oh man

splenectomies hurt

recommend against for recreation

[crosses off his weekend plans list]

wisdom

Monero Defcon28 Village playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsSYUeVwrHBn43BwoeplKKdJDFJFGH-9_

missing the Dr. Daniel Kim talks (will be re-recorded)

surae!

wb

It's very disappointing to see how the criticisms rised on reddit are being ignored/ridiculed in this chat. You are fracturing the community and you seem to not care that much, because you feel you are right. Do you realize you are just telling to each other that everybody who is complaining is wrong? That's a circlejerk my friends.

Reading stuff like "that's the vocal majority" scares me. You are delegitimizing concerns because you feel they are not valid. same as "they are all anarchists". These dismissals are very concerning to me, you cannot debate with that.

The only thing missing at this point is writing "fake news!" all in caps. I'm in disbelieve.

ErCiccione[m], you appear so often with a username like "Guest99408" here, if there is something like that, almost for sure that must be you :)

Yaeh that's matrix freaking out with an identity linked to freenode. It's super annoying. I opened an issue about it, but the dev taking care of the bridge have no idea of why it's happening (it's my assumption)

Calling a workgroup "monero community" while ignoring / ridiculing feedback from community members is kinda ironic.

ErCiccione[m]: it's pretty obvious they are continuing on regardless of the concerns raised. i think that is clear for everybody to see

that's their prerogative, unfortunately. it will be interesting to see how it pans out in the short to medium term. i mean, it's not like the community is a hotbed of activity, even if they claim it as such. i wonder if there will be even less activity now, given the direction it has moved

how feedback has been handled certainly makes me feel uninvited in this workgroup

^

I'm considering how to personally react to that. Disagreement can be discussed, but these answers really don't make me feel like i want to contribute to this workgroup anymore

yeah, the sad thing is, is that it's the most comprehensive vehicle for channeling efforts into Monero

though, we could start going through #monero-tranmissions

or ask for another channel here

*another channel on IRC that is

i am not sure what you have to do to get opped on a channel, or a channel created

The LLC thing could have been handled so much more drama free, just use a non controversial name and keep it more in the background. Don’t do "us 3 board members" vs "them".

selsta: exactly

even the "we need to delegate" part

instead, of "hey all, we need some help"

oits not like there isn't a host of companies/entities/individuals that would happily own asstes/pay bills

i mean, i know i have one, am sure others do

midipoet: i really want to avoid a fracture, but the way this matter is being handled is shocking. i will see how sunday's meeting goes before making my decisions.

selsta: I absolutely agree and the dismissal of the criticism is the real deal changer for me

midipoet: what is #monero-transmissions?

oh, i meant #monero-outreach actually

transmissions is about the mesh network stuff

outreach is a vehicle for marketing related activities, and is overseen by thunderosa and xmrhaelan (afaiu)

however, there are also no ops in that channel, so who the fuck knows

midipoet: I registered it, so ops can be fixed

do i get to create an LLC if i become op?

I doubt I could stop you from creating an LLC

that's probably true. maybe i actually want to know is can i be the leader of the channel (by law) if i am the op.

That LLC thing really hit a nerve, I see

is there a TLDR version of reddit thread?

Monery Community as it stands now; its functions, roles, responsibilities and assets will become Monero Community Workgroup LLC. the company will be owned by sgp, needmoney90, and rehrar (board members and i assume shareholders).

that's the tl;dr as i understand it

How does one invest in such a great company?

rdymac: 87J5eanp8pMG59amf5yfoJfB6Lq963zqpN9hYPY4WZPfeHnDPBPk7gDW86y676ScHLeUC7fckSaYhNsr7ccKNyCn4gSpv4B

we have set starting price of 0.1 XMR per share

will I get 2x back?

perhaps. though for every share you own, you own a little bit of the community. just keep that in mind when completing your tax returns.

how does any of that make sense? "community" pretty much means there is no company

if some folks want to start a company, great. but calling it "monero community" sounds like an oxymoron

it’s called `monero community support llc`

still bad, as almost everyone gave feedback to not include "monero community" in the name to avoid confusion

oh, yeah apols. i thought it was Monero Community Workgroup LLC. apologies.

<cankerwort> Rehrar I don't think having a "portable" transaction history which can be regenerated from the block chain alone is a good idea

<cankerwort> Transaction history recording should be a personal choice, just like with cash

<cankerwort> There is no permanent ledger of my cash transactions from my physical wallet. I can choose to record those transactions if I want to personally

<cankerwort> The wallet history should be kept fundamentally separate from the atomic currency units IMO, otherwise you have weakened the fungibility which comes from being a bearer asset

<cankerwort> Optional and better UX for backups of wallet history is a good idea though and I'm all for that

<xmrhaelan> I echo the criticisms here as well. It is disheartening to see the criticism downplayed and ignored, particularly when it comes from people who have poured so much of their time and energy into the project.

