Bitcoin Forum

bitcoin.org is a community site with enormous reach and influence. It now has a Bitcoin Press Center (http://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-for-press) page.

Several prominent bitcoin press contacts have been purposefully excluded from this list.

How is the process decided? Well, in order to nominate someone, you have to use the source-control software git and know how to do a pull request on github. That certainly made it difficult for the vast majority of the community to express an opinion. Kinda like a git-literacy test at the voting booth. Cute eh?

To top the exclusionary process, unlike any of the previous candidates already on the page, a new nominee has to pass some bizarre litmus test and be a "moderate voice". Who decides what's moderate? Why the two or three developers who have commit-access of course!

If this doesn't already strike you as arbitrary and capricious, wait till you hear more. Each time someone has objected to the process, they get called "offtopic" and the goal posts are moved. The people smearing some of the candidates said that there wasn't enough interest from the community. Funny how that literacy test works to suppress participation. Then, when others added "pull requests", they were flooded with misquoted articles and vague and slanderous accusations against the candidates. Then the pull requests are unceremoniously closed, shutting down debate and leaving the status quo - essentially enforcing the exclusion and censorship of view points.

It's a raw power grab and it should concern the entire community.

As a last attempt, I added a "pull request" asking that the page be expanded to add *several* people, thus diluting the influence of any one and broadening the roster. That one is still up for discussion.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162

You can signup for github here, for free: https://github.com/users

Then just go to this page https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162

and if you like the proposal add the word "ACK" as a comment. Stick around to debate for more inclusion and openness if you like.

They say the community doesn't care and they want to make this decision in an obscure forum, excluding press representatives with a long history of contributions and without any accountability. Feel free to show them that's not how we do things in an open community.

Doesn't the bitcoinfoundation own the .org?

I guess its the same people making millions of bucks to be a face to do nothing at all.

Technically yes, but in this case it is the people who have commit-access on the repository for the website who are deciding.

Because nothing gives you more press relations experience, than knowing all the parameters of the GIT command!

Just to add insult to injury, the very first post by one of the devs in response to my pull request was a series of quotes from the candidate I nominated (Jon Matonis) attempting to paint him as some kind of extremist (you know, the kind of extremist Forbes features weekly). The quotes themselves were not of Matonis, but of Matonis quoting someone else. Basically the person who posted this failed to do the most basic quote check and fact check. How's that for credentials for the person deciding who should do press relations: unchecked, sloppy quoted, defamatory posts.

There are a couple of people on that list who not only have the idea that they can judge who is a "moderate" and who is not, but that based on that judgment they can decide who to KEEP OFF the press list.

I submit that the burden to include someone with more than a hundred articles and press references should be low, while the burden to EXCLUDE someone like that should be high. Instead, it is the opposite. They are quite happy to maintain the status quo, because that keeps the list to their liking.

Furthermore, we are one month from bitcoin conference 2013, an event that will generate hundreds of press requests. I already have 6 interviews scheduled for myself, and that's just because I am a speaker at the conference. There is not question that the exclusionary policy on the Press Center is already having an effect.

Welcome your new overlords. They can code and commit, so now they are in charge of press relations.

What do I know anyway, I just spent almost a decade as an analyst working the press and taking press requests every single day.

The entire situation is so absurd it is comical.

Maybe we should just do like the folks at K street: get money from a lobby group then demonize bitcoin.org, isolate them, and make them become a target so the people not happy about bitcoin.org can build a campaign to promote their own bitcoin2..org.

The best place representing bitcoin is this forum and all the people included, even those I truly find offensive when they target whole ethnic groups.

They even tried to use the red herring argument: If you don't like it FORK. Which just goes to show why developer geeks don't understand media and shouldn't be deciding questions about media relations.

You don't just pretend that bitcoin.org is not a center of power, because of the domain name, the existing traffic and the search ranking. It is naive to say "go fork your own" and insulting the intelligence of the community to call that an open process.

Please, don't just shrug and let them get away with it. Sign up on github and just add your voice. It takes 2 minutes to post an "ACK" on the proposal and prove that the community does care and is not willing to let 2 people decide who represents us.
Sign up on github, go here:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162

Post a comment supporting the expansion of the Press Center - just an ACK will do, but a cogent argument in support of the candidate Jon Matonis, or a proposal for another good candidate not listed - even better.

Title is inaccurate.

A small group of developers are putting forth Bitcoin press representatives.

Nobody owns Bitcoin. If the OP, or any other group, wants to put forth "press representatives" for something nobody exclusively controls they are free to do that. Bitcoin operates on a free market.

Nobody owns bitcoin, but 2 or 3 people control bitcoin.org and who is on the Press Center.

The Press Center is on bitcoin.org. They chose to add it and make github the way to "nominate" people. I followed the process and discovered the process was a charade.

Sure, give me commit access to bitcoin.org and I will agree no one controls.

Don't pretend that bitcoin.org doesn't matter, won't affect press relations or that anyone can go fork it. This is a major high-profile entry point for most journalists and pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

You are aware this started here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=156364.0;topicseen

Everyone could join it.

But it would have been work to help build it, right?

Better do nothing and complain later.

wouldn't it be good if each person that wants to be a spokes person, makes a short youtube video talking about.

1. how bitcoin works

2. how people can use bitcoin today

3. how people will use bitcoin each day in the future

4. opportunities, for business, customers, investors, individuals within bitcoin

and then post the link here so that people can see it does not have to just be the bitcoin elite being spokesmen but sometimes the best person with a level head might just an average joe guy within the community.

those videos could either be used as introducer to themselves for media to pick who they want to interview, or for the whole community to pick a selection from.

I am joining it, I am not doing nothing. I did the pull request and made the addition to the code.

Really? You're going to control who gets added to the Press Center based on whether I was in the original discussion?

That's exactly the problem. There is purportedly a process, yet when I try to follow it, it immediately reveals itself to be a charade and a way to distract and dismiss requests.

None of the previous candidates had to submit to such a test.

That's the whole point. The rules keep changing and are being applied selectively to new candidates who were VERY conspicuously excluded.

It's a naked and transparent attempt to exclude some individuals and they're making up rules to fit the decision. The exact opposite of an open process. Matonis is just the catalyst that shows the complete absurdity of the claim that this is an open and fair process.

Bitcoin.org is not Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a protocol.

Your logic would seem to suggest anyone owning http.org unfairly controls the Internet.


Like I said above, controlling the domain of letters associated with a protocol doesn't provide exclusive control over something nobody controls. Bitcoin works on a free market. Did you ever stop to think that maybe the free market has placed control over an influential aspect of the protocol with those quite qualified to have it? That's what I think happened, and if the market made a mistake in that it would be corrected by forces in discord over the mistake.

I'm not saying you don't have the right to protest. I've protested things here myself. If your protest has legs it will take off. I'm simply trying to clarify what's happening.

i made this recommendation in the other thread.

get theymos to allow you to set up a Press Center here and let ppl volunteer to sign up.  then github will just fade away as this is the most frequented place for newbies to come.

i think instead of just choosing a name out of a hat

EVERYONE and anyone should be allowed to submit their name to the list. but make a video blog explaining bitcoin, and its opportunities, etc to prove themselves. which is also shown on the page.

then over time their names can be voided off the media page if they are absolute loonies :D

where as hand picking names before a majority of people have even seen them in action does limit the variety of candidates.

i say give the power to the community by letting the community participate

Journalists will look up bitcoin and they will find BITCOIN.ORG.

