This doesn’t adress the possible issue i mentioned.
Example: Only 50 members of the 72 (if i remember right) from the last Community Panel are going to invite someone, this would leave 22 invites open to be used for double invites or whatever. The sum at the end would have not changed.
What’s actually the problem to list the invites? I mean at the end the name and social account for the inviter and invited are visible anyway. What’s the problem just to connect both so it’s transparent and visible to everybody that everything is as it should be?
Actually it’s more that everything is right from the beginning and later nobody can say there have been possibilites for double invites, rigging, whatever, you know what i mean. Often it’s a good thing not to leave any door open for such speculation and being fully transparent is, at least in my opinion, the best way to go, even more if it shouldn’t be an issue anyway.
Strange enough my post got edited that nobody can join (invite only) and at the same time zooko is making posts asking people to apply for a “seat” in the advisory panel not mentioning it’s invite only…
My English isn’t the best and my impression is the the first part is for new members to sign up and the 2nd part for excisting members to sign up again. But i could be wrong, doesn’t matter too much.
The question is still the same, why not disclose who invites whom after anyway the names and social platform links are posted anway?
The answer is still the same — if others chime in to say they share your concern, I’ll ping Josh and see if we can do something He’s already overloaded with work, so I only want to ping him if it’s 1) critical or 2) a broadly shared community concern.
With love and respect for @zooko, he just doesn’t know how the Community Advisory Panel works. He’s doing his best to alert people.
Just to help you making it easier. All it needs is a file with 2 colums at all. First colum the old member/inviter and in the second colume in the same line the invited one. This way it doesn’t even need much texting, any additional work, any anything more…
I did not tell panelists their connection to the invitees would be public, and we’d be changing that expectation which could result in a (measurable) loss of privacy for them — say if they asked to invite someone who may be considered controversial. I don’t like suddenly changing privacy expectations on folks; as a panelist I would view it as a violation of trust if the Foundation did something like this without my permission.
As @Shawn and @sonya have noted, the final composition of the panel will still be public and you can definitely audit the composition in aggregate.
Ultimately last year’s panel process required trusting in the Foundation too; last year you had to trust our rejections were honest and invites were sent to all participants. This year you’re trusting us again to collect invites and represent them fairly. If you think it’s an unreasonable amount of trust, you can always choose to disregard the results of the panel.
That would be perfectly fine if there wasn’t a 1-invite limitation.
If i remember correctly last years community panel was free for everybody to join and this years it isn’t. I wouldn’t make such request if this years one was free for everybody again.
Another difference to last years panel is that there was nothing financial to vote about.
You can of course, as you do, organize every voting like you desire and pleasure, including a miner signaling without miners. I’am just making suggestions for transparency and fairness including that at a miner signaling the miners should submit a vote and not mining pools.
I would like to publicly state, that I have been invited on to the panel. Mainly for my services on the forum and helping with the zip stuff. I have accepted this invite.
I am not willing to name the person who nominated me, not their full list of reasons/motivation. If they would like to identify themselves and/or provide that info I have no issue with that at all.
I will still be backing proposals and championing/writing up proposals for people. I may not vote for it, but I will certainly make sure it gets a fair hearing (to the best of my ability). - This in no way at all compromises my impartiality on things I disagree with. (I think I have made this point pretty clear throughout all of my proposal related posts.)
I will also recuse myself from all other forms of voting. - I will only express my vote via the community panel.
Just putting this out there, but I have not received an invitation to the community advisory panel. It would be great for Blocktown to be able to participate in this monumental event for Zcash if anyone has an extra invitation…I know the deadline is coming up real fast (today?).
I used my +1 to invite Phusion Phil, a miner/organizer I reached out to talk to around the time I worked on the miner directed dev fund proposal. https://twitter.com/ZoryaSl/status/1167300609277452288 (including miners is important!)
I had also wanted to invite _bmlis, an independent developer who worked on sapling viewkey integration (including external developers is important!) but I didn’t hear back in time.
If you want to be invited, posting in here is a good idea, I imagine there are many original panel members who haven’t chosen who to spend their invite yet.
edit: (also, it’s clearly a bit late in the process, but i’m hoping to set the example here of transparency as much as possible on the invite system!)
He’s already overloaded with work, so I only want to ping him if it’s 1) critical or 2) a broadly shared community concern.