you can move past it without hard feelings.
sure. quite simply really. i wouldnât have acted in a way that was counter to what i would later say my intentions were.
claim to be for transparency - yet have secret meetings.
claim to be for accountability - yet not be able to make a case for your integrity.
claim to be for inclusion - yet excluded the community in a matter so integral.
whilst i appreciate your attempt to explain your thought process, it relies heavily on an assumption which is largely baseless(i expand on this further on). beside your approach to have it excluding the community ultimately not resulting in the desired result - the reasons before didnât justify, and the result after even more so just added/add to that very case.
i for one (as well as the few others whoâve come forth in light of all thatâs transpired) would have loved to be part of that conversation.
case in point look at the points others and i made on this thread:
not to mention from a numbers game/probability standpoint, the desired result stood a better chance in it being an open public conversation than a private closed one.
the opposite, which you claim, would be true if majority of the community on the forum were against the project - which just isnât the case. (as is evidenced by majority of threads and posts within them). at best, any opposition would have been from speculators, who are few and far between - especially in cardano comparative to other projects within the space. even they wouldnât be bothered to engage on a thread of such nature let alone actively oppose it as it does nothing to move the needle either way for what theyâre interested in - the short term gains in monetary value.
as youâve pointed out in your screenshot, you had little intention in staying in the lounge and that you knew that this needs to be a wider community conversationâŚ
I personally feel like you are attacking me and not adding anything of value to the conversation.
My call for community action still stands, and yet you are trying to debase the work that I was a part of.
I canât help you bud, you would like to stand here and champion how you feel while tearing someone down that took action, and it does not make sense to me.
#becausefeelings is beyond my control.
if youâre feeling attacked i would vouch to guess that youâre reading what i wrote as a subjective criticism of you the person christopher ray - and not objectively as an accountable member within the community who has had closed conversations in the lounge context and the âguardianâ context.
hereâs what you, i and the community at large general believe and need; transparency, accountability governance and yes we should start modelling how now. where we differ - having closed secret meetings then claiming ânot wanting to be eliteâ.
itâs not just what you do, itâs how you do it.
integrity matters.
First of all: for everyone in this thread providing us with constructive feedback - Thank you.
But unfortunately some people are picking on negativity whilst they seem to forget the bigger cause. Itâs making me sad to be very, very honest.
Did you know that:
Itâs not for us, itâs for you - the community.
would these be integrity, transparency and accountability?
ok, how so?
Yes, it is. And i know what you are trying to say - that we are hypocrites. But for us it was the best shot in how we thought to achieve better times.
Because one night of sleep resulted in reading 500+ messages when youâve woke up, every time. And you could not mis even one of them because you needed to stay updated.
ok, so in the spirit of transparency could these then be made public? or am i and the whole community to just take your word for it?
so is that 500 messages generated in 8 hrs by 8 people?
so that would make ~1500 messages in 24hrs x 14 days minimum as you said the last few weeks were the hectic ones. so that makes ~21,000 messages, minimum.
at any rate, with responses at such a high volume was everyone of the 8 inefficiently reading every message? if so why werenât tasks/sections delegated? then why was it not modularised and then used something like reddit with voting functionality not implemented? dramatically reducing the input output bandwidth constraints by a factor of at least four fold if not eight.
We will consider it when weâve achieved what we want - a proper functioning Foundation or entity that will take care of the reason why there should be a Foundation in the first place.
Weâve won the first battle, gathering the community and asking for a change. But this war is not won yet.
We donât have the option in our channels to measure the exact number of messages everyday. Itâs a gross estimate in which we can all confirm that 500+ messages everyday were pretty usual
And regarding our choice for the channels weâve used - it worked for us. Despite we could have worked more efficiently. And to speak about voting weâve used âpollbotâ. A very nice addition on Telegram to reach consensus with every action we took.
thanks for publically confirming precisely what iâve been concerned about.
You can be concerned all you want. Iâve tried to give you the best explanation possible.
We, as a community are doing it for the community - that also means you.
I hope you donât forget to zoom out from time to time, to understand what this is really about.
Have a nice day.