Don't make disingenuous arguments that it doesn't matter that a well established page, that like it or not becomes the first page new people see, is being controlled without any regard for the community, by people ostensibly nominated by the "foundation".

The power is yours, if you believe the process is not a sham -

You can signup for github here, for free: https://github.com/users

Then just go to this page https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162

and if you like the proposal add the word "ACK" as a comment. Stick around to debate for more inclusion and openness if you like.

I'm also setting up a counter weight, but that doesn't address the issue of the power grab over a domain owned by the bitcoin foundation and now being used to exclude a board member of the bitcoin foundation, in complete disregard of the vociferous support of the community. It's absurd, it's exclusionary, it's censorship.

i dont acknowledge it though.

for 2 reasons.

1. you already hand picked 1 candidate

2. only want 4 candidates.

the world is a big place.

maybe have 1 person per state, per province, per country.  not 4 in total......

so i havnt signed up to ack a limiting proposal

allow there to be hundreds, all of which ANYONE can submit a video blog as their application and then WE can simply vote who are the loonies to drop off the list, or who is inspirational to be top of the list and keep others on the list who are acceptable to have some variety and in multiple locations so that for instance UK news is not having to find only american candidates.

european's, asian's, etc prefer local people. if the list is only 4 american's.. it is not really removing the idea that bitcoin is only for american's. because at the moment most of the bitcoin exchanges/gateways are based in america.

Bitcoin.org is in no way owned by the Bitcoin Foundation.

Yes, I agree with your sentiment. I'm not trying to deny the group you're referring to has influence. What I'm trying to say is there is a reason that group has that influence. It didn't happen by accident.

If the free chain of events that led to this outcome has culminated in error that error will be corrected, for example, by people who feel discord like yourself, investigative journalists, bloggers, and whatever other elements there are making up the free market.

they would love to just leave the status quo which is not only limiting candidates but also maintaining control. You can comment and suggest more candidates, so I can revise my proposal. Or you can let them keep the list closed, that's exactly what they want.

This "foundation" thing get more suspect day after day  :-\

Jon Matonis is a board member of the foundation (which also owns bitcoin.org) and a regular contributor to Forbes.

According to the devs making the decision on the Press Center page, he is not a suitable spokesperson for bitcoin.

Is the irony 2x4 hitting you in the forehead yet? Is the absurdity burning your brain cells?

Yes and no.

What is happening is as Bitcoin grows so will the voices and interests vying for influence over it. The Bitcoin Foundation will naturally have growing power and influence.

This was something well seen beforehand by people, including myself, that reacted quite alarmed to the announcement of the foundation. The reason I am able to be at peace with the inevitable growing influence of the people basically at the core of Bitcoin's developmental progress, both in a technical and political way, is because viable alternatives for the market to express dissatisfaction now exist, namely Litecoin.

Translation: if Gavin's decisions screw things up too much people can jump ship and support alternatives.

For the record I think Gavin and the people closest to Bitcoin's development are doing a terrific job.

I agree. Gavin and many of the other devs are doing a terrific job.

They are writing awesome code and making great decisions on bitcoin.

They are utterly unqualified to make decisions on who should be in the Press Center. Fortunately most of them have been pretty neutral about this issue. There are however two devs who are making this personal and running bitcoin.org as a personal fiefdom. They pretend to open the process for participation and then stall, distract, slander and dismiss at every turn.

I have a problem with one or two devs who are out of their depth on issues of press relations and are using commit access to define press policy, against the very vocal objections of the community.

This is not even an issue of the "foundation". Matonis is on the board and he is being excluded from this by a person who is not even part of the foundation. The appointed glorified "webmaster" has executed a coup-d-etat on bitcoin.org. It's quite a spectacle and would be amusing, if it weren't so damaging to the community in the runup to a major international conference.

I understand what you're saying. I don't entirely disagree. It's just that none of what's happening now and what is to happen in the future surprises me. I've been around Bitcoin since before it reached dollar parity and have watched various dramas unfold (and even participated in the foundation one). Luckily with a small market cap the maximum damage that could ever be done was relatively minute.

As Bitcoin's market cap grows the above cycle plays out on larger stages and with more at stake. Indeed, I have no worry for Bitcoin from a technical stand point so much as from a political one.

I expect the process to be far from smooth at all times, and often quite messy, but my hope is because all involved ultimately want Bitcoin to succeed there should be nothing that's ever detrimental. Instead, I see things as the free market electing representatives the way Americans elect congressional representatives. At times any individual constituent may disagree with a law or position taken by their government or congressman, but rather than things being governed by any individual's opinion or simple majority rule representatives decide. If the representatives do too badly they will cease to have that power in the end since the base will correct it.

A lot of people involved are awesome, no doubt about that. Gavin is doing a wonderful job for example. But some things are weird. Matonis is one of the best representants of bitcoin, and now he is not suitable?

Things are not always that simple, not as you grow on a world stage anyway. For example, do you know there are husbands and wives that, while I'm sure think each other great fathers and mothers, are opposed politically, or sometimes religiously? I'm not giving my own opinion on Matonis or anyone else involved, but simply trying to show how some people can relate to others well on some things but not others. People are complexly made up.

I discovered Bitcoin in its infancy, April 2010. I watched it mature past the first media reviews and subsequent       turmoil. I approach Bitcoin from a theorist point of view, so many ideals held up by the core developers and early adopters I can appreciate and uphold. I was stymied from some crucial early development of my own application due to changes in the software and lack of standardization of the protocol. I realize media cares little of these points of contention, but it does point to deeper truths being held by several key developers that wish for less "revealing" information being doled out.
Theorists have no seat at the table because anything other than "the" bitcoin client - shadowy unknowns and possible future(?) is beyond discussion. IRC chat is promoted but shelved as irrelevant. Then the trolls, shills, belligerent others are allowed equal voice, thereby muddying the conversation and exasperating many.
Media comment sections are no stranger to this disease. We are skilled to see through the fog - regardless of positions held but often leave this uncooperative group for other forums. Media may find a chorus of "Legion" and never return due to incoherent noise and packaged "responses" I know I have not bothered with bitcointalk.org or bitcoin.org for many months at a time, returning briefly in hope of a change in climate. We have a group of professionals present now that won't be kowtowed into shoutdowns or misdirection.
I like it. I like it, alot!

My vote is for Cody Wilson as a bitcoin P.R. He represents me very well and I don't even own a 3D printed butter knife... Now what!

Thanks to Andreas (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=79085) for bringing more attention to this matter. Find the original thread at:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.0

Please note that it's not the Foundation that's controlling the selection process for press representatives; remember, Matonis is on the Foundation's board, it's not as though he is going to be censoring himself.

The problem comes down to two core developers (unaffiliated with the Foundation) plus the current webmaster for bitcoin.org. They are willfully going against the clear wishes of the community (as expressed over here as well as on GitHub), the best interests of the press (who've obviously found Matonis's and Ver's views worth their while), as well as the expressed sympathies for Ver's and Matonis's philosophies from Satoshi (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1891460#msg1891460), Sirius (http://sc5.io/blog/2013/02/sc5er-intro-the-bitcoin-guy/) (who actually owns the domain), and Gavin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1897036#msg1897036). More particulars can be found in the original thread and the numerous GitHub issues and pull requests linked to from there.

