Matonis replaced with Bitcon Mag

[HELP.org]

..

[charleshoskinson]

I have contacted jon and asked him to be part of my course. If he agrees, Jon will have an opportunity to be one of the economic faces of the mainstream's introduction to bitcoin. Every subscriber makes the foundation less relevant.

We are less than a week in and over 300 people. My goal is 10,000 by the end of the Summer and 100,000 by the end of the year. Until the foundation mentions and endorses my course, I will not mention them.

Let's see who blinks first

[aantonop]

I'm doing a pull request now to add Jon now.

[charleshoskinson]

Aantonop, I'm glad you are here. I'm going to be doing a series on entrepreneurship in the bitcoin community. Would you mind doing a guest lecture?

[saddambitcoin]

I guess everyone got tired of looking at that ugly mug and decided to eat a bagel instead.

[aantonop]

Pull request to add Jon Matonis to Press Center added.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/161

If you have a github account, you may participate in the ensuing discussion

Apparently the only reason the press center is decided in such a small group is the lack of pull requests. That claim will now be put to test.

Let's see...

[charleshoskinson]

What about the changes to my Mother's Day Plans pull request?

But you can see where this is leading.  People who are left off are going to be mad and people on there are going to be watched.  I am trying to put together bitcoins.info as fast as I can where I will add everyone.  The bitcoin.org is going to get a lot of media review during the conference in a few weeks so I don't see why all these changes are being made now.  The developer in charge of the site said he wasn't going to make changes due to the controversy so I was surprised to see more changes so soon.

It's a good old fashion takeover. We'll win in the end.

[aantonop]

Aantonop, I'm glad you are here. I'm going to be doing a series on entrepreneurship in the bitcoin community. Would you mind doing a guest lecture?

With pleasure. Please send me a PM with more details.

Thanks,

Andreas

[aantonop]

It's a pretty transparent attempt to use the control over bitcoin.org and github expertise to completely shut out the entire community.

The attitude in the previous pull request and most of the discussions I've read has been entirely obnoxious, elitist and patronizing.

It's quite appalling to read grown men behaving like high-school bullies.

[Matthew N. Wright]

I have contacted jon and asked him to be part of my course. If he agrees, Jon will have an opportunity to be one of the economic faces of the mainstream's introduction to bitcoin.

Ego much? He already is, he doesn't need your site to accomplish that.

[aantonop]

The claim that nobody cares enough to make a pull request has been put to the test and show to be a lie.

Somehow, deciding on the representation of the community is dependent on knowing the full parameter and switch set for the git command and the pull-request mechanism of github.

As soon as someone overcomes that barrier, out come the slanderous accusations, cherry picked quotes and vague scenarios of doom. Matonis will destroy bitcoin if he's allowed to represent bitcoin.

I didn't much care about the issue. Until it became an issue of power, control and censorship.

See, there's a huge difference between using your power and control over the bitcoin.org domain to invite your buddies and favorite pundits, and using that control to exclude people because of your opinion.

Despite all the hand-waving and word games, it's a power grab, it's censorship, it's condescending and it makes me furious.

The conversation is exposing these excuses for the bullshit they are.

Whether you care about Matonis being on the press list or not, some of you might care about the fact that 2-3 people are arbitrarily making the decisions, based on personal animus and a purposefully convoluted opaque and capricious process that is being used as a cover for raw abuse of power. That's enough to pick a fight with me.

Join github.com use the free account and make your voice heard here:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/161

Based on previous experience on this topic, they will arbitrarily shutdown discussion in a few days at most. Do it now, or accept that bitcoin.org is the personal playground of a couple of people who don't care what the community thinks.

[charleshoskinson]

Ego much? He already is, he doesn't need your site to accomplish that.

Like it or not, Bitcoin has a barrier to entry like the internet of the 1980s. My goal is to bring the veterans of this community together in an attempt to build a path for anyone who has the desire to enter much more smoothly than we did. Jon is a voice in a small passionate community. The foundation and I both know that as this community expands those who are omitted from the conversation will fade in relevance until only the pioneers remember them not any of the rank and file. My point was that Jon has earned a place in the mindscape of bitcoin and if my course turns into what I think it has the potential to do, then he is guaranteed it if he participates.

The Foundation is misguided. They are closing doors to make Bitcoin into something PC and regulatable. My goal is to just open a door for anyone who wants to come in and let them make their own decisions. That's the freedom, we deserve.

The claim that nobody cares enough to make a pull request has been put to the test and show to be a lie.

Somehow, deciding on the representation of the community is dependent on knowing the full parameter and switch set for the git command and the pull-request mechanism of github.

