There is nothing bad about having different views, different opinions and even having a lot of friction. The thing i don’t agree is how different proposals are differently traited. Unpopolar for the ECC below 20% reward proposals don’t get a a tweet by ECC and as it seems a lot of employess of the ECC and for some strange reason even from the Foundation.
Maybe we have different visions on what a fair discussion, fair election/voting means or should mean. Hence why i wrote this is getting a farce. IF only favoured by the ECC/Foundations/its employees/it’s stake holders proposals get “advertised” and made available to the wide public than i consider this an absolutly unfair process.
I quoted the text autotunafish has linked as he referred to this.
Ok, that post from May 29th makes his statement clear:
Fine, still leaves the question why nobody from the foundation commented this for 20 days to find a possible solution for this?
We can change this proposal to make the foundation 75% receiver and the ECC 25% and it would fit into point a.) he made.
Now i’am more than curious what happened with point c.). From what i can see the proposal the foundation favours doesn’t have such opt-in mechanism while this proposal here has one. Seems point c.) doesn’t matter much…
I appreciate your efford shawn, but something is not right …