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.

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...

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.

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.

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)

Format and uploads
=============

I am not a designer nor do I know much about printing so I need to ask others to review the submitted files and let us know what if anything needs to be modified so that everything is consistent and re-usable in an open source manner

1) Go to https://github.com/openpaperwallet/openpaperwallet and click "ZIP" to download the entire (LARGE) zip file.

2) Check each of the supplied SVG and PSD files from each of the designers

3) Let me know if we're missing something

I have noticed some are RGB, some CYMK, some SVG, some PSD. I assume the best (for print) is CYMK in open SVG format.

All the designs need to have the original layers so they can be modified.

Please help me verify, so that if changes are needed we can ask designers to make them.

Thanks!

github uses a simple markdown format

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

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Timbo payment confirmation: https://blockchain.info/tx/f7d2aad8e5b00f6bcaa4c88c7199932827032ba4ba19c85dd4d815822cbbc5cf


Design(s) uploaded to repository

Thanks!

Payment transactions for public verification:

75RTUGA - http://blockchain.info/tx/76eeea1f6506612d4145346f1432bfec59262b9b742917058b660bafeadc54b3
Mr.No - http://blockchain.info/tx/7ac330062fdff8c85ace98df4ef83332c89a425ae787b9a4f63ae964ca2332f4

I have received fully licensed designs and SVG files from 75RTUGA and Dr.No, they have been uploaded to the repository:

Payments to them will be made today, I will post the confirmation transaction links here for public review, shortly.

https://github.com/openpaperwallet/openpaperwallet


THANKS!

Still waiting for the rest...

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 and please add proposals for Word-Press suitable candidates.

Thanks

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.

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.

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.