Author Topic: Things I don't like about the committee  (Read 14219 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bhuz

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bhuz
I think your are missing the point. If I wanted I could copy-paste all your debates into the forum to make them public.
But that's not really the point.

I have not missed the point, my post was a reply to Akado, not to you. So actually I don't get this last reply of you, but anyway...


The point is that when you are hiding behind Telegram, the validity of your arguments is not challenged by anyone.
You may say something stupid, and it will go unnoticed because nobody really can be bothered to go through Telegram and trace who said what.
On the forum though, there are still a few people left who will bother to comment and will point it out when you're talking rubbish.

Why do you think BM asked you yesterday to make formal notes of your debates? Because he's that interested in all those details you discuss?
I'd rather think he wants your logic to be exposed to the public scrutiny.

I don't really get you here...

Since we are going to public the fee schedule with all of our thoughts and rational conclusions on why we are proposing what we have come up with, what you are saying does not make sense.

If we will present something stupid, flawed, or anything that someone would like to comment, He will be free to point it out.
No one is hiding behind telegram or prevent someone to challenge our arguments.

But we need an argument first, so give us the time we need to be able to make it rational/sound/understandable.

jakub

  • Guest
Well, this is all based on trust. I understand jakub's view on this. Transparency is good and people can keep up with the discussions, see who is active, who is not, if the committee is "wasting" time debating over something that I think it's not relevant, etc, basically, to monitor if I should support them or not.

However I also understand the committee's opinion that sometimes there should be some privacy. There has been lack of communication and understanding in the past so the fact one member brings a controversial topic up, people can immediately panic and make a storm out of something that didn't really have importance. That privacy is good to avoid those things and imo, also because without people constantly in the middle they can (or should) work faster.

Like I said in the beggining, it's a matter of trust. If you don't like the way the committee operates, vote them down, vote for people who are more transparent. People always have the choice to vote for what they want right?

 +5%


What I would suggest is:
Create a slack channel, it might be me but telegram sucks. I really don't like it. I don't want to install the app and I tried the web browser version, now it asks for a number again, etc. Also people might not want to share their phone number. It might not seem much for some but for others it can be. It needs to be easily accessible to everyone By using telegram you're already limiting people's access to the discussions.

Slack seems way better, saves the history, you can have a public channel and a private channel for committee to discuss. Or I imagine (not sure though) you could create one channel for committee discussion that everyone can see but only the committee members can participate, to avoid spam and loosing time. People then discuss what they see on the other channel.

It's way better. Telegram is just bad. It might be just me, but please consider moving to slack.

Btw: BitShares slack channel requires a CNX email... Not well thought. CNX should have their own slack, BitShares should have one for the community.

I think it is just personal preference at the end...

Anyway, the phone number you input will not be shared with other peoples. You have both a mobile application and web browser one, so it is really easily accessible to everyone.

We are limiting ppl access on telegram as mush as we would limiting ppl access to slack to whoever don't like slack and doesn't want to use it.
I think we can agree that we can not use both at the same time.

On telegram there are also other channel, Bitshares public one, witnesses, witnesses alert, committee, and probably other bitshares-regional too.
Having all this channel in one place is only a plus, above all for who have to deal with both committee and witnesses. The bots already present in telegram are also very usefull for everyone involved.

I think your are missing the point. If I wanted I could copy-paste all your debates into the forum to make them public.
But that's not really the point.

The point is that when you are hiding behind Telegram, the validity of your arguments is not challenged by anyone.
You may say something stupid, and it will go unnoticed because nobody really can be bothered to go through Telegram and trace who said what.
On the forum though, there are still a few people left who will bother to comment and will point it out when you're talking rubbish.

Why do you think BM asked you yesterday to make formal notes of your debates? Because he's that interested in all those details you discuss?
I'd rather think he wants your logic to be exposed to the public scrutiny.

Offline Bhuz

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bhuz
Really, jakub, I don't get your point.

The forum is full of discussion about the fee structure. I spend a lot of time here, and I find that I can follow these discussions only on a very general level. Those who invest the time to sieve through all these posts and come up with proposals that try to balance everybody's interests in the best possible way deserve my highest respect. Especially so the committee members, because whatever they come up with they're likely to get flamed by someone!

transparency does not mean any discussion should happen in forum, inner discussion are also needed.

