Bytemaster and Mumble - A Proposed Solution

[cube]

..
So is this minimal developer effort worth it? Personally, I think we need better cold storage and restricted_owner support first. And not just blockchain and CLI support but GUI support and usable UX. Otherwise, I worry that voter apathy is just going to remain bad and the proposals will be of limited value. But after that I definitely think it is worth it to have at least this basic feature set so that we can actually give a fair voice to the shareholders.
..

arhag has given a good well-thought proposal for a short-term solution to the problem. We are discussing an important issue here and I like to know how the core team would consider it.

I hope they would comment on it.

[fuzzy]

Look where we are after one year. From decentralized system with TaPOS - to centralized DPOS, then price feed enforcement, then merger massacre and dilution, now a censorship and insider trading. Not to mention main wallet resource hog and lack of progress(Vote DAC, anyone?), and super failure with marketing push. WTF, can't say i'm happy where things are going towards. 

Could easily frame much of that and more as positive
 
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For some people glass is always half empty 

We are growing up.  We need more leaders and I am reaching out to them as we speak. 

It is a fact that there are many people who are very important in this ecosystem that it is unfair to only reach out and empower Bytemaster to speak.  For this reason, I intend on moving forward with having frequent hangouts under the same format with other individuals who have stepped up to the plate to become leaders in our ecosystem. 

Many people are building onto BitShares as we speak.  And most of the broader community doesn't even know about them.  It is time to fix that
So look at the glass as half full and preparing to fill further...because we are not stopping just because of PR hangups.

That is kind of attitude this community needs. Most important thing is cooperation among community members.
Thank you fuzzy for spreading message of cooperation.   

I know as well as probably just about anyone how gut-wrenching our growing pains are...so I can't blame him. 
But as always, if you have solid tech (which we do)...as long as we have a community who lifts each other up and holds on for the ride, we will be gtg. 

Don't get me wrong though, I'm not always a ball of sunshine.. Ask BM and Stan!

[vegolino]

Look where we are after one year. From decentralized system with TaPOS - to centralized DPOS, then price feed enforcement, then merger massacre and dilution, now a censorship and insider trading. Not to mention main wallet resource hog and lack of progress(Vote DAC, anyone?), and super failure with marketing push. WTF, can't say i'm happy where things are going towards. 

Could easily frame much of that and more as positive
 
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For some people glass is always half empty 

We are growing up.  We need more leaders and I am reaching out to them as we speak. 

It is a fact that there are many people who are very important in this ecosystem that it is unfair to only reach out and empower Bytemaster to speak.  For this reason, I intend on moving forward with having frequent hangouts under the same format with other individuals who have stepped up to the plate to become leaders in our ecosystem. 

Many people are building onto BitShares as we speak.  And most of the broader community doesn't even know about them.  It is time to fix that
So look at the glass as half full and preparing to fill further...because we are not stopping just because of PR hangups.

That is kind of attitude this community needs. Most important thing is cooperation among community members.
Thank you fuzzy for spreading message of cooperation.   

[fuzzy]

Look where we are after one year. From decentralized system with TaPOS - to centralized DPOS, then price feed enforcement, then merger massacre and dilution, now a censorship and insider trading. Not to mention main wallet resource hog and lack of progress(Vote DAC, anyone?), and super failure with marketing push. WTF, can't say i'm happy where things are going towards. 

Could easily frame much of that and more as positive
 
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For some people glass is always half empty 

We are growing up.  We need more leaders and I am reaching out to them as we speak. 

It is a fact that there are many people who are very important in this ecosystem that it is unfair to only reach out and empower Bytemaster to speak.  For this reason, I intend on moving forward with having frequent hangouts under the same format with other individuals who have stepped up to the plate to become leaders in our ecosystem. 

Many people are building onto BitShares as we speak.  And most of the broader community doesn't even know about them.  It is time to fix that
So look at the glass as half full and preparing to fill further...because we are not stopping just because of PR hangups.

[vegolino]

Look where we are after one year. From decentralized system with TaPOS - to centralized DPOS, then price feed enforcement, then merger massacre and dilution, now a censorship and insider trading. Not to mention main wallet resource hog and lack of progress(Vote DAC, anyone?), and super failure with marketing push. WTF, can't say i'm happy where things are going towards. 

Could easily frame much of that and more as positive
 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For some people glass is always half empty 

[carpet ride]

Look where we are after one year. From decentralized system with TaPOS - to centralized DPOS, then price feed enforcement, then merger massacre and dilution, now a censorship and insider trading. Not to mention main wallet resource hog and lack of progress(Vote DAC, anyone?), and super failure with marketing push. WTF, can't say i'm happy where things are going towards. 

Could easily frame much of that and more as positive


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[vlight]

Look where we are after one year. From decentralized system with TaPOS - to centralized DPOS, then price feed enforcement, then merger massacre and dilution, now a censorship and insider trading. Not to mention main wallet resource hog and lack of progress(Vote DAC, anyone?), and super failure with marketing push. WTF, can't say i'm happy where things are going towards. 

[CLains]

A simple SWOT analysis would help to better understand the underlying issue.

