Charlie: I have no doubt that you're a good guy and you mean well.
My top 3 concerns/solutions:
- Lack of board representation for the privacy-focused sociopolitical viewpoint. Currently, business interests far outweigh privacy interests on the Foundation's board. Matonis is outnumbered. The addition of a nonprofit political Bitcoin advocate like Falkvinge or Björnsdóttir would address this.
- Lack of board representation for international viewpoints. Currently the whole thing seems very USA-centric. Same solution as above.
- Danger in a financial dependency relationship between dev group and foundation. A direct compensation arrangement leaves the dev group susceptible to future pressure and influence through the foundation. It would be much better if the foundation created an independent salary/donation mechanism where the community was allowed to donate to the development budget first, and the foundation donated on top of that only in case of a shortfall. Basically make the payment process as decentralized and autonomous as possible.
Anything you can do to address these would be appreciated. Thank you for listening.
+1
Peter Vessenes, the one holding the founders seat, also has a bitcoin company. futhermore, all three cooperate board members are pretty much in the same business. and as long as no other big contributors show up, mark basically pays gavin's salary.
i don't agree with the haters spamming the original thread, this won't be the end of bitcoin or anything.
but right now, the foundation feels much like a benevolent oligarchy. it's almost impossible to exert any influence from outside the board, which will stay the same for the next 20 months and doesn't represent anyone but themselves. it might very well be that gavin is right and you guys will get a lot done that way and it will be good for bitcoin. but i see very little incentive for anyone else to participate in something they can't control in any way.
those who trust in gavin will continue to do so and can now support him in a more organized way. those who don't won't be convinced by this very undemocratic construct.