<xmrhaelan> I always expected some kind of fracturing to occur as Monero grew, but I never expected it to happen at the hands of SGP, Rehrar, and needmoney90 who have also been so instrumental in supporting the project.

<xmrhaelan> It’s a bummer. Particularly since most of the criticism would vanish if they just change the damn name. The complete disregard does not inspire confidence at all.

<xmrhaelan> I want to thank ErCiccione, midipoet, Thunderosa, and geonic for their unwavering commitment to speaking out when they see something go against the moral compass of the Monero ethos. You guys have kept me honest in the past and hopefully you will be able to keep this board of 3 honest as well. Never give up!

+1 on that xmrhaelan

xmrhaelan: I strongly believe that the initial criticism is not related to the name, that's just one thing. midipoet and others are very vocal and they didn't even know what the name was. Last week we didn't even have a name yet and you can see the reaction

Then you have bad-faith comments insinuating that we need to do things that simple are not true, like that I am legally required to try and turn a profit. Things like that are simply not true

And people like geobic and thunderosa commenting that I should always take unlimited personal liability since it's "cool" and "just the way it is here." That's so incredibly out of touch

At the end of the day, NOTHING is changing in this channel. NOTHING

No one is charging you fees to be here. No one is changing the existing rules

And no one seems to complain about the goals I outlined both times

I'm public too sgp_. If this breaks, this will break my ass too. Taking liability is part of life.

So I think we really have a lot more on the same page than without

*than not

That's the problem, nothing has changed

lh1008[m]: there's unavoidable liability and then there's someone sitting on the sidelines dictating that someone else needs to take needless liability

Doing the latter is unfair

If you wouldn't have mind being public you would have stayed private

Life is unfair [:what_can_we_do:]

Keep doing your stuff. Just don't step on others way of working.

I don't see how this is stepping on others' way of working

Since funding has centralized itself it has been stepping on others way of working

Now is going to another level

We're a group of people who want to support the communities, and people are not obligated to join or help out

And at the moment we have 0 funding

That's what, keep building. I'm not against it

That's why***

Okay, it's hard to tell what you are arguing

It might be hard because we think differently. I'm part of the church :). We're crazy horses. <3

Too much reason will make you crazy too. That's why we all need each other.

I will back up some of the comments here on how the feedback/criticisms have been handled in a way that can be offputting on both sides.

People have been pretty harsh/sarcastic across the board, which I guess shows that people care deeply (which is a good thing) but certainly doesn't help unify

<xmrhaelan> reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/i8hbr8…nity_workgroup_is_preparing_for_the

I also think we need to put to bed the idea that the community is becoming an LLC. In no ways are any of your efforts being taken from you

then don’t include the "monero community" in the LLC name like suggested by literally everyone :/

<xmrhaelan> SGP Rehrar needmoney90 I encourage you all to read through the comments. There are people commenting with criticism who I have never seen before, and the “most vocal” people have way more upvotes than any of the rebuttals shared by your team. You guys are digging yourselves into a hole. Just change the damn name.

If "Monero Community Support LLC" remains the main sticking point and if people remain upset at that specifically instead of all the other stuff, then yes, we will change it

<xmrhaelan> Sgp it clearly is the main sticking point. The other sticking point is your claim of public spaces and handles being assets of an LLC

This room is not an "asset of the LLC" plain and simple

<xmrhaelan> I would respond to a link to your original gist.github post that clearly listed it as an asset but it now has a 404 error...

<xmrhaelan> *respond with a link

It was listed under a grouped "assets and services"

Moderating this channel is a service

<xmrhaelan> Just because you have deleted the evidence doesn’t mean it wasn’t there

Well for the 100th time this channel is neither hosted by us, nor supreme-controlled by us

And when mentioned 100 times this is still repeated by many of the same people

It's not true that this channel is becoming a company or whatever. That makes no sense

It was clearly listed under "Assets and Services", which meant it could be either, and its been clarified MANY times that it was just a service, not an asset

<xmrhaelan> People tend to believe what is read on official looking documents vs comments on an internet forum

The document was not saying it was an asset

I read it many times

Its been clarified many times.

What else would help to clarify this for you?

They probably should have been separated there since it was unclear, but I have clarified this 100 times and people keep repeating it

Pay my bills

<xmrhaelan> An updated document that does a better job distinguishing between the two would be a great start

For sure

<xmrhaelan> You guys are making our jobs harder with this nonsense. The next time you plan on making an announcement that has the potential to fracture the community Monero Outreach would appreciate a consultation first. We could have saved you a lot of headache....