As soon as someone overcomes that barrier, out come the slanderous accusations, cherry picked quotes and vague scenarios of doom. Matonis will destroy bitcoin if he's allowed to represent bitcoin.

I didn't much care about the issue. Until it became an issue of power, control and censorship.

See, there's a huge difference between using your power and control over the bitcoin.org domain to invite your buddies and favorite pundits, and using that control to exclude people because of your opinion.

Despite all the hand-waving and word games, it's a power grab, it's censorship, it's condescending and it makes me furious.

The conversation is exposing these excuses for the bullshit they are.

Whether you care about Matonis being on the press list or not, some of you might care about the fact that 2-3 people are arbitrarily making the decisions, based on personal animus and a purposefully convoluted opaque and capricious process that is being used as a cover for raw abuse of power. That's enough to pick a fight with me.

Join github.com use the free account and make your voice heard here:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/161

Based on previous experience on this topic, they will arbitrarily shutdown discussion in a few days at most. Do it now, or accept that bitcoin.org is the personal playground of a couple of people who don't care what the community thinks.

Aantonop is absolutely right. No one has the right to control bitcoin. We have allowed governments to usurp the internet, banks, money, speech and even life and death. We cannot let some group of people believe they can form a foundation and then suddenly control who represents "mainstream" bitcoin. It's offensive and the anathema to everything this community stands for. We should focus on making it easier for people to enter the world. To become entrepreneurs within it. To conduct commerce. And to participate in spreading the experiment to everyone. Not saying "this guy is way too extreme; let's ditch him".

[Matthew N. Wright]

My goal is to just open a door for anyone who wants to come in and let them make their own decisions. That's the freedom, we deserve.

I know a guy named dank who would love to join your group and take a leading role in the promotional work. He is very...creative. Will you let him do whatever he wants to prove you're different? 

[aantonop]

Not saying "this guy is way too extreme; let's ditch him".

Even that accusation is so flimsy as to be laughable. As "evidence" I got a dump of four quotes, one from Google+ (!), one from twitter, one from an article. Given the context, it basically amounts to "I disagree with Matonis".

Adding to the list capriciously is annoying, but whatever. Make no mistake: Keeping valid candidates off the list is censorship and it is odious.

I demanded "extraordinary evidence" for the extraordinary step of denying the pull request to add others (which has happened before).

This is not code, it will not break the build, it does not impose a single spokesperson. I'm not requesting that *only* Matonis is on the list. The burden to refuse such a request should be high. Instead it has been the opposite - capricious.

They are exercising an extremely powerful authority, by not pressing "Merge" and being able to simply cancel a pull request.

Ask yourself: What is the basis for that authority?

[charleshoskinson]

I know a guy named dank who would love to join your group and take a leading role in the promotional work. He is very...creative. Will you let him do whatever he wants to prove you're different?

The goal of my course is to provide accurate, comprehensive and often updated material to allow a curious person who has little knowledge of bitcoin to effectively understand how our money works, why it has value, the technology the risks and entrepreneurial opportunities and finally the economics of a deflationary currency. Always free and crowdsourced with a preference for members who have been in the community long enough to fully understand at least one topic area.

Think of this like lifting the veil and thus allowing someone to just walk into the community. If you feel your friend can contribute in a positive way to this project, then tell him to send me a PM.

[Matthew N. Wright]

Ask yourself: What is the basis for that authority?

The same as the government-- people with money promoting it, people without money not caring enough to speak up?

[Matthew N. Wright]

If you feel your friend can contribute in a positive way to this project, then tell him to send me a PM.

No offense, but why would you need him to PM you, why can't you just agree to let him lead right now?

Is it because you want to vet the people involved to ensure that the quality is of the utmost and want to limit exposure of people who would otherwise make the project look bad? (A very sane argument)

[aantonop]

My goal is to just open a door for anyone who wants to come in and let them make their own decisions. That's the freedom, we deserve.

I know a guy named dank who would love to join your group and take a leading role in the promotional work. He is very...creative. Will you let him do whatever he wants to prove you're different? 

By making that equivalence, you only show yourself to be biased.

No one said free for all. The made it plenty hard to apply, and once I put in the pull request they started showing their bias and how fake the "open process" was.

[aantonop]

people without money not caring enough to speak up?

Yeah, they said no one cared enough to do a pull request. When I did one they moved the goal posts.

You're one specious argument behind, catch-up will you?

[charleshoskinson]

No offense, but why would you need him to PM you, why can't you just agree to let him lead right now?

Because he has to make a commitment to serve. I see what you're trying to convey, but this isn't the same. I have outlined a very clear set of goals and a purpose that I think this community can embrace. If he wishes to help, then I will not say no. Out of respect for those who have already committed to serve, he must be proactive enough to contact me. There is plenty of work to go around and we could use him.