A small group of developers are deciding who is a bitcoin Press representative

[aantonop]

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.

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.

[Gabi]

This "foundation" thing get more suspect day after day 

[aantonop]

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?

[acoindr]

This "foundation" thing get more suspect day after day  

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.

[aantonop]

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.

[acoindr]

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.

[Gabi]

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?

[acoindr]

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.

[FreddyFender]

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!

[Wilikon]

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!

[Arto]

Thanks to Andreas 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, Sirius (who actually owns the domain), and Gavin. 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, who has delegated management authority to Gavin, who in turn has recently delegated maintenance authority to the current webmaster.

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.

[acoindr]

Thanks to Andreas for bringing more attention to the 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 ignoring the clear wishes of the community (as demonstrated over here as well as on GitHub) and 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, Sirius (who actually owns the domain), and Gavin. 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, who has delegated management authority to Gavin, who in turn has recently delegated maintenance authority to the current webmaster.

Unfortunately, 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 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.

[simonk83]

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.

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 )

[cypherdoc]

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.

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.

[Arto]

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?

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) 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.

Anybody that understands anything about Bitcoin should understand nobody can stop it, not governments, not press, nobody.

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.

[cypherdoc]

you[/i] 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. 

[marcus_of_augustus]

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.

[acoindr]

Evidently, a lot of people do care. Evidently, you care enough to comment on why people should not care.

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.).

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.

I certainly will.

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.

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.

[cypherdoc]

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

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...

[repentance]

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.