+1

I just wanted to say that I urge tell you: THANK YOU!

jakub

  • Guest
Well, this is all based on trust. I understand jakub's view on this. Transparency is good and people can keep up with the discussions, see who is active, who is not, if the committee is "wasting" time debating over something that I think it's not relevant, etc, basically, to monitor if I should support them or not.
My main point is that the committee is "wasting" time debating over something that is based on assumptions that have not been accepted by the shareholders.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2016, 02:10:42 pm by jakub »

Offline Bhuz

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bhuz
Well, this is all based on trust. I understand jakub's view on this. Transparency is good and people can keep up with the discussions, see who is active, who is not, if the committee is "wasting" time debating over something that I think it's not relevant, etc, basically, to monitor if I should support them or not.

However I also understand the committee's opinion that sometimes there should be some privacy. There has been lack of communication and understanding in the past so the fact one member brings a controversial topic up, people can immediately panic and make a storm out of something that didn't really have importance. That privacy is good to avoid those things and imo, also because without people constantly in the middle they can (or should) work faster.

Like I said in the beggining, it's a matter of trust. If you don't like the way the committee operates, vote them down, vote for people who are more transparent. People always have the choice to vote for what they want right?

 +5%


What I would suggest is:
Create a slack channel, it might be me but telegram sucks. I really don't like it. I don't want to install the app and I tried the web browser version, now it asks for a number again, etc. Also people might not want to share their phone number. It might not seem much for some but for others it can be. It needs to be easily accessible to everyone By using telegram you're already limiting people's access to the discussions.

Slack seems way better, saves the history, you can have a public channel and a private channel for committee to discuss. Or I imagine (not sure though) you could create one channel for committee discussion that everyone can see but only the committee members can participate, to avoid spam and loosing time. People then discuss what they see on the other channel.

It's way better. Telegram is just bad. It might be just me, but please consider moving to slack.

Btw: BitShares slack channel requires a CNX email... Not well thought. CNX should have their own slack, BitShares should have one for the community.

I think it is just personal preference at the end...

Anyway, the phone number you input will not be shared with other peoples. You have both a mobile application and web browser one, so it is really easily accessible to everyone.

We are limiting ppl access on telegram as mush as we would limiting ppl access to slack to whoever don't like slack and doesn't want to use it.
I think we can agree that we can not use both at the same time.

On telegram there are also other channel, Bitshares public one, witnesses, witnesses alert, committee, and probably other bitshares-regional too.
Having all this channel in one place is only a plus, above all for who have to deal with both committee and witnesses. The bots already present in telegram are also very usefull for everyone involved.

jakub

  • Guest
Really, jakub, I don't get your point.

The forum is full of discussion about the fee structure. I spend a lot of time here, and I find that I can follow these discussions only on a very general level. Those who invest the time to sieve through all these posts and come up with proposals that try to balance everybody's interests in the best possible way deserve my highest respect. Especially so the committee members, because whatever they come up with they're likely to get flamed by someone!

transparency does not mean any discussion should happen in forum, inner discussion are also needed.

+1

This is exactly the impression the committee wants you to have.
It's quite amazing how quickly we've managed to replicate almost every single pathology of power that exists in the real world.

Offline Akado

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2752
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: akado
Well, this is all based on trust. I understand jakub's view on this. Transparency is good and people can keep up with the discussions, see who is active, who is not, if the committee is "wasting" time debating over something that I think it's not relevant, etc, basically, to monitor if I should support them or not.

However I also understand the committee's opinion that sometimes there should be some privacy. There has been lack of communication and understanding in the past so the fact one member brings a controversial topic up, people can immediately panic and make a storm out of something that didn't really have importance. That privacy is good to avoid those things and imo, also because without people constantly in the middle they can (or should) work faster.

Like I said in the beggining, it's a matter of trust. If you don't like the way the committee operates, vote them down, vote for people who are more transparent. People always have the choice to vote for what they want right?

What I would suggest is:
Create a slack channel, it might be me but telegram sucks. I really don't like it. I don't want to install the app and I tried the web browser version, now it asks for a number again, etc. Also people might not want to share their phone number. It might not seem much for some but for others it can be. It needs to be easily accessible to everyone By using telegram you're already limiting people's access to the discussions.

Slack seems way better, saves the history, you can have a public channel and a private channel for committee to discuss. Or I imagine (not sure though) you could create one channel for committee discussion that everyone can see but only the committee members can participate, to avoid spam and loosing time. People then discuss what they see on the other channel.

It's way better. Telegram is just bad. It might be just me, but please consider moving to slack.

Btw: BitShares slack channel requires a CNX email... Not well thought. CNX should have their own slack, BitShares should have one for the community.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1928
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
transparency does not mean any discussion should happen in forum, inner discussion are also needed.
Please, give me an example where inner (i.e. non-public) discussion is needed between two committee members.

here the inner discussion refer to the discussion in committee telegram group, all the discussion is open to all the committee members and some proxies, it is "inner" but not "secret", committee also need communication efficiency. you are also in the telegram group and are not supposed to miss any discussion.
Email:bitcrab@qq.com

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
Really, jakub, I don't get your point.

