The organizing and controlling is already happening just without any of your input. You can pretend it isn't or that those organizations don't have power, or that they actually listen to or care about your opinion. You'd be wrong.

I am however interested in your opinion and proposals for building a good representative association. I tried to work within the existing systems first. Now I'm trying to do something else instead. I don't want you to trust me, or any individual. I want people to trust in a certain process that is transparent. I don't trust most people with power, that's why I prefer to trust well formed organizations, with good process and transparency.

This is not a choice between do something and do-nothing. Something is already being done in terms of "representing" the users, and it has credibility whether you like it or not. What it lacks is transparency or any authority.

If you don't believe in any form of organization, that's fine. This certainly wouldn't appeal to you. However, if you do believe in some form of organization, just not this one, please tell me how to improve this in a way that would make it more trustworthy for you.

Please propose solutions... We already know that this is hard and doesn't have easy solutions.

Great suggestion on local chapters. I'd like to roll it all up into a global group, but localizing power is always better.

Disagree on not duplicating Foundation. They have vastly different goals and principles from this proposal. While this is not a "bash foundation" proposal, I think it is valuable to look at some of the areas where they are not responsive and fix those as "features" of an alternative organization

Agreed. One of the proposals is to have a membership fee of $1 per year. Another is to have no fees, just a requirement that members vote at least twice a year (ie participate).

Another proposal is to allow members to join, but only if sponsored by two existing members, or require some verification. That creates a simple choice - if you're new to the community, you may need to prove you are a human (a photo with your face,  the username and date on a piece of paper would be sufficient), to avoid sock-puppets. Otherwise, you can just have two existing members invite you, no need to prove or provide identity.

I'm open to any and all suggestions that will make this as broad as possible, while still having a defined membership that everyone can trust is made of real humans. Any approach that gets us to this goal, with the minimum cost for members and the minimum barrier to entry is more than welcome.

You can donate it to an organization which claims to support your goals and then decides how to spend it without any vote whatsoever. I don't see how that is better. Or you can just donate to very very niche things and dilute your voice.

I think there's room in between for a organization that listens to members.

 
that would defeat the purpose, which is the exercise of unaccountable power by a few. There is no modicum of inclusion principles. They have expressed an explicitly exclusionary perspective that says that the views of three devs are the "moderate" mainstream and... shove it. I believe the dev kings hold court and the peasants can ask for favors, but don't ask for any process or consistency.

Quick update:

Have a reddit discussion going on here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1dbpqf/proposal_an_open_bitcoin_user_group_that_is_open/

Please upvote and comment so we can get lots of input and diverse perspectives!


I have setup a placeholder website here: bitcoinusergroup.org

No, the "webmaster" doesn't get to set policy. I just dumped some ideas in there, but they I don't have veto and we can change everything if that makes the user group more broad and effective.

Please keep sending suggestions - this will be everyone's organization, not mine.

The rules do not apply to them, only to "new" candidates. The new candidates get quoted out of context. But for the existing people context matters.

Don't try to find logic or reason - they use those to distract you from the decisions that have already been made, entirely based on personal bias. There is no consistency or even an attempt to be fair and consistent. They have no shame and will contradict themselves every other post.  I believe this was rule change #18 - Existing Press Center members can say outrageous things and be held to a different standard.

It's the classic answer of cowards - especially in this case since they are not even talking about code, but about SPEECH, the press center no less.

It's a perfectly valid answer if there is no possible way to discuss. Forks are the last resort, not the first. The guys are throwing out "go fork" as a way to end debate, rather than as a last resort after debate has died.

It is exactly like those who shout "If you don't like this law, LEAVE the country".

They are so allergic to opposing views and any discussion, they use "go fork" as a way to dismiss the peons.

I for one, was not aware that several of the developers had very low tolerance for different opinions, a very defensive reaction to any critical view and a childish need to make everyone else bend to their decisions. I was expecting a higher level of maturity, but I have been shocked to find a schoolyard atmosphere. The worst part is they portray themselves simultaneously as heroes of bitcoin and victims of terrible oppression by anyone who disagrees. It's quite pathetic really.

