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

[aantonop]

bitcoin.org is a community site with enormous reach and influence. It now has a Bitcoin Press Center page.

Several prominent bitcoin press contacts have been purposefully excluded from this list.

How is the process decided? Well, in order to nominate someone, you have to use the source-control software git and know how to do a pull request on github. That certainly made it difficult for the vast majority of the community to express an opinion. Kinda like a git-literacy test at the voting booth. Cute eh?

To top the exclusionary process, unlike any of the previous candidates already on the page, a new nominee has to pass some bizarre litmus test and be a "moderate voice". Who decides what's moderate? Why the two or three developers who have commit-access of course!

If this doesn't already strike you as arbitrary and capricious, wait till you hear more. Each time someone has objected to the process, they get called "offtopic" and the goal posts are moved. The people smearing some of the candidates said that there wasn't enough interest from the community. Funny how that literacy test works to suppress participation. Then, when others added "pull requests", they were flooded with misquoted articles and vague and slanderous accusations against the candidates. Then the pull requests are unceremoniously closed, shutting down debate and leaving the status quo - essentially enforcing the exclusion and censorship of view points.

It's a raw power grab and it should concern the entire community.

As a last attempt, I added a "pull request" asking that the page be expanded to add *several* people, thus diluting the influence of any one and broadening the roster. That one is still up for discussion.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162

You can signup for github here, for free: https://github.com/users

Then just go to this page https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162

and if you like the proposal add the word "ACK" as a comment. Stick around to debate for more inclusion and openness if you like.

They say the community doesn't care and they want to make this decision in an obscure forum, excluding press representatives with a long history of contributions and without any accountability. Feel free to show them that's not how we do things in an open community.

[farlack]

Doesn't the bitcoinfoundation own the .org?

I guess its the same people making millions of bucks to be a face to do nothing at all.

[aantonop]

Doesn't the bitcoinfoundation own the .org?

I guess its the same people making millions of bucks to be a face to do nothing at all.

Technically yes, but in this case it is the people who have commit-access on the repository for the website who are deciding.

Because nothing gives you more press relations experience, than knowing all the parameters of the GIT command!

Just to add insult to injury, the very first post by one of the devs in response to my pull request was a series of quotes from the candidate I nominated (Jon Matonis) attempting to paint him as some kind of extremist (you know, the kind of extremist Forbes features weekly). The quotes themselves were not of Matonis, but of Matonis quoting someone else. Basically the person who posted this failed to do the most basic quote check and fact check. How's that for credentials for the person deciding who should do press relations: unchecked, sloppy quoted, defamatory posts.

There are a couple of people on that list who not only have the idea that they can judge who is a "moderate" and who is not, but that based on that judgment they can decide who to KEEP OFF the press list.

I submit that the burden to include someone with more than a hundred articles and press references should be low, while the burden to EXCLUDE someone like that should be high. Instead, it is the opposite. They are quite happy to maintain the status quo, because that keeps the list to their liking.

Furthermore, we are one month from bitcoin conference 2013, an event that will generate hundreds of press requests. I already have 6 interviews scheduled for myself, and that's just because I am a speaker at the conference. There is not question that the exclusionary policy on the Press Center is already having an effect.

Welcome your new overlords. They can code and commit, so now they are in charge of press relations.

What do I know anyway, I just spent almost a decade as an analyst working the press and taking press requests every single day.

The entire situation is so absurd it is comical.

[Wilikon]

Maybe we should just do like the folks at K street: get money from a lobby group then demonize bitcoin.org, isolate them, and make them become a target so the people not happy about bitcoin.org can build a campaign to promote their own bitcoin2..org.

The best place representing bitcoin is this forum and all the people included, even those I truly find offensive when they target whole ethnic groups.

[aantonop]

Maybe we should just do like the folks at K street: get money from a lobby group then demonize bitcoin.org, isolate them, and make them become a target so the people not happy about bitcoin.org can build a campaign to promote their own bitcoin2..org.

The best place representing bitcoin is this forum and all the people included, even those I truly find offensive when they target whole ethnic groups.

They even tried to use the red herring argument: If you don't like it FORK. Which just goes to show why developer geeks don't understand media and shouldn't be deciding questions about media relations.

You don't just pretend that bitcoin.org is not a center of power, because of the domain name, the existing traffic and the search ranking. It is naive to say "go fork your own" and insulting the intelligence of the community to call that an open process.

Please, don't just shrug and let them get away with it. Sign up on github and just add your voice. It takes 2 minutes to post an "ACK" on the proposal and prove that the community does care and is not willing to let 2 people decide who represents us.
Sign up on github, go here:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162

Post a comment supporting the expansion of the Press Center - just an ACK will do, but a cogent argument in support of the candidate Jon Matonis, or a proposal for another good candidate not listed - even better.

[acoindr]

Title is inaccurate.

A small group of developers are putting forth Bitcoin press representatives.

Nobody owns Bitcoin. If the OP, or any other group, wants to put forth "press representatives" for something nobody exclusively controls they are free to do that. Bitcoin operates on a free market.

[aantonop]

Title is inaccurate.

A small group of developers are putting forth Bitcoin press representatives.

Nobody owns Bitcoin. If the OP or another group wants to put forth "press representatives" for something nobody exclusively controls they are free to do that. Bitcoin operates on a free market.

Nobody owns bitcoin, but 2 or 3 people control bitcoin.org and who is on the Press Center.

The Press Center is on bitcoin.org. They chose to add it and make github the way to "nominate" people. I followed the process and discovered the process was a charade.

Sure, give me commit access to bitcoin.org and I will agree no one controls.

