(Poll) Should Committee Members be able to Distribute BROWNIES?

[fuzzy]

It should be you. The fewer people we have to trust to that task, the more fair the distribution will likely be.
So far you've been very fair but who knows how the committee will do things. It represents a risk.

I think to decentralize it just use bots and faucets,  which distribute by algorithm, but then why would we need the committee to control that? As a precedent it's only fair if you and the people Bytemaster selected to distribute his personal token are the one's distributing it.

Putting it in the hands of the committee will make it seem like a community token when it's really Bytemaster's personal token to do as he pleases with. It would also set a precedent because what if other people want their token distributed by the committee someday in the future?

Well you certainly have some valid points (though DKP is a community token...and I think we will have many ).  One thing I am personally thinking right now (which might open up other issues) is that we SHOULD have sponsors who distribute their tokens to committee members and others for participating in various events and community-building activities that will serve all bitshares projects. 

So for instance, let's say METAFEES wanted to be a sponsor for a committee townhall (which I assure you we desperately need)--they could simply use the Sharebot to distribute tokens to the same people who received BROWNIE.PTS that week.  I could do the same for Beyond Bitcoin tokens (or Greenpoints) and @Tuck Fheman could give FISTBUMPs like he loves to do...etc etc.  It would basically be free advertising to those who are among the most active community participants.  And of course, when Metaexchange sharedrops some tokens on community members in this way, they could also post a nice image along with links to their site, tutorials on how to use it--or maybe even community initiatives they need support on...etc.

However, I can't deny that you are right when bm basically said it is his personal token to send out how he wishes, and I am positive he doesn't have time to do it himself.  DKP man...that is what I know.  I also know that I never was called a brown noser for handing DKP out...because people considered it payment for something they otherwise would have been forced to do free of charge (or not at all).

Thanks for your input luckybit.  It is always respectful and attempting to look at the problems while focusing on solutions.  Such a blessing to have you be the first to respond.   

[luckybit]

It should be you. The fewer people we have to trust to that task, the more fair the distribution will likely be.
So far you've been very fair but who knows how the committee will do things. It represents a risk.

I think to decentralize it just use bots and faucets,  which distribute by algorithm, but then why would we need the committee to control that? As a precedent it's only fair if you and the people Bytemaster selected to distribute his personal token are the one's distributing it.

Putting it in the hands of the committee will make it seem like a community token when it's really Bytemaster's personal token to do as he pleases with. It would also set a precedent because what if other people want their token distributed by the committee someday in the future?

[fuzzy]

I am wondering if it would be better for the community if instead of me giving out BROWNIE.PTS directly to community members (and missing many in the process), if instead I gave a specific amount to Committee members each month to distribute to those in the community who they believe are helping bitshares. 

In this way, it would largely take me out of direct distribution and put it into the hands of individuals who have been voted in by the community (and can be voted out in an instant---which would be a wonderful check to the power).  I personally think this might be the best way to distribute brownies and I would have no problems with distributing the tokens to them each month. 

As I see it, Brownies are a good way for Bytemaster to put some power back into the hands of people actually working in bitshares as opposed to the current lopsided system where it seems only a few exchanges and whales (many of whom likely are not active community members) will have voting power worth anything.  It is DKP...after all.