Secret meetings should be outlawed in a Decentralized Autonomous Community. 
I principally agree, but it would be impossible to enforce. Personal communication can and should be 100% private, but professional communication should preferably be as transparent and non-secret as possible (with the option of the delegates to remain pseudonomous I don't think it would be privacy invasion).
The next best thing, IMO, is to at least have a social consensus of 1 delegate = 1 human. Then it will be possible to detect if there is secret communication between delegates that e.g. are working together on the same project, because it should be easiest for them to communicate in the DAC framework that they are both active members of (if we observe collaboration but no such communication, then we can assume they are secretly communicating).
Again, obviously secret communication can never be prevented, but large secret power/trust structures can be made much more difficult to construct.
Fuzz and xeroc are pillars of BitShares. They give of their time to help this community, often reaching beyond it to help others as well, and they receive practically nothing in return. Rune, I think you've been a great addition and you are very welcome here. Differences of opinion are fine; they're great. But if you've done something to cross these folks, then you've done something that should be re-considered. As for how to handle that, I leave it up to you.
Let me suggest a possible middle ground. Rune has the right idea in terms of pushing for full transparency. But I really don't see how it would be any easier to detect secret collaboration when a delegate is one person rather than a group of persons. Whatever the structure, there is plenty of potential for fraud, but with grater scale and broader ownership, this risk decreases. We're just going to have to watch out for that sort of thing and have some trusted members who blow the whistle when they spot anything weird. Remember, we have the power of the poll: Don't like what they're doing? Vote them out. And use your standing with the community to campaign to get them voted out.
I think a group delegate or cooperative delegate can be a wonderful addition. Hopefully, there should be enough delegate income to go around and to fund some groups who are performing worthy services on behalf of the BitShares Community. I strongly support multi-person delegates.
And yet I do see Rune's point to some degree. Suggestions: (1) What about suggesting that Cooperative Delegates disclose their principal (or all) members? (2) Another option would be to handle them like Limited Partnerships (LPs) in the United States where there is essentially one active, managing partner who runs the delegate's business, and the possibility of other passive partners who are helpers, investors, etc., who are involved less in the management and largely stay in the background? That front person would be expected to communicate with the community, etc., and put his/her reputation on the line.
Just some brainstormed thoughts. Feel free to discuss or suggest alternatives.
Topic: The Case for Delegates as Multi-Person Cooperatives (Read 10713 times)