Now of course, I think on the topic of press representation at least, the debate is very much over. They will not tolerate any process that has the possibility of an outcome they don't agree with.

Now it is indeed time to fork the press center. I'm starting with the organizational structure and the source of authority - the community of bitcoin users. Users are the source of authority as bitcoin becomes mainstream. Not 3-4 coders of one of the implementation.

gmaxwell has previously posted several misattributed quotes and then failed to retract them or apologize. This somehow does not disqualify him from deciding who is a good press contact. Apparently journalistic practices are not his forte.

Treat any quotes he posts with extreme suspicion, especially if they are selective, short, out-of-context and attempting to slander - ie, his usual schtick.

He rationalizes his opinion as the only one that matters, somehow "neutral" opinion that we'd all accept if we weren't so dumb. Then he imposes it through his commit control and pretends to be the victim of... too much speech!

The only thing that mattered in this debate was the opinion of the 3-4 developers who did not want any process that actually resulted in anything but what they had already decided. They twisted, turned and rationalized, but in the end did exactly what they intended from the beginning: censorship of particular opinions by exclusion and decree.

All hail our new overlords. They're not just coders, they are press directors and OWN bitcoin. As they often say, if you don't like it... fork.

Let me clarify this last part because it is very important

1) The association will do bitcoin advocacy and media to promote bitcoin. Whether there are member services will have to be decided by members.

2) No one will earn a salary. Board members will be volunteers.

3) I will especially NOT earn anything from this. I will in fact donate at personal cost without any return other than membership as a plain (no other kind) member. I will not be on the board because I have stated that I will neither seek, nor accept nominations and will decline any position in the association. No salaries. If a person can't volunteer for free for this work of caretaker for the board, then they are not the right candidate anyway. This is not a personal enrichment machine.

The only thing I can imagine as a "benefit" would be to call myself the first member to join, which will be entirely symbolic and carry no power.

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.

I don't think funding is the problem. If it is well structured, then "thousands" is entirely possible. Anyway, I'm sure there will be donations separate from the members fees. I've never had trouble raising money. That is not a big problem for this community.

Accountability... now that's a problem. Getting people to spend on a worthy cause and a representative transparent organization? Not so much.

I'll donate the first $1000 the moment we hit 100 members, that's a pledge.

Just familiar with 501(c)(3) non-profit laws in the US.

I'd love to hear alternatives, especially if they offer better protections for non-profits, better privacy laws etc.

Perhaps New Zealand? Australia? Sweden? Germany?

I just checked and you are right. I miscalculated.

How is $1 per year (0.01 BTC)?

Reasonable?

Let's say $1 per member per year.  No lifetime membership - have to pay each year to keep current. Oh, obviously there are no corporate memberships. People only.

Please suggest alternative venues for incorporation.

Perhaps a country that is both neutral and has stronger non-profit and privacy laws?

Somewhere in Scandinavia? New Zealand? Australia?

I'm open to all suggestions - Please don't tell me what is wrong, I'm sure I got a lot wrong on my first draft!

 Tell me how to do it RIGHT in your opinion.

There's no reason for me to set the rules. That goes against the whole point of this.

Help me crowdsource the rules for a broad-based representative association that can promote the common interest (bitcoin) via the expression of the members through resolutions, discussions and voting.

Thank you!

Can someone suggest a trusted member of this community who can act as escrow for user membership fees until we reach a 100 launch size?

The policy would be to hold all the funds until we reach 100 members, then hand control to the board under control of the bylaws of a 501(c)(3) or to an independent trustee running a trust account.

If in 90 days we cannot get 100 members, all of the existing fees are returned to the same bitcoin address they originated (or a refund address offered at signup), minus tx fees.

I want the money to be separate and publicly accounted from the beginning and certainly not under my control.

Suggestions? I've seen some postings by a guy called John K(?) who does escrow, perhaps he might be trusted enough?

I'll fund any escrow and maintenance costs from my own pocket until it's up and running

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

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

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.