SWOT

A SWOT analysis (alternatively SWOT matrix) is a structured planning method used to evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats involved in a project or in a business venture. A SWOT analysis can be carried out for a product, place, industry or person. It involves specifying the objective of the business venture or project and identifying the internal and external factors that are favorable and unfavorable to achieve that objective.

Strengths: characteristics of the business or project that give it an advantage over others.
Weaknesses: characteristics that place the business or project at a disadvantage relative to others.
Opportunities: elements that the project could exploit to its advantage.
Threats: elements in the environment that could cause trouble for the business or project.

[wasthatawolf]

What is the basic premise behind the recent censorship proposals?  I suggest identifying all stakeholders then checking that premise. 

A simple SWOT analysis would help to better understand the underlying issue.

[mike623317]

I feel this controversy highlights the fact the BitShares ecosystem is far from mature and proves that our rhetoric doesn't match our practice. Our vision is good great, but the words used to describe it strongly imply our ecosystem is stronger than it is and our claims of self regulation / self governance are better than they actually are.

Totally agree. 

[Thom]

arhag's proposal seems like a reasonable short term solution to providing shareholders a voice in making decisions, but it may be too early to provide an open proposal system to anyone.

To limit the breadth of the proposals, it might be worth considering that only delegates or dev staff be allowed to submit proposals until at least 1.0 is released. Perhaps even narrow that to just the dev staff. All of the controversy seems to arise from that source anyway.

Obviously this still puts the primary responsibility on the dev staff to recognize what should be put out as a proposal, and in that regard the solution is somewhat weak.

I'm much more in favor of Dan / Stan selecting a trusted review board, perhaps in conjunction with arhag's proposal scheme. To address Fuzz's concerns I would strongly limit the time frame such measures are allowed operate. My suggestion is they operate at least until the release of 1.0, but perhaps as long as it takes to implement a more solid system of governance that benefits the ecosystem and balances all interests through consensus.

I feel this controversy highlights the fact the BitShares ecosystem is far from mature and proves that our rhetoric doesn't match our practice. Our vision is good great, but the words used to describe it strongly imply (by not mentioning the gee whiz features discussed are not yet implemented) our ecosystem is stronger than it is and our claims of self regulation / self governance are better than they actually are.

[GaltReport]

- Create a public roadmap similar to Maidsafe to keep investors in the loop. Not everyone lives on Github.

- If Dan feels the need to speak, Bitshares.tv. Max is smart enough to present it in the best way possible.

- Client voting proposals so we hear from the larger holders, not just those that have time to hang out around the forums.

- Any PR releases should be reviewed by multiple people.

- Mumble sessions for other people important to the ecosystem.

- We need a polished client and a real reason for the millions of Bitcoin wallets to use our decentralized exchange. That is what generates the PR we need to survive.

- Further development on wall features such as subscriptions provides a huge boost to delegate reporting effectiveness outside the forum.

 

Publishing without review is a bad idea in general. In the end it is up to each individual to be responsible for the quality of their own output by delegating time to different media and seeking reviews from confidants whos judgements they know they can trust.

 

[pseudoscops]

Yep that was my initial reaction to this too, someone will want to listen to it enough to automate the recording of it which could easily be published or used out of context to cause more damage. Audio drivers such as soundflower for OSX coupled with a simple scripts would probably make this possible.

I have to say I just don't get the OP logic for having the live only mumble sessions. Also this seemingly increased need for censorship that floating about everywhere at the moment. Everyone should realise, Chinese included, that parts of the mumble sessions, and other discussions, are off the cuff and brainstorm like in nature. If Dan or anyone else suggests something sub-optimal people should have the sense to realise that it does not mean that it is enshrined future policy. We usually correct course pretty quickly and open and public debate is instrumental in allowing the course-correcting to occur as swiftly as possible.

I do agree that certain things should not be discussed in public if they might be considered very controversial, especially if they are brought forward by prominent members of the team such as Dan. I'm sure that is already the case and that much more radical ideas have been discussed by various teams that only a few have been privvy too.

To combat the controversial issues perhaps there should be a second monthly mumble sessions that only the 100 elected delegates can attend that is not recorded or made public. This could operate on the Chatham House Rule, (i.e. what was discussed can be disclosed publicly, but who said it cannot).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule

Someone could be responsible for summarising the this private session, fuzzy?, and perhaps it would allow BM to save anything that might be considered a little controversial for these more private sessions instead of the main Mumble sessions.

Just a thought - not sure how practical it would be give the time it might take to summarise what was discussed. Also it relies on every one of the delegates agreeing to keep true to the Chatham House Rule and not disclosing who said what or recording the session.

[CryptoPrometheus]

Haven't read the whole thread, but anyone can trivially record mumble sessions without using the built-in function. There is going to be no way to stop people from recording.

Fluxer, you are right. This is actually the most iron clad counter argument I have heard yet. Still, the thread is definitely worth reading if you get the chance.

[fluxer555]

Haven't read the whole thread, but anyone can trivially record mumble sessions without using the built-in function. There is going to be no way to stop people from recording.