Reflecting the Youtube post from The Cryptoviser: Is Cardano Centralizing The Cardano Foundation Council
I understand the concerns about the centralization of power in the 3 Cardano organizations very well. I myself have mixed feelings, but I see it from different views. One apect is the one The Cryptoviser has well and thoroughly illuminated in his YouTube channel. There is not much to add to and it is consistent and absolutely comprehensible. However, we should also consider the history of Cardano. Mr Parsons had to vacate his chair in mid-2018 because his organization was not doing what it should have done at that time. To bring Cardano forward it is a logical conclusion to bundle the forces that propel Cardano forward. As long as this is pushing Cardano to success without loosing its primary targets, i personally do not mind. Of course, the prerequisite is that the community gets its vote as planned.
I personally don’t think that the Foundation is becoming centralized, if anything adding more members onto the board is by definition decentralizing is it not?
We all also need to understand that what happened with the Foundation and Mr Parsons is in the past. The Foundation is a different place now with a completely different structure and leadership. I don’t think that dragging this history back into the present is needed.
We need to relish the fact that the CF is moving forward with new partnerships such as COTI pay, brining on new excellent hires across the board as well as making great decisions to add two new members onto the board in preparation for this next phase.
Also, the CF is trailblazing the way forward in terms of legislation (as fast as anyone can move legislation that is) They have been present and active at a number of joint conferences with world leaders along with funding things like the Wyoming Hack-a-thon among many other things.
I personally think from an Ambassador this is an ‘out of character’ stance to take on the matter, with more research and potential communication with the CF and other Ambassadors the video could have been much different perhaps…
Anyway, I’ve made my point clear in the previous discussion around this topic.
This is one side of me wich is completely with you! And at least i think the whole team is doing a real good job! No matter of being centralized or not!
Interesting perspective. Are you suggesting that Ambassadors should tow the line and not challenge the decisions made by those currently driving the project and its direction?
Nope certainly not, but there is a level access that we as Ambassadors have to the CF, IOHK and Emurgo that should be used to communicate feelings and ask questions.
Having that dialog is vital to the community, Ambassadors, as well as the three entities, however in this case it was ignored. Which in my view lead to the opinion in the video.
Which is why I suggested it was an out of character stance too take. If this dialog had been had then such feelings wouldn’t have occurred. Or if said feeling had, then more clarity over the matter from the CF side could have been given.
Isn’t it odd that the CF didn’t have a direct comment within this video? As Ambassadors we have direct access to them for comments and information that help us convey topics to the wider community with clarity and support. Which is what the community expect from an Ambassador, but again because that dialog was ignored and they didn’t have an opportunity to provide this level of support. Thus for an Ambassador I felt it was out of character.
Oh, so what you are saying is “don’t air your dirty laundry in public” and have these “business” discussions behind closed doors?
A bit of an old fashioned approach, not really becoming of an open source project.
Not what I said…
As Ambassadors, we have access to talk to the three entities, discuss opinions, questions from the community and feelings about announcements etc
As an Ambassador if these tools are used then we can provide clear, informative content that is balanced as well as sourced. Which is what people expect from an Ambassador.
When such tools are ignored and research isn’t done, then it produces content that is out of character for an Ambassador as it can be mixed, confusing and not necessarily balanced which is why there was no comment by the CF within that video, and why Charles addressed said video/ concerns within a short video.
I don’t understand what this means. Are you saying that there was only one possible conclusion that @The_Cryptoviser could have come to if he had “used the tools”, which is different to the one he did?
I believe that having a different opinion to other does provide “balance”.
Nope of course after using the Ambassador channels etc he still had concerns then, of course, that’s fine as I said here:
But having said that balance is a fundamental of any successful project, but in using this argument then why wasn’t the video balanced?
It gave no quote from the CF in terms of response, rather it was that the CF was now becoming centralized.
This is what I mean by if the Ambassador channels were used then the tone or even opinion could have been much different if they’d had the option to comment beforehand. (or at least been able to show community members the reasoning behind the announcement) Which at the very least is courteous, and in journalism is expected.
As Ambassadors, we are mutually expected to hold ourselves to high standards, and in this case, these standards were not met.
So my view is that ok, after upholding these standards and then an Ambassador still feels the same then they should be free to voice their opinions to the community. But if these standards are not met and one simply states them then there is an issue in my opinion.
Just to be clear, my issue is not with the stance that community members should be represented on the council (although I have an opinion). My issue is with the words chosen to express this view, and the way in which this was conducted. I feel it isn’t how an Ambassador should conduct things.