As theymos pointed out, the bitcoin.org domain isn't owned by the Foundation (though maybe it ought to be, given this fiasco!). The domain is owned by Sirius (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=4), who has delegated management authority to Gavin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=224), who in turn has recently delegated (https://bitcoinfoundation.org/blog/?p=135) maintenance authority to the current webmaster (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=73755).

Unfortunately, other than expressing outrage there's little anybody else can do about this unless one of Satoshi, Sirius, or Gavin should choose to more decisively exercise their authority to remedy the matter. It does not seem that anybody else has sufficient authority to either convince the webmaster he's in the wrong, or else to overrule him altogether.

I just don't see why this is any real issue.

It seems like there is a beauty pageant going on and people are like "hey use me! or him! or her!" Who thf cares? Anybody that understands anything about Bitcoin should understand nobody can stop it, not governments, not press, nobody. Now that there is a little more money coming in and the start of mainstream attention people are starting to tug at their end of the blanket. Lighten up people! Nobody is stopping anybody from saying what they want to whomever they want. And nobody is saying how the current decision making regarding this particular PR issue is detrimental to Bitcoin. At least when I and other forum members protested the sudden creation of TBF we clearly spelled out how unchecked consolidated power could derail the entire thing.

Totally agree with everything you've said in this thread, and I've added my vote to the pull.  I'm not, however, worried about naming names here, and the fact that Luke-jr is in anyway involved with press decisions is so utterly absurd that its hurting my brain.   He has been involved in several scandals in the bitcoin world now, and is CLEARLY not of a sound enough mind to be making extremely important decisions such as this.  He may be able to code, but Hitler was also a wonderful artist.  Wouldn't trust his judgement on who's of sound character either.

(No, I'm not really comparing Luke to Hitler, besides them both being nutcases ;))

Lol!   So true, so true.

Evidently, a lot of people do care. Evidently, you care enough to comment on why people should not care. As for the reasons either way, I doubt anybody is going to take the time to rehash the dozen and more pages of the previous forum thread, nor the hundreds more comments over on GitHub, for your benefit. You've been given the relevant starter links if you should care to read up on the matter. If not, by all means leave us to it.

Do note, however, that there was a quite reasonable proposed resolution (pull request #152 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/152)) that would simply have altogether removed the list of press reps from the site. Easy enough solution, force journalists to actually do their homework for themselves, and end the controversy in one simple stroke. That notion, too, was rejected. Hence we are back to dealing with the "beauty pageant", trying to overcome a loaded judges panel.


Careful now. Such views would be sufficient to get you excluded from the press center, if your inclusion had otherwise been nominated. It is apparently very important that governments should continue believing that they can stop or regulate Bitcoin, and anyone who might express contrary views should be purged from Bitcoin.org. Just so you know.

Haha.  Sounds like JG.  ;D

Aantonop is correct in his main contention that the process is a charade trying to give the appearance of open, consensus via github.

You can observe jgarzik, luke-jr and others conspiring and scheming in the #bitcoin-dev IRC channel to circumvent any attempts to get people they do not approve of onto the Press center.

... even to the point of mocking Jon Matonis and labelling his support now as "git-hub" trolls.

They should just man up and say "we are going to be nazi about this and do it our way" ... instead of skulking around trying to make out like it is all above board.

I'm simply trying to distinguish  between which Bitcoin issues are real issues worth spending energy and time on and which are not. Of course that's subject to my opinion, but I try to provide a logical basis for my positions. All the time spent on things not detrimental to Bitcoin is not spent on things which can truly help it (technical issues, links to the mainstream economy, etc.).


I certainly will.


If so I wouldn't care, because my interest in things worth fighting for regarding Bitcoin developing only pertains to things I view as possibly detrimental to Bitcoin. If you or anyone can spell out why this issue might be I may join you. Otherwise, see you later. The floor is yours.

the crazy thing about it is that of all the ppl who have been interviewed about Bitcoin heretofore, Matonis has been by far the most articulate and poised under some difficult questioning.

can you imagine Luke even opening his mouth in front of a camera?  and JG?  well, we know how he feels about long arms...

My problem is the assumption that private organisations have some obligation to consult the community at large.

Bitcoin.org divorced itself from this messageboard because it did not like how this messageboard reflected on Bitcoin.  It's pretty much their right to decide how they want to portray Bitcoin to the outside world.  Likewise, it's the right of Bitcoin Foundation to set their own agenda.

If you want to argue the need for a more inclusive umbrella organisation, I'm not going to dismiss that idea.  It won't create itself, though, and you need to decide in advance how you're going to handle the reality of the Bitcoin movement as a whole having factions with conflicting agendas.  If you take the democratic route, then you're still going to end up with some groups not having a voice because they don't have the numbers.  

There's a reason why over time grass roots movements tend to spawn a lot of organisations each pursuing their own agenda - their individual goals are often irreconcilable.

The answer isn't to try to hijack Bitcoin.org or Bitcoin Foundation and make them into something they don't purport to be.  It's to create an organisation which is more inclusive and promote the hell out of it.  Nothing at all prevents people - including high profile people - belonging to more than one organisation.  Things it might not be appropriate for high profile people to say as official spokespeople of one organisation can be said as ordinary members of another organisation or as individuals.

Yes, its all very incestuous at the moment but that's true of any grass roots movement in its early stages.  You find the same few people popping up everywhere because they're the ones who initially pulled together the beginnings of organisation.  It does pass, if only because eventually there's too much "everything" for them to continue being involved in every aspect of the movement and they start narrowing their focus.

I hope Litecoin is taking notes.

Possibility 1:  Tyranny once again raises its ugly head in an attempt to subjugate the masses for a nefarious plan.

Possibility 2:  It's a little more complicated than you're making it seem.

The truth is, it's not just one or two power hungry individuals trying to force everyone else to do what they want here.  Anonymous internet voices are fine and all, but a significant portion of the real life individuals who I know to understand press and publicity are strongly in favour of listing people who will talk about Bitcoin rather than their personal politics.

Jon already has a significant platform for his views and will (I guarantee you) be receiving plenty of press requests from those familiar with his stance _without_ being listed.  He already has to defer a lot to the press list.  The point of the inherently incomplete list at Bitcoin.org is to note some people the press don't _already_ know about who can speak intelligently, with poise, and without politics.  As I noted on github, we're not looking for Richard Stallmans here, despite the respect and value we place on the voice of people like that.  For any given political opinion the vast majority of people out there are at odds with it, so focussing on Bitcoin itself gives everyone the chance to hear about it and understand it without having to undergo an existential crisis.

This whole pitchfork raising thing is pretty unprofessional, imo.

Yeah, I got a kick out of this from gmaxwell:


Granted, there are more people "being censored" (Roger Ver), but Jon Matonis' name is all over this thread, everyone's fighting for his right to be on the page, but he doesn't even want to be.

Or we can just go full tinfoil hat and think gmaxwell is lying to suppress Matonis.  And if he does get added, complain he's not first on the list.  And if he gets onto the first line of a two-column table of people, complain that his placement is biased towards not being first for native left-to-right or right-to-left language readers, depending.

gmaxwell has repeatedly posted quotes that were inaccurately sourced and put words of others in Matonis' mouth.

