Would Satoshi Want Community Votes for Major Forum Rule Changes?

[civilwar]

Would Satoshi be in favor of community votes on major forum rule changes?

To the Bitcointalk members,

There is no more central free forum for Bitcoin than this one. But you have to admit there is something odd about our governance. Our Moderators and Admins are put in their positions by designation, with little input from the membership to speak of. It is a top down affair in most cases particularly for the global or Admin level despite the fact you might see a poll here and there on other boards. Makes you wonder if it is in keeping with the decentralized ethos we are supposed to stand for. If we are to have votes for certain roles but then install people without listening to the community what is the point of it? A little say in matters makes people feel they are valued.

I would like to put forward a simple proposal to set things right:

- When a vacancy comes up we make an announcement in Meta.
- The qualified ones apply.
- We put a poll to the community for their views.
- And the final decision is made with that in mind.

Nothing more than an extension of the local polls we have already, it adds a measure of transparency while ownership remains where it should be.

So I will ask you: is the current setup fair? Would you support some expansion of the polls? You need only look at the moderation threads of late to know there is an appetite for openness. Tackling these issues will do much to build trust in the process and motivate folks to give back to the community. Let us have a constructive talk about it.

[Vod]

I would like to put forward a simple proposal to set things right:

- When a vacancy comes up we make an announcement in Meta.
- The qualified ones apply.
- We put a poll to the community for their views.
- And the final decision is made with that in mind.

The community cannot be aware of many scams because we don't have access to the information the admin does, like IP address or cookies. 

[LoyceV]

Satoshi you asked? This comes to mind:

The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision
making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone
able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote.

Who's going to be allowed to vote? Who decides who can vote? I'm okay with theymos as our benevolent dictator.

[nutildah]

Who's going to be allowed to vote?

Shh... You're ruining the magnificence of the thread. The answer is obviously AI sockpuppets get votes too.

Who decides who can vote? I'm okay with theymos as our benevolent dictator.

I say the same thing once every few years, and its still true. Things could have gone much worse for the forum in any number of ways. Our man has been a relatively good and neutral steward. To me, the most important part of the job is protecting Satoshi's posts like the Brothers of the Cross protect secrets of the Holy Grail in a Venetian library. Everything else is secondary.

[Majestic-milf]

 

- When a vacancy comes up we make an announcement in Meta.
- The qualified ones apply.
- We put a poll to the community for their views.
- And the final decision is made with that in mind

Obviously if there's a space for people to vote, virtually everyone is qualified except you're saying it has to be based on certain ranks to fill the roles. If it will be done that way, it means there will be ranks that won't get the opportunity so doesn't that make those who aren't qualified due to rank feel cheated?
 So I'm curious how this will work? How will newbies who don't know most of the users here be able to vote properly? Except you'd be indirectly suggesting that those who claim to be newbies aren't really who they say they are.