Don't pretend that bitcoin.org doesn't matter, won't affect press relations or that anyone can go fork it. This is a major high-profile entry point for most journalists and pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

[Akka]

You are aware this started here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=156364.0;topicseen

Everyone could join it.

But it would have been work to help build it, right?

Better do nothing and complain later.

[franky1]

wouldn't it be good if each person that wants to be a spokes person, makes a short youtube video talking about.

1. how bitcoin works

2. how people can use bitcoin today

3. how people will use bitcoin each day in the future

4. opportunities, for business, customers, investors, individuals within bitcoin

and then post the link here so that people can see it does not have to just be the bitcoin elite being spokesmen but sometimes the best person with a level head might just an average joe guy within the community.

those videos could either be used as introducer to themselves for media to pick who they want to interview, or for the whole community to pick a selection from.

[aantonop]

You are aware this started here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=156364.0;topicseen

Everyone could join it.

But it would have been work to help build it, right?

Better do nothing and complain later.

I am joining it, I am not doing nothing. I did the pull request and made the addition to the code.

Really? You're going to control who gets added to the Press Center based on whether I was in the original discussion?

That's exactly the problem. There is purportedly a process, yet when I try to follow it, it immediately reveals itself to be a charade and a way to distract and dismiss requests.

[aantonop]

wouldn't it be good if each person that wants to be a spokes person, makes a short youtube video talking about.

1. how bitcoin works

2. how people can use bitcoin today

3. how people will use bitcoin each day in the future

4. opportunities, for business, customers, investors, individuals within bitcoin

and then post the link here so that people can see it does not have to just be the bitcoin elite being spokesmen but sometimes the best person with a level head might just an average joe guy within the community.

those videos could either be used as introducer to themselves for media to pick who they want to interview, or for the whole community to pick a selection from.

None of the previous candidates had to submit to such a test.

That's the whole point. The rules keep changing and are being applied selectively to new candidates who were VERY conspicuously excluded.

It's a naked and transparent attempt to exclude some individuals and they're making up rules to fit the decision. The exact opposite of an open process. Matonis is just the catalyst that shows the complete absurdity of the claim that this is an open and fair process.

[acoindr]

Title is inaccurate.

A small group of developers are putting forth Bitcoin press representatives.

Nobody owns Bitcoin. If the OP or another group wants to put forth "press representatives" for something nobody exclusively controls they are free to do that. Bitcoin operates on a free market.

Nobody owns bitcoin, but 2 or 3 people control bitcoin.org and who is on the Press Center.

Bitcoin.org is not Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a protocol.

Your logic would seem to suggest anyone owning http.org unfairly controls the Internet.

...
Don't pretend that bitcoin.org doesn't matter, won't affect press relations or that anyone can go fork it. This is a major high-profile entry point for most journalists and pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

Like I said above, controlling the domain of letters associated with a protocol doesn't provide exclusive control over something nobody controls. Bitcoin works on a free market. Did you ever stop to think that maybe the free market has placed control over an influential aspect of the protocol with those quite qualified to have it? That's what I think happened, and if the market made a mistake in that it would be corrected by forces in discord over the mistake.

I'm not saying you don't have the right to protest. I've protested things here myself. If your protest has legs it will take off. I'm simply trying to clarify what's happening.

[cypherdoc]

i made this recommendation in the other thread.

get theymos to allow you to set up a Press Center here and let ppl volunteer to sign up.  then github will just fade away as this is the most frequented place for newbies to come.

[franky1]

i think instead of just choosing a name out of a hat

EVERYONE and anyone should be allowed to submit their name to the list. but make a video blog explaining bitcoin, and its opportunities, etc to prove themselves. which is also shown on the page.

then over time their names can be voided off the media page if they are absolute loonies

where as hand picking names before a majority of people have even seen them in action does limit the variety of candidates.

i say give the power to the community by letting the community participate

[aantonop]

Journalists will look up bitcoin and they will find BITCOIN.ORG.

Don't make disingenuous arguments that it doesn't matter that a well established page, that like it or not becomes the first page new people see, is being controlled without any regard for the community, by people ostensibly nominated by the "foundation".

[aantonop]

i say give the power to the community by letting the community participate

The power is yours, if you believe the process is not a sham -

You can signup for github here, for free: https://github.com/users

Then just go to this page https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162

and if you like the proposal add the word "ACK" as a comment. Stick around to debate for more inclusion and openness if you like.

[aantonop]

i made this recommendation in the other thread.

get theymos to allow you to set up a Press Center here and let ppl volunteer to sign up.  then github will just fade away as this is the most frequented place for newbies to come.

I'm also setting up a counter weight, but that doesn't address the issue of the power grab over a domain owned by the bitcoin foundation and now being used to exclude a board member of the bitcoin foundation, in complete disregard of the vociferous support of the community. It's absurd, it's exclusionary, it's censorship.

[franky1]

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.

[theymos]

Bitcoin.org is in no way owned by the Bitcoin Foundation.

[acoindr]

Journalists will look up bitcoin and they will find BITCOIN.ORG.

Don't make disingenuous arguments that it doesn't matter that a well established page, that like it or not becomes the first page new people see, is being controlled without any regard for the community, by people ostensibly nominated by the "foundation".

Yes, I agree with your sentiment. I'm not trying to deny the group you're referring to has influence. What I'm trying to say is there is a reason that group has that influence. It didn't happen by accident.

If the free chain of events that led to this outcome has culminated in error that error will be corrected, for example, by people who feel discord like yourself, investigative journalists, bloggers, and whatever other elements there are making up the free market.