The community needs a professional community management team.

[gamey]

Its good to have a community manager but I dont think this should be a paid position.  Generally this kind of communtiy message board management is something that tends to just happen, for free.

I'd rather that the paid delegates that we are paying for with dilution just be developers, and funds going to marketing campaign, at this time.

Agree with this. Product development first.

It depends on what a community manager is.  It can be seen as a form of marketing.  This isn't the same as a forum mod.

[starspirit]

Its good to have a community manager but I dont think this should be a paid position.  Generally this kind of communtiy message board management is something that tends to just happen, for free.

I'd rather that the paid delegates that we are paying for with dilution just be developers, and funds going to marketing campaign, at this time.

Agree with this. Product development first.

[Rune]

I feel like if the community has to enforce one rule, it should be this one. If we never allow anyone the chance to build a centralized card house of trust, money or whatever - then we can be almost 100% that we will NEVER experience a bitcoinica or mtgox moment.

3 people would not be an issue. But it would make multi-delegates acceptable and encourage centralized trust/power/payment structures. We would eventually see 5 man, 10 man, 100 man delegates, or more. If we instead allow the number of delegates to grow, we can have all the trust/power/payment structures transparently on the blockchain, and the organizational efficiency of the team can continue completely unhindered, but would also allow for more autonomous, yet transparent and overseen, innovation and development by individual devs.

I don't get why this is the one rule is so important.

As Bytemaster pointed out, anyone can fake being an individual person and sub-contract people out.  So this rule is pointless in some regard and only punishes the honest !

I still don't understand.  You say trust-trust-trust!  Yet you want this extreme level of transparency for what is a crypto world that wants little third-party involvement and oversight.  The reason you have transparency is because you don't trust !  Why else have such extreme transparency ?  So are we for trust or not

What is your stance on making identities public ?

Why not just measure on level of value done vs amount paid.  That is how you measure value.

I absolutely believe it should be up to the individual to decide whether to be anonymous or not. The advantage of forcing the one delegate = one human rule is that anyone looking to infiltrate us would probably break that rule. While it is not trivial to detect people breaking the rule, it is still easier to look for people breaking it, than people who are simply harboring dishonest intentions that might "go off" later when they are deeper into the trust structure.

It is hard to fake real human behaviour and social interaction. I imagine scammers, criminals or intelligence agents will underestimate this difficulty because they are predominantly sociopaths.

However, I'm not totally against having delegate organizations, in situations where the delegates' employees cannot be trusted to run a node (and thus essentially become external contractors to the organization), or in special cases such as I3, who I think have "earned" their right to maintain an external structure because it preceded the blockchain, and they can considered "grandfathered" in. Should we acquire other full teams in a single acquisition they could also earn their right to autonomous external organization, and could be "grandfathered" in under similar conditons as I3. What I want to prevent are that the default mode of business-related communication and organization between employees already fully integrated to the system, becomes secret and compartmentalized. I think that will also reduce the possibility of political or colluding factions to form.

[Rune]

I feel like if the community has to enforce one rule, it should be this one. If we never allow anyone the chance to build a centralized card house of trust, money or whatever - then we can be almost 100% that we will NEVER experience a bitcoinica or mtgox moment.

3 people would not be an issue. But it would make multi-delegates acceptable and encourage centralized trust/power/payment structures. We would eventually see 5 man, 10 man, 100 man delegates, or more. If we instead allow the number of delegates to grow, we can have all the trust/power/payment structures transparently on the blockchain, and the organizational efficiency of the team can continue completely unhindered, but would also allow for more autonomous, yet transparent and overseen, innovation and development by individual devs.

I don't get why this is the one rule is so important.

As Bytemaster pointed out, anyone can fake being an individual person and sub-contract people out.  So this rule is pointless in some regard and only punishes the honest !

I still don't understand.  You say trust-trust-trust!  Yet you want this extreme level of transparency for what is a crypto world that wants little third-party involvement and oversight.  The reason you have transparency is because you don't trust !  Why else have such extreme transparency ?  So are we for trust or not

What is your stance on making identities public ?