Several others reposted those in every pull request mentioning Matonis.

I think it is not a conspiracy theory to say that someone who is publicly posting false quotes, again and again, to exclude someone from a press list they control is biased and allowing that bias to influence their decisions unfairly.

I question the authority of these individuals to make the decision, given their obvious bias.

You don't have to like Matonis or me to dislike the process and blatant bias shown on this issue.

Most people aren't arguing that there's an absence of bias.  They're saying that the organisation itself has no obligation to be unbiased - it's totally free to choose it's own agenda and to decide who it wants to represent it using whatever methods it chooses.

It sounds like you're confusing what Bitcoin.org actually is with what you believe it "should" be.

Seriously, this kind of crap happens with every movement ever - civil rights, feminism, HIV/AIDS, to name a few.  Unfortunately, it means a lot of energy which could be spent on creating better alternatives is spent on trying to tear down or reshape whatever already exists.

If you ever want an example of how someone who is extremely influential in the early stages of a movement becomes irrelevant over time, look at Germaine Greer.  Modern feminists can't identify with her at all, and the rest of us wish she'd just shut the fuck up and realise we're no longer living in the 1970s.

No, I'm confusing what Bitcoin.org actually is with what they themselves claim - both in the Press Center and with repeated answers to pull requests to include others (constantly moving the goal posts). They portray the pull request as the open and fair process for community vetting.

This list of potential interviewees has been curated by Bitcoin community members with the intent to include individuals possessing a wide spectrum of experience, ideas, and geography.

Their methods put lie to their own proclamations.

I am simply calling them to fulfill their promises and live up to their own self-proclaimed ideals and process.

In the end, I don't expect them to do anything - I'm not stupid or delusional. I do expect the community to see this for what it is: a naked and transparent power grab with a thin veneer of excuses and a sham process to confuse people into thinking there is consensus or community input.

I think this is the crux of it.  If you're right, gmaxwell is conspiring, or just misinformed and exerting too much weight on the process.  So, where has someone credibly disproved gmaxwell on this issue?  The best source would be Jon Matonis himself.  If he's dying to be on that page, we should hear it from him.  I think this article (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2013/04/22/bitcoin-foundation-expands-global-media-opportunities/) is a coded response to this situation, particularly the last few paragraphs.  Is he being suppressed and silenced by the cabal running bitcoin.org? :o :o /sarcasm

I think it's a combination, really.  Some developers would prefer not to have him on the page, but he doesn't really want to be on it either.  He's disappointed that politics were what excluded him, but he would be making a bigger fuss if he actually wanted to be on the page.  What does he really have to lose for not being there, and what do his supposed opponents have to gain for keeping him off?  The answer "nothing really" to both is what makes me think this is not some grand conspiracy.

And those of you making this about the Foundation, they don't run bitcoin.org.  You strike me as the same type of people that would be campaigning against them controlling it, too.

This.  Anybody can criticise from the sidelines, but educating the public about Bitcoin is a massive undertaking and the volunteers who are working hard in their own time to take a chunk out of it can don't really need diatribes from people far less involved than they are.  If there was ever a time for the "we're all on the same team" line...

I'm trying to see a middle of the road approach here. My belief has always been to focus our community's media efforts on building an effective bridge to integrate new people into the bitcoin world. To do this in a comprehensive and straightforward way while still covering deep computer science concepts is a very difficult task. I could honestly care less what the foundation desires to do or who they attempt to exclude because they are pursuing things that are several steps ahead of where we are at as a movement.

One will never be able to unify anarchists, venus project enthusiasts, libertarians and communists. They are the extreme ranges in this community and they will not consent to being managed or controlled by any entity. They don't even like the sovereign governments they live under telling them what to do. Any foundation that asserts it seeks to benefit Bitcoin should focus on collecting, refining and effectively communicating a core set of information to anyone interested in Bitcoin that tells them how to self-integrate wherever they are comfortable.

You cannot mainstream Bitcoin to make governments and the media comfortable. It is a fundamental paradigm shift. Governments derive their power through controlling the money supply and if Bitcoin succeeds it will forever be a thorn deep in their sides. The media is always looking for ratings and will use Bitcoin as a tool to accomplish this goal. That tool only continues to work as long as people are ignorant about Bitcoin. Therefore, if we remove the ignorance from the mainstream as corporations did for the internet in the 90s, then we become unkillable. Regulation and brutal fights will come. We can never avoid them. Look at the battle against internet censorship. But we don't get to that point unless we can bring in a critical mass of diverse people from across the world.

Herpderp, the neckbeards conspiracy! This shall go far!!

Lmao.


Eh get the fuck out. Who, "the volunteers who are working hard in their own time"? You? Never heard of you. Who exactly?

The volunteers who are working hard on their own time at being power rangers and forking the blockchain? The volunteers working hard on their own time at promoting various witch hunts a la "the only service currently giving value to Bitcoin is "spamming" it"? The volunteers working hard on their own time pushing various scams (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=165500.0) etc?

Here's a newsflash: the volunteers working hard on their very spare time are about as needed as feathers on a hog and about as useful too. The best thing they could do for Bitcoin is volunteering their own useless time somewhere else. Like a pizzeria or whatever. Something small and out of the way of people.

All this empty pretentiousness. Educating people. What, this (http://polimedia.us/trilema/2012/amir-taaki-has-done-and-continues-to-do-huge-disservice-to-anyone-serious-involved-in-bitcoin/)? Is Amir Taaki one of your volunteers working hard on their own time? Who else, Nefario? Volunteers by lack of alternatives, it's either this, dicking around on wikipedia or else what, playing WoW naked (http://i2.wp.com/www.geeksaresexy.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/wow-99.jpg?fit=960%2C9999)? Fine volunteering, splendid spare time.

"Far less involved than they are" indeed. Take your volunteers, take your endless free time and shove the lot.

For the record: There is no conspiracy, nor a concerted effort to do anything. I wish the whole things was that organized.

No, the problem was just a few individuals with a strong opinion against a candidate, who were comfortably shielded from broader scrutiny by an obscure forum. Once the lights shined on them, the comments became better substantiated, the misquoting stopped and the personal ad-hominem is largely in check. At this point it seems like we're moving towards a big expansion of the Press Center with several Finnish speakers, Spanish speakers... and even the initial lightning rod, Matonis.
Turns out there wasn't that much "support" to keep him out, it was only a side-effect of the closed forum. There are now 10 votes for, 2 against. I doubt the commit-access people will shut down the discussion this time, it's too public. We'll see perhaps I'm being naively optimistic.

As far as I'm concerned, my goal has been met. More people looked at this process, decided it stunk and got involved. It very quickly let to a change of tone, less specious arguments and a more productive proposal - to add several more people at once and to broaden to a world audience.

I am still looking for proposals for more non-English or English speaking press contacts. The bottom line is that at the bitcoin 2013 conference there will be so many press requests that the list needs to be bigger. See pull request #162 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162) and please add proposals for Word-Press suitable candidates.

Thanks

You're welcome sweetheart.

@aantonop - I take it you want to be on the press team?

He is pointing out the obvious problems that are start to occur in this process for the benefit of everyone in the bitcoin community.