The forum is full of discussion about the fee structure. I spend a lot of time here, and I find that I can follow these discussions only on a very general level. Those who invest the time to sieve through all these posts and come up with proposals that try to balance everybody's interests in the best possible way deserve my highest respect. Especially so the committee members, because whatever they come up with they're likely to get flamed by someone!

transparency does not mean any discussion should happen in forum, inner discussion are also needed.

+1
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

jakub

  • Guest
transparency does not mean any discussion should happen in forum, inner discussion are also needed.
Please, give me an example where inner (i.e. non-public) discussion is needed between two committee members.

jakub

  • Guest
Is there a brand to begin with?  AFAIK, as BM took pain to explain, bts2 began as an experiment. Its self-governing structure with committee and proxies only started to function recently.  I did not see any attempt in branding bts2, let alone RP.  Or am I missing something?  If there is no brand to begin with, there is certainly no rebranding.

ps: A good brand is good to have and it is essential for us to succeed against our competitors.  It takes a lot more thoughts and planning before it can happen.
I've used the word "rebranding" in this sense: the process of changing a product's purpose or target market .
If AM/LTM is no longer an attractive choice for non-advanced user, for me that's a substantial change in AM/LTM purpose and target market.


I am not xeroc and I cannot know his intent.  But in general, each individual has a preference for a communication channel to achieve a specific purpose.  It could be different channels for different purposes.  Whether it is for a real-time discussion, co-ordination or organisation, I think we should let the individual decide what is most suitable for their own needs.
My assumption is that most of your communication stems from the fact that you differ in opinions and try to convince each other. For me, this part of the process belongs to the forum and you should be exposed to full public scrutiny while arguing your cases. All other communication can be wherever you want.

I know that as a proxy I could access your communication if I wanted.
But I also want the best minds on our forum to be able to comment on your arguments, as it often happens that other people expose things I could have missed myself.


Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1928
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
transparency does not mean any discussion should happen in forum, inner discussion are also needed.
Email:bitcrab@qq.com

jakub

  • Guest
1. Committee ISN'T making decisions outside of the forum.
You keep repeating this and I do know this. That's not my point.


Several committee members have posted about what they thought about things and have gotten feedback from the community.
I've seen only one case of this: xeroc (not a committee member yet) asking us about the 90/10 split idea.
Other than that, please point me to the relevant threads or I'll say it's not true.


As already noted and as I reminded all proxies today, they are welcome to join us in the telegram chat if they think it is going to provide some additional insights. You ( @jakub ) are already there and have had the option to check in at any time. I encourage all others to join in if they think it is of any value.
Again, I know that and that's not my point.
My point is this: all political discussions belong to the forum. If you are discussing non-political stuff, I'm not interested - you can have them on Telegram or wherever you want.


The idea of negotiated deals is highly unlikely. The idea of certain number of committee members who will vote a certain way only because another committee member has gotten them voted in is more plausible.
So you say it's plausible that committee members back up each other, but at the same time you rule out any negotiated deals between them.
That's an interesting view.


Yeah.. the committee IS working hard.

Going over line by line every single fee schedule of the entire Bitshares ecosystem is a lot of work.

Discussing the ramifications of every single one is a lot of work.

Having not everyone agree about what each of those fee schedules is meant for and how it should be used is a lot of work.

So when I said they are working hard, it really is an understatement. Some have been more engaged in the process than others. I have found myself spending at least a few hours a day either reading over or responding to matters related to the committee.
That's the thing: I don't want you to work hard.
You are not supposed to, especially if you have an unpaid position.
That's why I said you probably misunderstood the purpose of the committee.

This is what should have happened:
Those of you who feel we need this new holistic approach to fees, should first run a forum thread and present the assumptions & outlines of this approach. Take this chance to argue why this new holistic approach is needed in the first place. Convince others that we need external business rules to be changed before we sort out internal liquidity problems.
Then, if you felt the idea has got some traction, create a worker proposal and reach those two goals:
- prove that your idea has enough support among the shareholders
- get some financing so that you do not need to work for free on every little detail of your implementation

IMO the committee is meant to discuss and make general political decisions, not do the the hard work on a very detailed level. This is what paid worker proposals are for.


