There has been some recent arguments regarding various expectations for Cardano Ambassadors.
What has become clear very fast that there are really different interpretations regarding the title and corresponding role.
One Ambassador said it´s just a “tag on his Forum profile”, while another mentioned “Ambassadors represent the Cardano Community, us” or “we work on some really big & serious things in the background”.
The title, roles & responsibilities and expectations has to be all aligned. Naturally.
Anonimity was a perfect example for this. On one end of the spectrum (if it´s only to indicate someone has exceptional contribution to the Community) it might be acceptable, while on the other end of the spectrum (people who go out and represent the Community and the Cardano Brand) it´s maybe not acceptable.
Why this issue has materialized comes from the title itself, as “Ambassador” “the phrase is used for high-profile non-diplomatic representatives of various entities” according to Wikipedia, and well generally common sense & experience whenever you hear the phrase in any context.
However if we look into the definition of the Ambassadors of Cardano by the Community Management Team they define it as “community members who have contributed good work to the community”, so there is no part about any sort of “representation”.
I think this is creating the conflict here, that an Ambassador title implies some sort of high-profile representation, while the Community Management definition of it doesn´t.
In this context when some of us @knysna @Adam_Parish started to challenge whether anonimity should be accepted or not, I believe we did this in the traditional interpretation of Ambassdorship. But please note that probably most of our Community and everyone outside (media, trolls, other crypto Communities, etc.) of the Community will likely have this very logical interpretation of the title (or at least be split around the spectrum like us).
I was also claiming that Ambassadors should be role models, they need very strong ethical & moral standing and even that the Community has to consent about nominating this title. I was also claiming that a background check is needed (especially the digital footprint) to make sure no Ambassador is related to any radical political group, has nothing controversy or inappropriate associated to them, which would make them non compliant. I did all this in the context of the traditional Ambassadorship interpretation.
I believe the phrase is just not very well chosen (another indication of the weak Community Management Team).
If there is really no Cardano representation nature to this role, then maybe Cardano Community Champion should have been a much better choice and I suggest this rebradning. This new title does also have the same level of sexyness, but makes it very clear what the role is about.
This would allow to introduce the Cardano Ambassador later for the representation context, which I think is very important one, that shouldn´t be squandered now.
Of course you could always have CCCs become Cardano Ambassadors, it´s not an exclusive role, but there should be different standards IMO and non-anonymity is just one of them. Also gender equality, diversity and other key factors come into play for such a representation role.