That much I see but I'm curious if there's any hint of sour-grapes here too. Much better to see both sides of the story.

Absolutely not. I have not nominated myself. I would not accept any such nomination, if someone were to make one. I have plenty of interview requests and press contacts and I am not interested in being on that page. This has nothing to do with me or my involvement. Quite honestly, I don't know Matonis personally, nor do I care particularly about him being added as an individual. I don't know the devs personally either, though I am getting to see some of them in a whole new light.

They claimed the only reason for the exclusion was the lack of a pull request.

I know how to create a pull request so I tested that claim. Turns out, that wasn't the only reason

My motivation is simple: I dislike power grabs, I dislike attempts to exclude, I dislike arbitrary decisions and I dislike the sense of entitlement that goes way beyond code (for which I am very grateful).

Coders don't necessarily make good press relations people. Coders don't necessarily make good PR decisions. That doesn't mean they have not earned the right to have a big influence in the project - they have. It simply means that some decisions are better made in a much more open way and with broader input, to avoid the impression of bias and to make *good* decisions.

The process here was the exact opposite of open (despite claims), and it led to poor decisions - the poorest of all decisions was to engage in a political decision (which the press center is, whether they like it or not), in a forum like github. From that first poor decision many more have sprung.

I have *no* skin in this game, other than being a member of the community and wanting to see a better and larger roster of press center representatives and a more open process for selecting them.

He serves the community as an entrepreneur and also an educator. It would be a misuse of his talents to push him into a media role.

Now that the votes are 11 to 3 for expanding the press center page, the two developers with an axe to grind (and one supporter) have declared that the only votes that count are from the developers who commit bitcoin code.

It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes.

So to summarize:

a) Two devs said they would not consider Matonis (or other candidates), unless there was sufficient community interest to do a pull request (something very few people even know how to do). There was no pull request, therefore the community was not interested

b) I did a pull request, to add several new members to the Press Center

c) The pull request was flooded with slander, and the people who objected to Matonis cast negative votes

d) Eleven other people came in and cast positive votes

e) Now losing the vote, I was blamed for ignoring the process (pull request), putting the devs at a disadvantage (they had to follow several pull requests) and intimidation (my words were more powerful than their commit access?)

f) Now the process has changed (again), so that only votes of the devs contributing to bitcoin code are relevant for the Press Center decision. Because devs should make all the PR decisions, obviously (?!)

I expect they will Close the pull request shortly. The "if only there was a pull request, we'd consider it" was a blatant lie.

Enjoy your new bitcoin.org. It does not reflect the community, it does not take input from the community and it is controlled by three people, basically, who decided they are press experts, even though they can't get a quote right and use slander to make points.

Add your voice here if you think this is not a good process or good way to nominate and approve press contact that (whether we like it or not) represent the community:

Add several independent voices to the Press Center page, beyond the devs pets. (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162)

What should we do moving forward?

Ack to all that :)

Don't ACK here. Join github (1 minute), go to the Pull Request and add your voice there. They hope you won't.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162

They may not want to count your vote or listen to your voice, but the more voices speaking up about the broken process (not Matonis, the *process* of nominations and selections), the less they can pull this off.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

My vote for this question too.

Is there anything ordinary users can do to help encourage the developers to be more transparent and fair?

I did that a few days ago, I'm just adding it here as well in case (or when) that pull is closed ;)

Ha that's a good one ... afaik saivann, who Gavin gave the keys for bitcoin.org to (bad mistake imho) is not a bitcoin dev. and has never committed any bitcoin code ... only some bitcoin.org web graphics.

So they already violate their new goal post shift.

which 2 devs?

PICK ME PICK ME PICK ME :D

Go join github, go to the Pull Request and complain about the process being decided only by developers. Add your ACK to adding more press representatives to the page. Be polite and constructive. Nominate more press representatives other than Matonis. Add your voice.

It doesn't matter. Just go speak your vote on the pull request. This is not personal - it is not in favor of Matonis only, or against any particular devs. There is no conspiracy. Mostly a bunch of geeks trying to play politics who bit off more than they can chew. I've been there myself.

Focus on constructive proposals, please. Suggest additional press contacts and support a more inclusive and open process for nomination. That's my goal, at least.

heres my plan

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=190192.0

simply put give the oppertunity for anyone in the community to make a video to show off their skills and let the community later choose who they prefer.

no limit on numbers or location.

feel free to make a video about bitcoin and all those community projects can then add you to their lists or those that are in contact with media can mention your name as a point of contact

As long as the process applied equally to all the people ALREADY on the list, and it was applied consistently and fairly, its fine.

If the video nomination process is another litmus test, applied only to new nominations, and judged as opaquely as the pull-request process, then NO, that's just another charade to distract people from the power grab.

I do not mean to imply that you want the second approach, I don't know you. The people who are trying to impose their opinions on the community keep moving the goal posts and instituting more and more litmus tests for the candidates and voting tests for the community. First it was a git-literacy test, then it was a "you must be a dev on bitcoin", so I'm not sure I want to add "make a video".

over @github, how do you "quote" someone as we do here?

github uses a simple markdown format

To quote, use the ">" prefix like email, copy paste the quote.

New rule: now they're saying everyone who has substantiated facts should have VETO over the press page. I'm not sure if the new rule includes non-developers, or the existing press contacts. The goal posts moved again... So transparent - just keep changing the rules until everyone gives up and the status quo (a page of lackeys "appointed" and those not subject to the 3-dev VETO)

this is not about what YOU want

the community want to see confident and smart people to represent bitcoin.

seems like YOU want just a couple of select few, one which you have already nominated.

my plan is that ignoring one websites personal desires, having a thread filled with a multitude of people all showing off their TV presence and allowing the bitcoin community to see who they like and to then themselves use those names they choose to be their advocate.

i have a website which will highlight some notable people i beleive will be good spokes people, and so do others have their own websites for their area's/interests.

imagine a guy in england that wants a handful of names to pick from to talk to the BBC in london, or channel4 up north.. wouldnt it be good to have lots of faces and examples to pick from to then have a nice varied selection, instead of just 4 americans.

now imagine someone in australia that wants local talent, wouldnt they also want a selection of names and video examples to pick who they favour that atleast knows and understands australian economy.

same again imagine it for russians, italians, israeli, thai's, chinese. the list goes on......

limiting it to a few select people is not truly covering the whole communities viewpoint. i do agree that there ought to be some standards that these representatives should have. but limiting it to just a handful of people or meeting a criteria that only you want is not the right way of doing it.

i suggest making a video for the simple reason, if they are going to be on TV then having a video is atleast a sandbox of what to expect they will say infront of a camera. that way there is no surprise.

just mentioning names because they are "big people" in the community means nothing.. everyone knows the name Pirate@40. so should we really be judging people purely on the wealth they hold and the popularity of their name?

Not true. My proposal is to add several new people. I nominated one, but asked for other nominations and we now have seven people nominated. Three of them are Finnish, three are Spanish-speaking and one is Matonis.

As I said, apply the process to the existing roster and I will agree with you 100%. Apply it only to new candidates and I'll asusme it's another attempt to delay and distract without good faith. The status quo is a choice - it is an endorsement of the existing roster, an exclusion of other candidates broadly supported and a completely capitulation of control to three developers with little or no press experience.