It depends on what your definition of 'engaged' in discussion threads really means. I am not detached at all.. but rather have been reading over everyone's input and considering all the aspects. Just because I am not regurgitating every thought at every given time in the forum doesn't mean I am not engaging.
What I mean is that none of you (except abit) have responded in any serious manner in the the recent thread which offers a viable alternative to a drastic cut of the flat transfer fee.
(Actually, you did respond but in a way that indicated you did not understand the merits of the proposal, so I treat it as a non-response.)
The same refers to Xeldal's propsal. Not a single comment.
(Except Bhuz but he commented on my side-comment, not the proposal itself.)

You guys seem don't seem to be interested in this stuff. Or you don't have time for this because you are busy talking within your inner circle.


This forum doesn't represent the shareholders, so I disagree with the notion of it being Parliament. Until we have such a platform then it would make sense. DID YOU KNOW... the Chinese/Asians don't even use this forum.. most of the discussion happens in QQ. More than half of the Committee are there. So how about them?
This forum is the best substitute of a Parliament that we have.
If you want to switch to Telegram, I'm fine with that but then let's move *all* activity there and invite everyone, not just the proxies.
And why the proxies only? If any of you say something stupid, I want tonyk or luckybit or gamey or akado to be able to point it out for everybody to see.


2. I don't understand this in reference to a rebranding of the refer program. If this is regarding fees ok, yes that's what we discuss. We haven't specifically decided anything about rebranding the refer program as far as i know.
The referral program, as we have it now, strictly depends on the flat transfer fee being above certain level.
So if you consider a substantial cut to the flat transfer fee, then you have put RP rebranding on the table.


We have had extensive discussions and input about the fees and how they relate to the refer program. Just as we have extensive discussions on every other element and how it might be impacted negatively or positively.
As I've stated above, we should have had these discussions *before* you set out to work on the fee overhaul and we should had have these discussions held in the public domain on the forum.


We are doing everything based on shareholder feedback.
My impression is quite the opposite.


When we share this.. we are AGAIN seeking to get input and feedback from the community. It is going to be VERY difficult because there is going to be a fair number who may simply not bother to look at it all and decide to start things in descension instead of discussion.. because once again.. this forum does not represent the stakeholders.
I will certainly be one of those who will not bother to look into any details of you work *unless* you make a clear argument, why we needed this fee overhaul in the first place and what assumptions you have made.
So you could have saved yourself quite a lot of time and work, if the committee had set out to this task in the reverse order: first arguments, assumptions & outlines, then the actual work on details.


On a side note.... This post has eaten up a good hour of my time. If I did this for every single post in the forum in response to one thing or another I would need to make posting in the forum my full time job. If you want Committee members to be fully paid thats up to the shareholders. I think that would be a bad idea personally at this stage.
As I said before, things like this should be paid from a worker proposal, which is also good, as it means they first need the shareholders' approval.
You've turned this process upside down, and now you try to make me feel guilty for your unpaid hours. Not fair.


« Last Edit: February 06, 2016, 12:52:12 pm by jakub »

Offline cube

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1404
  • Bit by bit, we will get there!
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcube

OK, this looks a fine plan.
So would you refer me to the forum thread which inspired the committee to work on rebranding the referral program?

(By "rebranding the referral program" ...)


Is there a brand to begin with?  AFAIK, as BM took pain to explain, bts2 began as an experiment. Its self-governing structure with committee and proxies only started to function recently.  I did not see any attempt in branding bts2, let alone RP.  Or am I missing something?  If there is no brand to begin with, there is certainly no rebranding.

ps: A good brand is good to have and it is essential for us to succeed against our competitors.  It takes a lot more thoughts and planning before it can happen.


Why Telegram and not this forum?
Just for your convenience?
Well, if that's the case IMO transparency should take precedence over your convenience.

Telegram should be used only for technical stuff and to facilitate coordination.
Or we should all move to Telegram.

I am not xeroc and I cannot know his intent.  But in general, each individual has a preference for a communication channel to achieve a specific purpose.  It could be different channels for different purposes.  Whether it is for a real-time discussion, co-ordination or organisation, I think we should let the individual decide what is most suitable for their own needs.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2016, 11:44:00 am by cube »
ID: bitcube
bitcube is a dedicated witness and committe member. Please vote for bitcube.

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

Perhaps I didn't deliver the message as clearly as hoped.

1. Committee ISN'T making decisions outside of the forum. As I said in the update, we have been in the forum engaged in numerous threads taking in feedback from the community about everything. Several committee members have posted about what they thought about things and have gotten feedback from the community.

As already noted and as I reminded all proxies today, they are welcome to join us in the telegram chat if they think it is going to provide some additional insights. You ( @jakub ) are already there and have had the option to check in at any time. I encourage all others to join in if they think it is of any value.

