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

[aantonop]

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.

[Inedible]

What should we do moving forward?

My vote for this question too.

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

[simonk83]

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.

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

[marcus_of_augustus]

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.

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.

[cypherdoc]

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.

which 2 devs?

[legendster]

PICK ME PICK ME PICK ME

[aantonop]

What should we do moving forward?

My vote for this question too.

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

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.

[aantonop]

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.

which 2 devs?

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.

[franky1]

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

[aantonop]

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".

[cypherdoc]

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.

which 2 devs?

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.

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

[aantonop]

github uses a simple markdown format

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

[aantonop]

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)

[franky1]

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".

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?

[aantonop]

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.

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.

[paraipan]

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)

Welcome to the club!  

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

[aantonop]

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.

[franky1]

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.

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.

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

[aantonop]

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...

[aantonop]

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.