Welcome to the club!  :-\

I will just leave this here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=160785.0

New rule: Make your own site.

Now, control over the highest ranking site for the search "bitcoin" is determined by the glorified appointed webmasters, who get veto as PRESS DIRECTORS, not just HTML coders.

They will say anything to get the pre-determined result they want: complete control over the Press Center without any scrutiny or input from anyone. They were hoping git would be enough of a deterrent to participation, but once that wasn't enough, the real petty authoritarian attitudes are getting louder and louder.

i have not limited it to say that those nominated cannot make videos. i have not set any goal posts or set any conditions that the only way the press will contact them is if they are firstly nominated through one website. and voted for by someguys single decision based on typing "ACK" on a certain page.
 you have set some limiting goalposts by suggesting that the only way though to a press page is through ACK ACK ACK your proposal.

there is more then one website in the world there is more then one language. so dont limit it. you just said apply the process to the existing roster....

well its your roster. your plan, so its upto you to apply it to YOUR roster.

otherwise, allow others who may not have the big wealth and big names, but do have a smart mind and a balanced point of view to make a video to show themselves off and allow the community to adopt them in whatever way they want.

i will not ACK your proposal as you have set the goalposts which is limiting anyone from applying, all the end result will be from your proposal is a select few well known guys. missing out on the wealth of knowledge and opinions that may be overlooked by your goalposts.

EDIT - seen your last reply
facepalm
when i read news stories i actually go forward and i contact the media to correct them where they go wrong and i suggest better names to interview in the future.

EG Amir taaki (homeless, bankrupt, ex-entrepeuner who loves to talk about hacking, gun control at bitcoin conferences more then bitcoin itself.. not be interviewed again. where as a few other select names that do talk in a nice smooth manner about bitcoin and the positive and legal future of the coin are mentioned to the media)

i dont rely on telling the media to go visit bitcoin.org to choose from the "golden few". if the media want to talk about merchant services i mention bitpay, it its payment gateways i mention bitinstant. if its exchanges i mention mtgox, if its the technical side of bitcoin its gavin.. there should be no limit to how many get to be the chosen few. but having atleast examples of how those that have not yet been chosen would actually respond infront of the camera, will help EVERYONE to have their favourites

The new rule espoused by at least two of the devs who are trying to control the press center is that everyone get to veto candidates if they can offer justification, as it is only fair if objectionable candidates can be veto-d.

In response, I announced a VETO for jgarzik, as a test of this new rule. I have nothing against jgarzik, he's an awesome programmer. I don't think he should be removed from the Press Center, rather I'd like to see more voices added. But, that's the new process and I'm pretending it is not another ruse.

I expect a rule change and an explanation of why I didn't actually get a veto in

5....

4...

3...

2...

1...

Only took one minute before my veto was quickly dismissed as me being a jerk.

Of course, I actually want expansion of the press center, not exclusion. But I took the veto option at face value to show the hypocrisy of those proposing it.

They love the veto, as long as no one else wields it.

This is getting better by the minute. They are so transparently biased and unfair that it takes very little to show it.

New rule: Vetos for existing Press Center members require a pull request

I am about to open one, at which time I expect it will be up for majority vote (not really a veto)..

Seems like anyone who agrees with the three/four devs in control gets a veto. That's what they meant by "everyone gets a veto"


So now I will do a pull request to show how they were lying AGAIN

Update for those interested.

The developers who are playing a power grab of bitcoin.org set the rules for nomination - a pull request. Then they changed the rules 15 times in a row, as I met every requirement.

To summarize:

* All I need is a pull request to nominate someone
* But only if I get support with votes
* But only the devs get a vote
* But everyone gets a VETO
* Unless it's me, I don't get a veto (I veto'd jgarzik, since everyone gets a veto)
* For that I have to do a pull request for VETO (30 seconds after I stated my veto)
* But only for existing Press Center members (30 seconds after I said I'd do a pull request)
* "Vetos for real reasons are real. Vetos because you want to create problems are not". @luke-jr get to decide which is which.
* Votes keep coming in (16-6 in favor of expanding the list), with people opposed voting as if the vote matters, but votes in support being ignored.
* Voting will continue until I lose in votes, or I lose by veto, or I Iose by having the pull-request closed.
* "Counting votes, after trolling specific audiences for votes on outside forums, just makes a vote even more meaningless". (ie, getting support from the community at large is somehow suspect- that's YOU everyone!)
* "As we see here, the loudest voice -- i.e. the person who posts the most -- just drowns out everything else". (Before there was no support, now there's TOO MUCH speech in this voting process, once I started getting support)

You may add you comments here - suggest constructive solutions, don't bash the individuals, that's what they want to call it a troll. Nominate more people, offer your own substantiated vetos and stick around to defend your positions.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162

At 17 for expanding the press center and 7 votes against, @saivann, the appointed webmaster closed the vote declaring it a loss (invalidating the 17 votes)

It was a sham all along, trying to distract from the power grab underway.

bitcoin.org's press page is run by 3 unelected developers with not a clue about press relations. Rejoice!

Just got a PM from gmaxwell with the following gem, just to double-down on the tone-deaf attitude. He didn't have the brass to post it publicly of course, he's a cowardly weasel through and through:

>counting?
>« Sent to: aantonop on: Today at 11:22:12 PM »
>« You have forwarded or responded to this message. »
>Quote  Reply  Delete 
>At the time you claimed 16/7 my count was:
>
>aantonop
>flix1
>pelle
>masterkrang
>simonk83
>sunnankar
>joecoin
>gbilley
>dgenr8
>cypherdoc   
>junisBell
>msngui


>luke
>gmaxwell
>midnightmagic
>saivann
>emansipater
>someoneweird
>jgarzik
>aardeem


>13 vs 8.

>Not that it matters, doubly so with you hitting multiple threads encouraging people to comment without reading the ?background, and promoting your position on the forum— in threads you didn't bother linking to (and so I'm just now finding) with deceptive statements (e.g. claiming that all of my matonis quotes were other people).


To which I responded:

Wait, so you lost the vote, cancelled the vote and are now telling me that you lost it but BY LESS THAN I CLAIMED?

The you accuse me from gathering community input (Wow!), which is what y'all said was needed.

Have you no shame?

Where did they ever say they were holding a vote?  (Hyperlink to specific vote please.)  As far I can tell you have invented the idea that NACK and ACK are literal binding votes that must be tallied.

As the website maintainer says:


Of course, you will dismiss this as "moving the goalposts."  Please, tell us where your idea of the goalposts was originally set?  (Hyperlink to specific vote please.)

Edit: And before you launch into something about how Bitcoin is supposed to be a utopia for individual freedom or something: yes, the protocol itself is decentralized and run by democracy-like consensus algorithms.  Bitcoin.org is not.  Again, I ask you to tell me where anybody who matters* ever said otherwise.  (*Matters in the sense that they have the power to make it so given the current arrangement of limited # of individuals able to log into the server hosting bitcoin.org.)

More and more it sounds like your idea of "free and open process" is actually just "I get my way."

I'm guessing it started where he was told that the proper mechanism to getting a candidate added to the annointed press members list was by doing a pull request on git.