The idea of negotiated deals is highly unlikely. The idea of certain number of committee members who will vote a certain way only because another committee member has gotten them voted in is more plausible.

Yeah.. the committee IS working hard.

Going over line by line every single fee schedule of the entire Bitshares ecosystem is a lot of work.

Discussing the ramifications of every single one is a lot of work.

Having not everyone agree about what each of those fee schedules is meant for and how it should be used is a lot of work.

So when I said they are working hard, it really is an understatement. Some have been more engaged in the process than others. I have found myself spending at least a few hours a day either reading over or responding to matters related to the committee.

It depends on what your definition of 'engaged' in discussion threads really means. I am not detached at all.. but rather have been reading over everyone's input and considering all the aspects. Just because I am not regurgitating every thought at every given time in the forum doesn't mean I am not engaging.

I rather be MORE thoughtful in my approach. I actually am not happy with the way matters recently came up and how I responded to them. It might have been due to the approach taken, but it created a situation that made the community look like it was in civil war.. and I look back now and see how I got caught up in some of that in a way that is not conducive to consultation and unity. I can only hope perhaps some of the other committee members have learned the same lessons.

This forum doesn't represent the shareholders, so I disagree with the notion of it being Parliament. Until we have such a platform then it would make sense. DID YOU KNOW... the Chinese/Asians don't even use this forum.. most of the discussion happens in QQ. More than half of the Committee are there. So how about them?

I agree that the best minds do need to be on the committee. Question remains what they should be. I remember way back when we launched everyone had the perception that the best minds were DEVs, and that devs should make up the committee. So many people never stepped up. Finally  we got 'doers' getting into the committee.. people who see something needs to be done and take action. Great! So now we want 'the best'... well the community has voted for those whom are willing to take public beratings like this available for vote. So long as berating is the standard though, don't expect 'the best minds' to want to be involved. We will have to settle for the emotionally mature. :)


2. I don't understand this in reference to a rebranding of the refer program. If this is regarding fees ok, yes that's what we discuss. We haven't specifically decided anything about rebranding the refer program as far as i know. We have had extensive discussions and input about the fees and how they relate to the refer program. Just as we have extensive discussions on every other element and how it might be impacted negatively or positively.

I think a lot of what this post is about is the very reason why I am not as 'actively engaged' in the forum as you defined it. Some of the foregone conclusions and feelings you have reached on where things are at and what is happening I think are a direct result of reading too much into a few random commentaries from some members of the committee and taking it as decisions when really they might have just been thoughts they had at that time, or even just their own positions/opinions. Perhaps even due to language barriers because more than half of the committee are Chinese/Asian.

We are doing everything based on shareholder feedback.

I will state it again since my update in Mumble didn't seem to come across clearly enough.

Next week sometime, we will be releasing an update from the committee *on the forum* on a new fee schedule that takes a holistic long term approach to ALL fees in Bitshares.

We have WORKED HARD on coming up with this schedule based on all the the input from various discussions here on the forum and among committee members.. whom all proxy voters are welcome to sit in on and watch and discuss with if they like. Xeroc for weeks now has been engaging in discussions with the committee as a proxy only. He spent 3 solid days helping to organize a proposal so that we could come together in a more meaningful discourse and analysis of every fee in Bitshares. It was only in the last few days he finally joined the committee. (Welcome once again @xeroc :) ).

When we share this.. we are AGAIN seeking to get input and feedback from the community. It is going to be VERY difficult because there is going to be a fair number who may simply not bother to look at it all and decide to start things in descension instead of discussion.. because once again.. this forum does not represent the stakeholders.

From all of that the Committee will WORK HARD AGAIN to come to a final consensus based on everything and then put a proposal together that may or may not be voted in by all committee members.

If the community members don't like how that vote is going, the community always has the option to vote out those committee members and make their votes no longer count. So if you think TPP is being rammed down your throat after all of that, good news, you can just vote out your gov before it even happens... assuming that is what shareholders want. After this much due-diligence and careful consideration of everything though, I don't see that likely to happen.

On a side note.... This post has eaten up a good hour of my time. If I did this for every single post in the forum in response to one thing or another I would need to make posting in the forum my full time job. If you want Committee members to be fully paid thats up to the shareholders. I think that would be a bad idea personally at this stage.

All that said.. I like to just share a link to an interesting story about Uber. It really illustrates some points about how a company has to make decisions that sometimes don't look like the best idea from the customers perspective, but is absolutely essential to addressing supply/demand.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/three-things-i-learned-during-4-years-uber-michael-pao

It's a good read with some real world examples based on real world experience.

Hope this helps clarify.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2016, 10:17:56 am by BunkerChain Labs »
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+