I think most people will agree that the topic of how the community will be represented and consulted in the Cardano Foundation is very reasonable @bercinho, it’s probably the way that it is presented that triggers people.
Forming the Guardians of Cardano to put pressure on those in power was a great way to break out of the stale mate that we were in. However, re-using this same group in an attempt to influence decision making after new board members were just appointed (which was exactly what the Guardians’ initiative initially requested) seems less appropriate. Particularly after the group itself just went through a power-struggle and you used the channels without consent of all prior members of the group.
IMO it’s probably best to just let emotions cool off a bit and wait for the new Cardano Foundation board to make its next move. If they don’t come up with a satisfying way to have the Cardano community represented one way or another a community initiative could still be formed. Just my two cents.
you have a point on that and we are the guardians as community member the CF is doing there things for now and if same will result from before then we need to act.
This topic is about your opinions put out in public, and I respond to them with my opinions. You make it about yourself.
Nope. I am not a key public figure of Emurgo and never was. And I don’t represent Emurgo on social media. Emurgo has official channels for this, and official press/speak persons. I am a developer and this badge inly needed so that people trust me with their logs. If I ever want to put forward some Emurgo-related information - I would send a link to an official press-release.
I might be representing some “community trust”, but that would be only maybe because I was a top-rated user on this forum for 6 months, spending a lot of my free time helping people to answer questions and solve their technical problems. For your satisfaction I will put a disclaimer on each my comment if I ever dare to comment on your threads again.
“there is no such thing as individual opinion” is identity politics 101. And 90% of your immediate reply to me was about how I shouldn’t be able to express my opinions, instead of discussing the topic itself. Any other user with Emurgo badge is equally free to come here and express their own opinion.
And yet for some reason you keep emphasising that they should not be appointed specifically from a group of people defined by you as “exGuardians”. And I don’t understand why exactly you think that any person identified by you as “exGuardian” would be bad to be either elected by community or appointed by Foundation.
And all I did is expressed my opinion that Foundation is free to appoint anyone they think is suitable, as long as they are good people, and I think it would be cool if Foundation could listen to community voting for someone and would consider to also appoint them just because community voted for them. But I don’t think community voting for someone should in any way forcing Foundation to appoint this person to any position.
Anyways. That’s just my opinion after all. Was good talking to you.
Disclaimer
All expressed opinions are my own. My statements don’t represent “Emurgo opinion” (if there’s even such a thing at all) in any way. I’m a developer and the whole point of the badge is so that people don’t think I’m a scammer when I ask them to send me logs.
I agree with you on this but I can understand where Bertalan is coming from here. Given how few Emurgo / IOHK / CF is it could be perceived currently pretty much anyone is not just an employee but representing said companies. We already had the maelstrom incident. Thoughts from Charles: Maelstrom
In this context it would be wise to remember Bertalan did a major portion (I would argue 80%+) in organizing, planning and actioning for the community to stand up and get Parsons to resign. It is not like he have not contributed to the community. That he then says he do not want any of the guardians to have a board position in a board we pushed hard for a person to resign from makes sense to me. It just makes it very clear this was always intended to bring CF back in line with the community and not a power grab or nothing personal against the person who resigned either for that matter.
Lol, is it about the nature of the proposal itself, or it became like whatever @bercinho proposed is bad.
I think community representatives (or the delegation representatives at the later stage) will be formed eventually. I guess it’s okay to use individual approach in opinions stage, but when it comes to decision stage, then sort of the representation or delegation have to be made.
Now even the new CF has to be watched, did the new CF answer any of the question that the community raised during the Parsons time? Were the ada address and financial statements disclosed yet? What’s up with regaining community trust?
There’s no effective way to pressure or push IOHK/Emurgo/CF right now, while Iohk and Emurgo are leading CF now, there’s no real CF anymore. Anyone with any suggestion can easily be ignored, and They can be selective with the things they want to hear.
This is just not good.
We need a good community representation to express community’s best interests. At least we need people who are able to challenge and tell them where might be wrong (even if they felt it’s right), jusy like the “tenth man rule” in the world war Z.
I don’t know what’s the plan and what’s the timeframe that CF going to do that (or maybe there’s no plan), so I guess the community has to do it by itself if you care enough.