Again, can I get a link to the post?  As far as I know, that's indeed how you propose a candidate.  There is no binding process for getting a candidate onto the actual "annointed press members list."  Call this an authoritarian power-hungry nazi fascist policy if you like, but please stop shouting about "moving goalposts" and "changing the rules" and "sham" -- there were never any hard rules to begin with, only customs of how open-source projects are run.

I'm open to the possibility that pseudo-"rules" were added after this hullabaloo started (edit: here's one (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162#issuecomment-17147298), but notice "perhaps", "maybe", "would" -- this is not a hard rule), by developers speaking off-the-cuff under the pressure of being bullied by aantonop and his sympathizers, but because of that situation they weren't crafted carefully and with deliberation.  They aren't binding anyway because bitcoin.org is still a centralized repository administered, by technical and practical necessity, by only a few people with ultimate veto power.  Finally, rules added "after the fact" like this would be another form of "moving the goalposts", right?!  The only rules that matter are those that were in effect when the press page was started, and I judge there were none.  Feel free to claim otherwise if you have a citation.

Anyway, please cite all claims as thoroughly as possible.  There have been far too many emotional, hand-waving accusations and claims in the many discussions about this issue already.

It's amazing to me that you keep throwing about this victim mentality and whining.

I was bullying the developers (who have all the power in this debate), by asking for clarity on the rules and given the runaround? I was bullying by collecting votes?

Methinks the lady doth protest too much. In the end, I'm being accused of bullying, but what actually happened?

Oh right... the developers flexed their commit and control and shut me down.

Amazing I bullied the poor wittle defenswess devewopers with words, yet they had the strength to hit Close in the end.

Let me call a WAAAAAAAAAAaahmbulance for your oppressed devs. Look at the mess on the Press Center page (unchanged)!

The truth is that they called for input, started the thread with slander and ended it by shutting down discussion while they kept losing the vote.

when luke JR is involved the communities point of view is meaningless..

luke Jr is a known mental case who wants this his way or no way at all. thats why instead of relying on bitcoin.org as the central point for media relations. having multiple hubs available.

there are many countries out there and many businesses that may want their own idea of a spokesperson. thats why i planned to just let people who are not already famous have their chance to highlight themselves by making a video and then all of those businesses and other websites around the world which may have a press centre section can choose their own people as spokesmen.

using bitcoin.org is called centralisation... especially now its being run by the golden few...

so why even bother stressing yourself over their rules. they are just a hand full of individuals. their rules dont matter. the world is much bigger then luke Jr so just do what most others do, and ignore/avoid them.

instead help out by making a massive list of people that may want to be spokes people that think they will never get a chance. get them to make a little video. im not stating it has to be a mock TV interview or a tutorial, or a rigid set script. the community questions were just examples of things they may want to talk about to atleast get a better idea of the persons mindset.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=190192.0

I'm with you on the idea of walking away from the steaming pile of crap that is the bitcoin.org management.


I'm going a step further an making a, probably futile, attempt at putting together a more representative user group.

What became obvious from this experience is that we need more speech and more diverse representation. The existing associations and groups are closed and not very transparent.

I want to make it successful, even if it only has 100 members.

It will live on bitcoinusergroup.org as of mid-week. If the group has any press page (up to the members to vote on that), then I will propose a resolution for an open process to select a diverse group of press representatives.

Before that however, the problem to solve is lack of accountability and transparency. There's no reason why these issues can't be voted on directly by thousands of interested people in an association. The only impediment is a complete lack of motivation among those who already have control and don't care to listen to the plebes.

They kept telling me to fork the whole thing (they say that about code changes too). I tried working inside the process, even though it was obvious from the start that it wasn't real. Better to throw the whole lot into the dark pit of irrelevance they belong and start with a fresh and open approach.

Everything wrong about the current organizations can be a value-proposition for the user group:

- No accountability = Open books and independent financial audits every year
- Too exclusive/expensive = Low membership fees pegged to current value
- No visiibility = Completely public operation
- Appointed overlords = Elected board, open voting process
- Too much power at the top = Board has no vote, cannot spend without member vote and are explicitly only caretakers.
- Too many claiming to "represent" = Board explicitly not representing anyone. Only duly passed resolutions "speak" for the users.
- "What have you done for bitcoin" = One person, one vote, no vetos - except board members who don't get votes.


Oh, in case some weasel projects their own power-grabbing desires on me, I'm recusing myself, permanently, from any board position. I will instead donate to seed it and then others can decide how to run it. I'll get one vote, if I pay my membership fees.

It's easy to change things. Just walk away from the unaccountable ones and build direct voting power - representative systems are only necessary when communications are scarce (or when the representatives want to control them). there's no reason why we can't directly vote on any issue in the hundreds of thousands.

Over time, I hope we can incorporate some de-centralized proof-of-stake voting, in the spirit of bitcoin, if that is what people want.

Just walk away

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=190527

I think you're both in agreement.

It just looks like you're both missing each other's points.

Am I right in saying franky1 thinks having a video is a very good way of weeding out weak candidates and would have no problems if it applied to all candidates?

Am I right in saying aantonop would only accept this additional qualification so long as it's applied equally to all candidates?

I don't think franky1 is suggesting that it should only be applied to new candidates and I don't think aantonop thinks it's a bad idea (to the contrary, he probably things it's a good idea).

I'm just posting this so that you can both move on from it as you seem to have gotten stuck on this distraction of a debating point.

Inedible,

We are in more agreement than even you saw.

I love "Helps" idea. But the real problem lies deeper and it is in the organization and foundation, not the 3 little devs who keep playing game of thrones.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=190527

First, my favorite point, because you just literally did some classic bullying, at least if Wikipedia can be trusted.  The above was patronizing baby talk towards the developers, a form of verbal abuse and bullying (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baby_talk&oldid=546987466#Patronizing_.2F_derogatory_baby_talk), "in which the talk is intended to infantilize the victim."  Of course, in your mind, since the developers have commit power, all abuse toward them is somehow justified.  Since you know they have the power to choose things that preclude you getting your way, you have to trash them to feel compensated.  As for your other bullying, let's start with the title of your pull request:


You're not even masking your contempt for the developers here.  You weren't getting anywhere in your original (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/161) request for Matonis, so you start it all over again, with an insult in the title.  Bad way to start off a re-hashed discussion, but since your aim isn't really to accomplish anything constructive, that makes sense.  Oddly, you described your newer pull request as a "Do-over for all of us." (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/161#issuecomment-17063889)

Do-over is right.  It's reminiscent of a child being told "no" by his parents, so he just asks again and throws a tantrum.  Another problem with this second pull request is that it's broad.  The title references "several... voices", the actual code so far only includes Matonis.  What are people even expressing support for when they utter your much-vaunted "ACK" in this thread?  Matonis specifically, or just "add some more people"?  Next:


This comes off as a personal attack on gmaxwell (edit: It was, but you later apologized because you had mistakenly attributed the closing to gmaxwell.  The following is still factual but less relevant:)  As far I can tell he never personally closed a PR on this matter.  The closed PRs are the original Press Center (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/139) (it was merged for a first publication), the removal of Press Center (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/152), your first Matonis PR (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/161) (closed by yourself), and your second Matonis PR (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162).  That last one was closed by the webmaster -- in fact, why would he entertain a repeat of a PR whose original was closed by the submitter?  None were closed by gmaxwell.