Why not just measure on level of value done vs amount paid.  That is how you measure value.

I absolutely believe it should be up to the individual to decide whether to be anonymous or not. The advantage of forcing the one delegate = one human rule is that anyone looking to infiltrate us would probably break that rule. While it is not trivial to detect people breaking the rule, it is still easier to look for people breaking it, than people who are simply harboring dishonest intentions that might "go off" later when they are deeper into the trust structure.

It is hard to fake real human behaviour and social interaction. I imagine scammers, criminals or intelligence agents will underestimate this difficulty because they are predominantly sociopaths.

[Stan]

I feel like if the community has to enforce one rule, it should be this one. If we never allow anyone the chance to build a centralized card house of trust, money or whatever - then we can be almost 100% that we will NEVER experience a bitcoinica or mtgox moment.

3 people would not be an issue. But it would make multi-delegates acceptable and encourage centralized trust/power/payment structures. We would eventually see 5 man, 10 man, 100 man delegates, or more. If we instead allow the number of delegates to grow, we can have all the trust/power/payment structures transparently on the blockchain, and the organizational efficiency of the team can continue completely unhindered, but would also allow for more autonomous, yet transparent and overseen, innovation and development by individual devs.

I don't get why this is the one rule is so important.

As Bytemaster pointed out, anyone can fake being an individual person and sub-contract people out.  So this rule is pointless in some regard and only punishes the honest !

I still don't understand.  You say trust-trust-trust!  Yet you want this extreme level of transparency for what is a crypto world that wants little third-party involvement and oversight.  The reason you have transparency is because you don't trust !  Why else have such extreme transparency ?  So are we for trust or not

What is your stance on making identities public ?

Why not just measure on level of value done vs amount paid.  That is how you measure value.

One thing I've learned in the past year is that trying to make iron-clad rules for how we should behave for all time is folly.  None of us are that smart.  Who knows what the threat matrix for this industry will be even six months from now?  We are agile little mammals trying to out-maneuver ferocious all-consuming dinosaurs.  Let's not tie our little paws too tightly. 

[gamey]

I feel like if the community has to enforce one rule, it should be this one. If we never allow anyone the chance to build a centralized card house of trust, money or whatever - then we can be almost 100% that we will NEVER experience a bitcoinica or mtgox moment.

3 people would not be an issue. But it would make multi-delegates acceptable and encourage centralized trust/power/payment structures. We would eventually see 5 man, 10 man, 100 man delegates, or more. If we instead allow the number of delegates to grow, we can have all the trust/power/payment structures transparently on the blockchain, and the organizational efficiency of the team can continue completely unhindered, but would also allow for more autonomous, yet transparent and overseen, innovation and development by individual devs.

I don't get why this is the one rule is so important.

As Bytemaster pointed out, anyone can fake being an individual person and sub-contract people out.  So this rule is pointless in some regard and only punishes the honest !

I still don't understand.  You say trust-trust-trust!  Yet you want this extreme level of transparency for what is a crypto world that wants little third-party involvement and oversight.  The reason you have transparency is because you don't trust !  Why else have such extreme transparency ?  So are we for trust or not

What is your stance on making identities public ?

Why not just measure on level of value done vs amount paid.  That is how you measure value. 

[tonyk]

I dislike the pompous title and have hard time justifying the need of the existence of some formal appointed figure to do this job...

To say nothing about the need to spend 10K for this monthly... I can definitely find a better ways to spend such an amount.

If for some unknown to me reason the community prevails and I lose the argument... I vote for:

fuzz and gamey (JoeD is already sleeping 3h as it is, so I do not want to make his life even harder)

[Rune]

Sounds good. My only issue with this is that I would prefer to have them run a delegate each to get payment this way, as I think it is a good idea to try to cultivate a 1 delegate = 1 human voting habit from the beginning.

Isn't it better to just measure the work done vs what is paid ?  Why exactly is it a good idea ?

I feel like if the community has to enforce one rule, it should be this one. If we never allow anyone the chance to build a centralized card house of trust, money or whatever - then we can be almost 100% that we will NEVER experience a bitcoinica or mtgox moment.

