correct is: after you proposed the commercial idea, my first and natural reflex was to explain that I can’t agree with it and if (!) it becomes accepted I will leave the guardians (EDIT: without any public drama). I also added that all inetservices like the website remain active, as long as the guardians group want to use it.
After bringing up my arguments against the proposed idea some other guardians contacted me and asked to not leave and discuss the advantages and disadvantages. After a long ongoing discussion, some revised their vote and your proposal was not accepted.
It is still my plan to run a staking pool on special low power devices with power meters and webcams attached. Hopefully, it will be a hackathon project with a group of students. But I never expect it will be a profitable project with ideal 1/n stake delegations, also because it will very probably pledged (a0 parameter in staking reward scheme) with a minimal value, and so offering a reduced revenue.
The idea is to have a practical showcase where PoW maximalists can see how things are done properly and without increasing sea levels
Markus, that poll at 7-0 was already decided for majority same way as you claim just a few comments above on a 6-0 poll
Whether your leave was an announcement or threat it’s hard to differentiate, both are bad.
However it’s clear that when Parsons was still strong in position and you expected a marathon your main priority was not to get the Foundation liberated, but to either threaten us or announce your leave because of an ideology issue of a non-profit Guardians Group.
Not exposing to us until this week that you planned to run a private stake pool, but before fighting the Guardians Group for weeks not to have their own was a hidden agenda. Obviously having a private one and one non-profit for the Guardians would have created you a Conflcit of Interest.
Anyway I have the feeling it’s only you and me reading this now and we all know how this went down.
The same way we all know the efforts individuals have contributed though claiming democracy and equal voting rights.
I will not reflect on any false claims anymore. We may either do the live public webcast or we can also go into the details of who did what.
I can’t handle the toxicity and dirt in this thread anymore and wish you would have just let four of us leave with that statement, which was pretty fair considering what has happened.
A poll is decided when it is ended. And before vote and end (Pro-Tipp: in best case even before formulating the question) it should have been discussed. It was discussed afterwards because you created the poll with YOUR idea out of nothing. Therefore it ended after weeks, and you know what then happened: you ended the poll and immediately created a new one. By having exactly the same meaning, you asked all to vote the same again, and then you wanted to publish this reformulated stuff to let it look in the public as when a good idea was blocked by some who don’t want contributing anymore.
It is just unfavorable for your line of argument that those who do not want to continue commercially have already been volunteering for Cardano for many months and years. So long before the Guardians existed. And they will continue to do so.
Everyone can register a staking pool, either on public or hidden one. And it’s also a clear wish of those who created the incentives and delegation papers as well as the whole ouroboros protocol, simply because every node add more stability to the network. But there are some system-critical and important factors in the whole system and logic who will not allow everyone to simply start a earning rewards.
I can’t see where a purely educational staking pool project, probably also running only for a couple of weeks with it’s power meters and webcams will create any COI with whatever else (except another exactly same powermeter project)
The equal voting rights were always there. Before and after we invited you into the group. Working more than others doesn’t give you the right to change this given group rules afterwards and only from you. This is fundamental and colossal undemocratic.
BTW: did you remember on what we worked when you joined the group? it was a document on github where many of us had contributed to summarize our concerns and propose improvement ideas. The first thing you did is to propose to leave this whole document, and start working on your ideas. At that time I was tolerant and agreed to follow your ideas. This now and after several weeks of again and again unexpected experience has completely changed. will definitively continue holding up the torch of the real Guardians and their values as usual with arguments and corrections. count on it!
This is exactly why I can never work with you again Bert, ever. Period. You usurped the effort and now you shove it in everyones face. You actually think you should have 70-80% of the vote because you applied 70-80% of the effort. Ok, you got it Bert, go do what ever it is you do. I am done dealing with you on any form of media.
Markus Gufler, regarding the reformulation of polls.
They were not reformulated.
It was announced that let’s reconfirm our decisions in a transparent and public poll, which aggregates all the decisions previously made and the surrounding context into one poll any outsider might easily understand.
The principle behind this was to have transparency into the decision process for the Community and let individuals take full accountability & responsibility for their decisions.
As of the group who clearly added the majority of the effort had a different opinion then the other group who were higher on headcount / numbers it was a fair way to expose the disagreement.
Regarding the weighted voting this was suggested when comparing the group to a startup venture and claiming, that somehow investments and decision power should correlate a little as there were significant differences in investment. It was claimed that while a citizen right might allow you very rightly to vote on a government poll with the same weight irrespective of how much taxes you pay, but the same approach in a startup context is not really fair and should be compared to a shareholder structure in a profit organization, where shareholders with significantly higher investment (shares) have more influence.
I never said this Rick. Look at the weights (which were explicilty said to be indicative!) copied here by Markus (10-5-4-3-2-1, this would have been (10 b 5 b 5 m 4 n 4 m 3 r 3 r 2 e 2 s 1 c 1 a = 10/40 = 25%), So indeed for 70-80% of investment a 25% voting right might have been not too unrealistic in the private sector. But again these were clearly indicative numbers and only the idea was brought up for discussion.
