Even tho I have huge respect for Fabian (xeroc), I don't think it's good for ANY one individual to hold so much power. It also puts anyone with such power in a targeted position. Such power needs to be considered carefully, and should include at least one way to hold that power in check or remove it entirely and quickly if necessary.
So true - and, actually, I never asked to be in that position, but all I can do now is do the best with the situation we are in now.
So I ask you, when is it acceptable for any of the parties (witnesses, committee members, others) to sign an NDA? It may also be important to state when an NDA should NOT be signed by a witness, committee member or even "the spokesperson". If BitShares had a "blockchain constitution" it would be the ideal place to define the principles and mission statement that should guide the ecosystem's every decision. IMO no person should be able to obligate this ecosystem to do anything without a shareholder vote, and issues of this magnitude (that can obligate the ecosystem) should be publicized in advance of the vote for some minimum amount of time so as many shareholders as possible will be given the choice to approve or reject the proposal, or change their proxy to align with what they want.
To my understanding, NDAs are almost always *personal*, so neither witnesses, nor committee members or even the spokesperson can sign an NDA in the name of the BitShares shareholders.
As such, I don't think that the BTS holders have any say into what those individuals sign and with whom they sign it - and VISE VERSA. The BitShares ecosystem has no obligation to follow anything
written in an NDA *some* individual has signed.
That said, if a witness/committe member signed an NDA it cannot be for BitShares but only for his personal liabilities/obligations.
It all becomes interesting if you consider conflicting interests .. as in
* "I run a witness and someone asks me to censor transactions", or
* "I am a committee member and someone asks me to reduce the fees for this and that"
Fortunately, we have a governance system in place that ensures that all parties need to justify themselves.
Of course, it would be MUCH better if we had 10+ proxies with more or less equal voting power.
These 2 proposals (spokesperson, foundation involvement) were proposed and "voted in" within a matter of only a few hours. They provided no background info for the people being placed in a significant role of power to sign NDAs and set policy regarding "compliance".
Please slow down a bit. First of all, the "compliance" worker isn't voted in, secondly, it was not supposed to *DO ANYTHING* with BitShares. In fact it clearly states that all
modifications to the BitShares protocol/blockchain need their own approval. The compliance worker is supposed to PAY (and only PAY) for the work that needs to be done
in order to ensure the future success of the BitShares ecosystem(!).
As for the spokesperson, I agree - it came rather quick and could have been much better communicated, but there are pressing concerns that needed to be resolved quickly.
If Xeroc wasn't involved I'd have to say it was the quickest coo I've ever seen. Even with Xeroc's involvement I still have reservations b/c I don't know those other people. They could be slick devils that tickle Xeroc's ear with sweet things to distract him from their agenda.
That's true. They did not introduce them selves into the public yet and they could cheat on me - in which case, every BTS holder that approved the spokesperson (or me as aproxy) could remove their support within the hour. The spokesperson worker clearly states that it can only act as such as long as it is approved. If any of the involved parties try to cheat on the BTS holders, they will have to expect consequences.
Ans yes, some other people tried to trick me with "sweet things" but I ditched them before I went public with them ... yes, I am human.
OK, ok that's only speculation I know, but consider the level of faith you're being asked to have about these people. Should we really trust in one person (xeroc) that much? Unless you personally know the others that's what this comes down to, to trust young Fabian Schuh to accurately assess the motives of these others to be genuine and devoid of any hidden agenda that would compromise the integrity of BitShares to provide a safe alternative to the corrupt mainstream financial system.
Again, I haven't asked to be put in the place I am in now. In fact, I never asked people to set me as their proxy. In contrast, I tell them to pick another one for the sake of better governance.
But i cannot change how it is right now.
As for compromiseing the integrity of BItShares - I don't see how you came to the conclusion that anything I do would cause that. There are much better examples of businesses running on/in BitShares that cause much more damage to the whole ecosystem than what I am doing. Please let me know if and when I do something that undermines the purpose of BitShares as a whole.
There is too much power to centralize decisions in these roles and we simply MUST NOT loose sight of that fact. We need explicitly stated "rules of engagement" to define the limits on these roles. If "we" don't take responsibility and constrain these roles to explicit dos and don'ts we may wake up one day to find we're not in Kansas anymore and this is no longer the BitShares we want, no longer the "alternative", safe financial system it was invented to be.
Again - nothing I do with or to the BitShares blockchain can happen without the approval of the BTS holders - and as you have seen from BSIP18, changes to the blockchain are
thorougly tested and discussed before even considering a hard fork. And again, neither the spokesperson, nor the compliance worker intend to modify the Blockchain, at all.