3 people would not be an issue. But it would make multi-delegates acceptable and encourage centralized trust/power/payment structures. We would eventually see 5 man, 10 man, 100 man delegates, or more. If we instead allow the number of delegates to grow, we can have all the trust/power/payment structures transparently on the blockchain, and the organizational efficiency of the team can continue completely unhindered, but would also allow for more autonomous, yet transparent and overseen, innovation and development by individual devs.

[gamey]

Sounds good. My only issue with this is that I would prefer to have them run a delegate each to get payment this way, as I think it is a good idea to try to cultivate a 1 delegate = 1 human voting habit from the beginning.

Isn't it better to just measure the work done vs what is paid ?  Why exactly is it a good idea ?

[Rune]

fuzz, joeyD, tonyK


These guys are great and are on mumble all the time. They seem to nearly live bitshares.

joeyD has a background as a educator and has certainly done a great job of helping me along.

TonyK is a but rough around the edges but really is a good guy. His understanding of economics is also very good.

Fuzz is like the glue. He seems to get along with nearly every member he has encountered. He serves as a moderator for mumble sessions and I think would be a perfect way to help bridge the above 2 with the public.

The 3 gentlemen above all ready donate a ton of there free time doing the the  job you describe for free. They have proven themselves in different ways but they are tested at QA and helping new members.

I would also suggest less money (sorry guys ).  Give each one 2k a month and I think many will be surprised with the level of service they will provide.

Sounds good. My only issue with this is that I would prefer to have them run a delegate each to get payment this way, as I think it is a good idea to try to cultivate a 1 delegate = 1 human voting habit from the beginning.

[Gentso1]

fuzz, joeyD, tonyK


These guys are great and are on mumble all the time. They seem to nearly live bitshares.

joeyD has a background as a educator and has certainly done a great job of helping many who have come to the mumble looking for help, in addition to posting the mumble recordings. I swear the guy doesn't sleep.

TonyK is a bit rough around the edges but really is a good guy. His understanding of economics is also very good. This is great because as different types of users come on here we are going to need a good economist to speak to them in a language they understand.

Fuzz is like the glue. He seems to get along with nearly every member he has encountered. He serves as a moderator for mumble sessions and I think would be a perfect way to help bridge the above 2 with the public.

The 3 gentlemen above all ready donate a ton of there free time doing the the  job you describe for free. They have proven themselves in different ways but they are tested at QA and helping new members.

I would also suggest less money (sorry guys ).  Give each one 2k a month and I think many will be surprised with the level of service they will provide.

[Rune]

I like the idea that the Chinese community can discuss and nominate their own choice for the Chinese community manager. I think there should only be two full time paid positions though. The idea that the full time community manager should be unpaid is irrational. That would mean the person who specializes in doing a vital job that is extremely important for the success of our company would have to spend the majority of his time working on something unrelated, in order to survive.

Regarding the salary, I come from a country with a very high tax rate. I don't know what level of salary is common or appropriate for this kind of position. I'd like to get suggestions from everyone regarding the level they think is correct, you are all the employers after all. Even better would be for fuz to make his own offer, which we can then use as the basis for negotiation.

[fuzzy]

Oops,  So I had this wrong all along!   Thanks Fuz 

no problem.   

[James212]

You are right.
BM  is a good programmer. That doesn't mean he is a great leader.
Stan is BM's father.  I dodn't think this realtion will help solve the problem
So stan will always support BM no matter what kind of decision he made.

Haha, I thought they were brothers!?

Lol, so did I......  Can someone plz clearify

Stan is dans dad

Oops,  So I had this wrong all along!   Thanks Fuz 

[James212]

  on Rune's idea.  When we should impliment this however is a question for whom ever is watching the budget and the cash burn.  I'm sure there are quite a number a demands for the projected/existing reserves which will need to be prioritized.   Maybe part of the Marketing budget can be earmarked to address new members and help with better organization(?).

  I would love to see a forum setup which includes up/down voting capabilities.  This will help greatly help to weed through to the important postings and assist to create consensus.   


Edit: I second Fuzz' nomination.  He's done a great job.