But do you think that someone who literally added minimal value to the entire operation taking all our admin mods in the TG group telling us he does this so no one may kick anyone, then kicking me out a day after in our emotional discussions and cutting off all communication, would have been fair and democratic way to have this person have the very same infuence over the decisions?
The methods were criticized how our group of 4 Guardians presented and brought this statement public without discussing about it.
Well first of all after you shut down all communication lines a week ago by kicking me out of the TG group after an emotional discussion, how do you expect to discuss?
Also please be reminded that we would have prefered to keep all our internal issues strictly inside within our Group. But you have first brought the problems to the TG channel (Rob & Andy) then created a topic here in the Forum (Rob, https://forum.cardano.org/t/the-future-of-the-guardians).
You introduced publicity first as a method to find support for your opinion and have your proposed direction justified.
When the same was proposed with the public polls to provide transparency into our decision process or when today we used exactly the same method you have applied suddenly publicity was not good.
Bert,
You do not understand teamwork, you do not understand diplomacy (as hard as you try to use your version of what you think is diplomacy), you do not understand how delgation works in a team environment, and you have no idea how to work with a group of VOLUNTEERS. You should have stepped back and allowed others to work on tasking, as they were trying to do, on their free time. But since you have delegation and teamwork issues, that did not happen.
Now you are giving the impression that the only reason you have taken on a majority of the work was so that you can take control of the group and have the heaviest vote. The fact that you even think it is OK to have 25% of the vote among a group of 11 volunteers is utterly baffling. You just had to drag this crap out in public.
Again, those numbers were clearly said to be indicative and you keep sticking to them. Why?
Yes I do believe that investments in a Group if they significantly differ should then correlate in decision power and influence. Team members have to put in effort to earn certain governance benefits. In our case the credits were shared equally, never did I come up with difference of efforts, but yes I would have expected to have a little bit more say then some of the Guys who didn’t piss blood over the Parsons operation.
My friend if we are so personal, the night before the go live of the first letter, I was sitting in the hospital still working while my Son was in surgery. What did you do that evening? Or the other evenings? Rick apart from reading up two letters on your YouTube channel, what was your contribution?
I work in Teams for the last 20 years in IT Projects, also play football for 30 years.
Never had anyone claim before I am not a team player.
This is such a disgrace what is happening here … but I hope it’s worth it for you? As I don’t see who is benefiting from this?
Days, months, whatever Bert. You shoved those numbers in peoples faces over and over again to the point where many people cannot stand to deal with you.
I thank all individuals for their contribution in the Parssons matter but GOC as a group is done.
The GOC have officially made a community human capital fork in the first possible try, only beaten by Cardano Foundations lack of road map execution and incompetent leadership. Remarkable achievement and with this aftermath close to give a new meaning to the phrase: “The blind leading the blind”.
Keep in mind that you are eleven individuals in a big community. Please keep your dirty laundry in the private forums in the same way that you started the group. Why this is now a public forum matter beats me.
Please go on and establish new groups and collaborations under new names. But to me GOC contribution is and allways will be in the past.
Edit: Its ironic that after achieving the goal of a stabil CF Board execution. The group formed to demand stability now executing “divide and conquer” tactics publicly without regarding their future reputation
I find the five questions legitimate and would value the answers.
If it’s an internal conflict directly related with Cardano than public view shouldn’t be disregarded.
In case the members are arguing about the future direction of the entity without the community’s involvement than my guess is this is a private organization. Ultimately nonmembers aren’t well versed in such a matter.
This thread shined the light on some of my concerns about GoC, their methods and general view of the members considered volunteers. As I have notice what this group can accomplish, it’s astonishing how poorly the community is involve.
Each side please stop saying VOLUNTEERS because none of you are
If you have a personal interest you are not a VOLUNTEER
You, both sides you raped the world volunteers
Rickymac why you do not your videos without your face on it, because you want recognition and approval
Bert you want to rule, yeah I give you that, amazing work and you deserve more credits as simply you know more
I m ok with everything, just don’t try the big heart guy ( both side ) who is interested on VOLUNTEERING for the kindness of heart
So ashaming this story, all wants their share of Cardano
Me, for example I was against from the beginning, I may be wrong but for now and I m very sorry for the expression but you did shit on the floor to sit on it at the end
The problem, you are all heavily interested on something but it’s hard for you to admits
Just look the name chosen! There is no arrogant thing more than THE GUARDIANS, just the fact you think that of yourselves make me cry of how stupid humans actually are
Yes you get parsons to resign but also made 2/3of cardano ( IOHK, EMURGO ) worrying for something that they should not in those times
And a VERY BIG To Mr Charles Hoskinson giving credits to the Guardians, publicly, naively and dubiously wise ( now you see what you’ve done ? )
You give credits to a failed cause!
is all your decisions are like that ? If so we are more f£&@“d that we may admit