I think that was the point of sharing in IRC first

This is the most "internal" way to share things

Yeah, pitch the idea small, make an announcement a week later

<xmrhaelan> There are much more private ways to share things

<xmrhaelan> Sgp no one read that as a pitch.

no feedback from the initial sharing on IRC has been considered

<xmrhaelan> ^

xmrhaelan: can you remove comments like these? They are simply not true: reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/i8hbr8…kgroup_is_preparing_for_the/g1bo91x

it felt more like "this is what we will do and deal with it"

though at least now a name change is considered

first, we revised the post we sent out earlier to clearly distinguish between assets and services

we made most of the wording about "Monero communities" rather than "Monero community"

<xmrhaelan> I would be happy to once I see an updated document that clearly distinguishes as anything other than that. Otherwise I have no way to know it isn’t true.

xmrhaelan: there is absolutely no possible way this channel can be an "asset" in the way you are describing it, even if it was our intentions (which it is not)

<xmrhaelan> Don’t act like I am making that claim. It was on the document that you’ve since removed.

THE DOCUMENT DID NOT CLAIM THAT

I never specifically said it was an asset, jesus dude

It was clarified what was meant

selsta: we also added a whole Q&A part about why we want an entity at all

<xmrhaelan> This is a cyclical argument at this point. Clarification on an Internet forum ≠ an updated document that officially outlines the assets claimed by the LLC

Its not cyclical, you're just refusing to accept the clear answers to your issues.

xmrhaelan here's a draft of the revision, happy? usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/9A3lLh0N/document

<xmrhaelan> No I am not. I just have not seen any updated documentation to demonstrate otherwise. At this point I can no longer go off good faith comments made on forums

xmrhaelan: do you see the screenshot? is that unclear?

<xmrhaelan> It is clear. But even claiming #monero-community is a service of the LLC implies ownership.

can we put this behind us as non-ideal but also non-malicious initial wording that was shared here and we updated as a result of people clearly needing these separated?

🤦

the specific structure of how this works has been described to you many times

Okay so if you do Monero Services, I have been doing Monero Services 4 years ago. I deserve a position in the boards LLC then.

if you are purposefully ignoring this, then so be it

<cankerwort> Moderating is a service, the channel is an asset which is ultimately actually controlled by core

Yup

Exactly on point canker

And that was the clarification provided many times

<xmrhaelan> It will be put behind when people see official documents. You guys started this mess so should only be frustrated with yourselves for the reactions you are getting.

Okay, soy maintain the LLC decentralized then.

You will have to trust someone else

xmrhaelan: I'll keep that in mind, but the rest of us are going to continue with the correct assumption that Core is the owner of this channel, which is well-known

<cankerwort> The LLC exists to limit liability, so that the "board" can funnel their interactions and volunteer work through a structure which doesn't put too much pressure on any particular person

Someone that has never been here. I should not be that person if it's the case. Then you think I'm here because of a position.

<cankerwort> This is all just my interpretation of course

and it also requires more agreement before actions can be taken

<xmrhaelan> I know that Core is the owner.

<xmrhaelan> My criticism is about the “optics” of perception of ownership by an LLC.

hopefully most people have come around to the idea that the LLC has some benefits when done appropriately, and we aim to use it in the most sensible way possible

Think you're spot on cankerwort.

<xmrhaelan> I believe the LLC has a lot of benefits. So long as the main criticisms are addressed by official documentation

we hoped that "Monero Community Support LLC" would clearly show that it only provides support and thus does not represent all the communities, but we can change if the perception is actually different

I will say it then. sgp_, rehrar, and needsmoney90, one of you should not be part of the LLC board.

So rehrar is an advisor? Is he using the time paid by core to be an advisor for this LLC?

selsta: good question, and we are still talking about that, but I can share some updates here

rehrar originally was interested in serving an unofficial advisory capacity, though not actually be on the board or have an official vote. Nevertheless, the intent was for Doug and I to vote as if the vote counted (but there is no way of enforcing this)

You will have to add someone else there.

part of this has to do with his connection to Core

but for all "official" purposes he is not a board member

at his own request

I would find it questionable if core pays rehrar from community funds and rehrar uses his paid time to be an advisor for an external company.

selsta: to some extent it is and is not reasonable to restrict what people do outside of work

You will have to add a trusted party not close to the other board members

for paid time however, I agree

I’m specifically talking about core paid time.

idk if he is salaried or hourly

selsta: in your opinion, what would be a good name? We came up with a short list of other names but frankly they were very bad lol

something containing MCW maybe

just not "monero community"

I daresay you would have hated them more for other reasons 😅

It doesn't matter if he uses core paid time here. What matters is the little, "we're crypto friendy", shitty thing.

sgp: since when is it acceptable to restrict what people do outside of work?

You will have to add a third party not close to the board members

<cankerwort> NDAs?