Another personal attack on gmaxwell, telling him he has no integrity.  Love how you grace him with the judicial word "recuse", when in your mind he's not fit to be anything other than a code monkey.


Huh, all I see is a pretty nice display of quite a selection of people.  More than there were when the Press Center debuted. (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/commits/master/en/bitcoin-for-press.html)  They've even got a German speaker, and broadening the count and the languages spoken is (ostensibly) the goal of one of your own pull requests!  Maybe you need to clear you browser cache to see the latest changes?  And if it's a mess, maybe you have some browser CSS issue.


Apparently your idea of accepting "input" is doing what it says, no matter what.  It's called "input", not "dictatorship by the rabble-rousers in the community."  They entertained input and gave their reasons for turning it down.  Again, (you never answered my earlier request for proof that there is supposed to be an official voting system) they had no imperative to even count a vote; you're the one making it up so you can shout about rules being changed and being cheated.

Since you are pulling quotes out of context from a 3-day discussion, let me quickly address them one by one:

1) Written after the end of the whole pull request and in response to your ad-hominem. Not taken from the actual discussion

2) Title was changed late today, after the @gmaxwell called me a jerk for using the veto he said I had. Before it read "Add more press representatives to the Press Center. Compared to "jerk", I think calling the appointees "pets" is mild.

3) I retracted the part about the @gmaxwell closing the pull request one post later and apologized. I had confused the two user IDs (I mistook him for @saivann). You didn't quote my apology and retraction, even though it was two posts down and less than 30 seconds after the original post. Also, no one else apologized or retracted anything, so mine was the only such act on the entire thread. Even @gmaxwell who misquoted Matonis, didn't apologize to anyone.

4) I stand by the factual assertion that gmaxwell should recuse himself if he had integrity and my opinion that he does not. His second post to the pull request was a misquoted slander and he never apologized for it, or retracted it. He just edited and added two words (the name of the original person who said what he attributed to Matonis, and the word 'retweet' next to the other quote he missatributed to Matonis). But he gets to decide press relations when he can't even quote properly.

5) "Look at the mess in the Press Center" is sarcasm. I was implying that nothing had changed from my pull request or the many many pull requests that preceded it. Status quo is a choice, one that rewards the appointees of the developers at the expense of anyone excluded by decree.

6) Factual

You took apart a 2 day discussion. You saw no problem with the serial slander against Matonis, name calling against me (jerk, git-troll, leech, etc) or the tone of any of the other posters. You just selectively quoted me digging up what you call bullying, and this is all you could find in that heated discussion?

The full record is out there for all to see your selective quoting, notwithstanding.

I'm not going to re-argue the whole process with you. I argued it when I had some hope that the process offered was real and it wasn't. Are you trying to make sure no one offers any more nominations or pull requests? You don't need to worry - no one will play the fool for that charade again.

thanks for the updates

Sigh, sorry this is so long.  I'll say my piece and call it quits, obviously nobody is going to have their mind changed here.  I wish you good luck with your bitcoin user group.  Although I think this whole argument is a tempest in a teapot, diversity of organization could do us some good.


At least I link them, that's more context than you've been giving.


Lol, it's not an ad-hominem when your response does exactly what I accused you of doing.  Also, it was written here where they could read it, unless you intend this to be your "secret" place to organize against them, which is exactly the kind of thing you accuse them of doing.  You are right overall though.  My claim is that you are actively bullying or trolling developers, so I think it still stands as representative of your attitude.  I think there's plenty of other abuse within the actual discussion, and I do concede it comes from both sides, although I would say the developers are not unprovoked.  You came up with ways to insult/"critique" jgarzik solely to further your agenda (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162#issuecomment-17148313).  That's not constructive, it's destructive.   You didn't do it to help bitcoin.org's press section, you did it to spit in the devs' faces.


Fair enough, but you and your cause will be judged based on what it says now.  I don't even think there's a way to see the historical title in github.  Cue the derision for using github.  I'll take this moment to say it would be well-deserved, but that I don't think it was a very conscious choice in the first place.  People like you pulled github into politics, not the other way around.  There's a 5-week old thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=156364.0) on this forum that was specifically made for the Press Center contacts, but nobody's used it much.  I don't think the website administrators were prepared for the turmoil this would cause, so the initial response was, "Uh, we'll hash it out on github, like we do with all changes to code" (a list of people on a website is made of code; it's not all that bizarre of an idea to do it on github.)  That obviously hasn't scaled well, but no thanks to everyone creating multiple pull requests for their favorite intellectual/political exile and spamming all the threads.


Sincere apologies, I didn't see that.  I will amend my original post.  You are right, although "one post later" is a little disingenuous, as there are actually several intervening posts from other people and that's why I didn't connect what was going on.  Also, if you hover over the (current) "13 hours ago" text in the two posts, the timestamps are in fact "2013-04-28 15:31:58" and "2013-04-28 15:49:32", meaning it was not "30 seconds later."  This isn't really ironclad evidence (edits could throw the timestamps off?) and it's a nitpick, but you're the one who got self-righteous about how quick you were.  I hope it was mis-remembering and not fabrication.  It's also ironic and hypocritical that you didn't edit your original post once you discovered you were mistaken, since that's what you demand from others:


I guess when they don't meet your arbitrary standards of decency, you're relieved from doing so yourself, eh?


How "many many" unmerged pull requests?  I count your 2 about Matonis, a still-open one about Roger Ver, and the one for removing the Press Center (which I don't think you can count because you seem to prefer adding to the Press Center).  So, basically the only unique non-merged pull-request made by someone other than yourself are still in the "open" state, which seems to be your standard for whether the devs are "accepting input."  Meanwhile, several additions have been made to the press page since it started.  Call this a "closed" process if you like, but it's definitely not stagnant (the "status quo" if I may read into your words a bit) just because your own changes haven't been accepted.  At least this seems to be somewhat your argument, but I may be reading too much into it.


You're right, I was selective.  I think you are being selective too.  While my reading wasn't all that exhaustive because I was only seeking to show why I believe you to be unfair (I'll admit it), I'll agree there is a tone problem throughout.  I'll still assign a lot of the blame on you, for laying on the inflammatory rhetoric by calling this from the beginning a power-grab by capricious non-transparent authoritarians instituting a "git-literacy" test for their "vote."  Again, nobody said this was a democracy.  You still haven't shown me where they did.  On that basis alone, your entire implicit argument that anybody should give a hoot about what you think, falls apart.  Yes, they solicit suggestions because they know that can be effective, but they reserve the right to turn them down.  Giving a reason for saying "no" or allowing multiple chances to pitch an idea is merely being polite, not required.


Again, what process was offered that turned out to be fake?  I haven't seen anyone with the authority say, "we'll count the ACK's and the NACK's and the ACK's will win."  You're more familiar with all this, so please hyperlink if this has been said.

The more people that can do this, the better off bitcoin will be. The solution is being created, even as far as giving each person a personal web site to use. What videos they put there will be their choice, but I am thinking they will want bitcoin videos :) .

This thread is epic. Calling all neckbeards (jgarzick, gmaxwell, puke-jr &co): YOU FAIL

This is because you suck. You're not good enough. The only option you have is exactly how much public humiliation comes with your failure.

Knock yourselves out.