I am impressed. Elizabeth apparently makes a great politician and communications manager. Her skills at using many words to say little, and answering questions with very long "feel-good" speeches that lack substance and never actually address the question, is very impressive. In fact, her words are such an inspiration, that I am now quite motivated to work pro-bono as an "individual" liaison, to represent the community to the foundation and vise versa (a position I am convinced will still be wide open after the election is over), even if I should I loose. Elizabeth would likely make an excellent lobbyist though, representing "the individual" to politicians.
The board member will be spending 99% of his/her time on non-controversial outreach, political efforts, etc. For this, I believe that Elizabeth is the best candidate due to her experience with politics and communication. In the unlikely event that she would have to decide on something important, her statements convince me that she is one of the most likely candidates to decide correctly. Some
of her articles/speeches are low in substance (true of almost all politicians), but she has also made detailed and explicit statements about her platform:
At points, standardizing Bitcoin may appear as an attractive option to some, but we must be leary of any centralized control of Bitcoin and the Bitcoin QT open source project.
In the end of the day, an individual knows best, and government does not know best.
Across the board, less regulation is better.
Should I be elected to serve in this open seat, I would honor Martti Malmi’s current ownership of Bitcoin.org as a standalone organization.
Ideally, I would like the Bitcoin Foundation to do a better job of pointing people to these key educational sources whether bitcoin.org, news sites, success stories of Bitcoin related businesses, bitcointalk.org, and other forums where the purpose and goals of the Bitcoin community are exemplified.
Satoshi stated, “What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party.” One of the ideological tenets I hold to is limited government and a general principle that government and centralized sources of control do NOT know what is best for the majority of individuals. Individual responsibility and interaction in the financial sector leads to greater economic growth.
I do commit to respect the 21 million limit and will not support any attempt to increase it. Anything with a limit other than 21 million isn't Bitcoin, it's an altcoin.
... any attempts to diminish the fungibility or open source nature of Bitcoin will be met by a firm "no thanks" from me, both as a individual member of the Bitcoin community, and as a member of the Bitcoin Foundation Board of Directors. Fortunately, the current decentralized, open source characteristics of Bitcoin safeguard against any such attempts, but that does not relieve us from opposing any efforts to the contrary.
Barring unforeseen/distant circumstances such as quantum computing breakthroughs that render SHA256 an ineffective tool for performing its role in securing the network, it must remain.
This is really just a boring political job more than anything, without much potential for abuse or excellence. (If it was an important position, I would have nominated myself...) The way the Foundation is set up, a single board member is unable to do much. A single board member has essentially no chance of convincing the Foundation to, e.g., issue harmful Bitcoin network edicts. The worst thing that a single board member is likely to do is say something very damaging to Bitcoin's reputation ("Everyone should use Bitcoin for tax evasion and money laundering!"), especially since it's difficult for the board to remove a board member. It's unlikely that Elizabeth will make this mistake, and she'll be able to use the position to effectively lead lobbying efforts, reach out to non-Bitcoiners, etc.