Thanks to LetsTalkBitcoin for hosting the debate on very short notice and I am pleased to have had the Bitcoin Foundation sponsor it.
Thanks also to the five candidates that made the time over Saturday to participate.
It is also a testament to this Bitcoin Foundation to attract such a group of quality candidates.
The debate questions were friendly, more so than I'd hoped, very civil and open ended, but not particularly challenging (except when the interviewer was not understanding an answer and pressed for more). Board member is a leadership position so it would be nice to have had a few more hardball questions dealing with the necessary core competencies for the role such as how they would form and mobilize strategies to handle particular governmental oppositions that are occurring today around the world, and some which may yet come.
Rather than (just) be a complainer, I'll offer examples:
Not all regions see competitive business advantage as a sufficient incentive to permit transaction freedom. Some may not be convinced by the merits of Bitcoin even with a complete understanding of it and the technology. If some near-totalitarian state were to decree Bitcoin outlawed, and assign capital punishment to users transacting in its jurisdiction unless using a government sanctioned escrow for the private keys of all its citizens, (which law, were it to exist, might even be enforceable to some degree).
Faced with such, how would you as a Bitcoin Foundation board member address this?
Citizens there may not be able to send TBF member fees nor get any representation in TBF without foreign help, would you advocate such help through the Foundation and how?
I'm insufficiently vain to imagine that any of the Board hopefuls will read this or answer it, but had to put it out there for the rest of us to contemplate because I am old enough to remember when "munitions grade" PGP was illegal to export from the USA.
That's a really good way to look at it. I've read many negative comments about candidates reading from a prompter, not having a clue about Bitcoin, being a super Bitcoin user, superior knowledge about the subject or having the most passion about the subject. The truth is none of these matter for a group representative that will liaison between government and TBF. Experience with the target government matters the most.
I don't believe anyone could immerse themselves in Bitcoin for a reasonable period of time and not end up understanding it. If I thought that were true then I would have to believe Bitcoin is doomed to failure because the common man will never understand it well enough to use it effectively. I would prefer that any liaison office not be held by a developer or super user. I have nothing against developers but feel their superior knowledge would keep them from understanding how to explain Bitcoin to the uninitiated. Superior knowledge does not equal the ability to teach. I took many classes in college where I learned more from the student teacher than from the class professor because I had an easier time understanding the way they were explaining the subject.
The dairy coalition lobbyists don't have to be dairy farmers to lobby Washington. In fact, it's almost impossible for any good lobbyist to be a working member of the group they are employed by because they need an education and experience in government to know how to work the system, who to communicate with and how to best present ideas to a bureaucrat. I still only see one candidate that fits that bill.
Manager of Communications at Bitcoin Magazine
Past
Scheduler at Congressman Peter J. Roskam
Israel Relations at US House of Representatives
Staff Assistant at US Congress
Education
Wheaton College
you seem to understand her way better than most ppl around here. certainly me.
perhaps you can then explain the meaning of her closing statement: "The clock is ticking and we do not have much time until Bitcoin is compromised" ?