<cankerwort> To a limit of "acceptable"

suraeNoether_: that's common practice sadly

in some cases I think it makes sense but it's usually over-used and over-enforced

It could be Monero Community but you will have to add someone else there and fill services around the community with contributors around the community. I have seen plenty of contributors that are actively doing things for the community without a payment.

Yeah, anyone is capable of doing things in their time

I agree with suraeNoether_

The, "we're crypto shitty friends", is now paying its due

<cankerwort> I'm sure if someone is interested in admin/maintaining "services" on an ongoing basis they could join the board considering no one is actually getting paid here, providing they are not malicious

<cankerwort> Or make their own board with their own services

i can pretend not to be malicious. wen board?

correct, the board isn't permanently set in stone

it can be changed

The LLC thing, is for getting pay and receive legal donations, let's be honest for one second please.

sgp: i don't mean in "jobs generally." i mean in this space in particular.

can someone link me the most up-to-date CCS i'm not seeing it

When I mean legal donations is the fiat system integration to the Monero Community

suraeNoether_: CCS?

the ccs for this llc

no CCS

oh

<cankerwort> suraenoether there is no CCS and no one is asking for money

...

needmoney90 pretty much always asks for money though since he needs it

very demanding person

<cankerwort> There is a reddit post and an apparently withdrawn document

oh. well. the strength of my opinions just vanished. what's the controversy, then, using "Monero" in the LLC title?

I withdrew it because of the confusion. We will put out another

ok

suraeNoether_: many people don't seem to like "Monero Community Support LLC"

until then i'll bug out :P

that name was recommended to me by a contributor I trust to have good opinions most of the time :)

I'll see how it goes. If you aren't clear on what you're doing there will be trouble. Listen to the community if you want to stay alive. And for the notice, I'm part of it with a lot of dudes who love Monero.

"Service for the Monero Community LLC"? :D

makes it clear that it isn't *the* monero community. whatever that is

@moneroservice

so here's the problem

I'm not sure how I feel about the LLC idea overall, but the "Monero Community Support" name seems to highlight that it's to support the Monero community/communities, no?

you want ot pick a anme that doesn't ring people's "Rachel from Cardholder Services" or "Paul from MIcrosoft Account Services" phishing bells

I can see how it's very difficult to be 100% clear that the LLC is not "the community/communities"

now, iirc there is definitely a drawback to using "monero" in LLC titles

There's also the benefit of not confusing people, perhaps

basically everyone gave feedback to avoid the name "monero" or "monero community" in the LLC name to avoid confusion / drama

namely that 10 years from now after bad blood has developed and people have split, kyou'll end up with the Monero Community Support Group LLC and the Support Privacy Tech Like Monero Group LLC, and they'll both be fighting over the monero logo and r/monero

*nod*

this is why i did NOT name the konferenco LLC using the word monero

that's one reason we didn't choose a super generic name like "Global Services" :p

suraeNoether: I had recommended overhauling the "Community" stuff on getmonero to highlight that there are "Communities", kinda like subreddits

which was a whole different world of mistakes: "Colorado Crypto Conferences" abbreviates to cons. :P

and that some stuff, like getmonero, is operated in a more overarching way

suraeNoether: what's wrong with cons? people don't like lisp functions? :'(

:D

a con man is just a backward walking nman

Making it more clear how the communities are organized (to the extent they are) may be helpful overall, not just in this discussion

i.e. communities have their own standards (to a point), moderators, etc.

*nod* lesley carhart got me thinking about how i've been using "community" lately

if this is too off-topic i can ramble in -research-lounge

certianly don't want to interrupt anything

<cankerwort> Q: if the LLC needs funds to run some of these self hosted services, is there likely to be a CCS for that?

<cankerwort> Q2: would the MCW then discuss the merits of the LLC CCS at community meetings even though these entities have a lot of personal overlap?

which is the best and most immediate way to buy monero

i have bitcoin

<cankerwort> Probably Kraken

cankerwort: Q1 no, we will try to run a profitable business to not burden the community with donation requests. In the short-term I'll probably personally pay all the costs

profitable is relative, how about "breaking even" :)

we would like to have a revenue stream not not be entirely reliant upon donations

s/not/to

<cankerwort> Curious what kinds of revenue streams could be relied on for that

Q2: I expect the conversation to be entirely around what people are doing, like it is now, not about bureaucratic nonsense

<cankerwort> Maybe a monero gambling site like Minko

haha, probably not with a US entity :p

<cankerwort> Good point

<cankerwort> Maybe raffles or bingo or something

if the LLC tries to "break even"/turn profit it is no longer incentivised to act on the communities behalf (as a CCS funded organisation/entity would be)

<cankerwort> Elite Kahoot championships

also, am i the only one that thinks that not having the proposed bylaws outlined is a glaring omission? especially as they determine the rules of engagement of the LLC

midipoet: I think it is more healthy to try and find a way to pay for these things ourselves, in our mutual interests

"mutual interests"?

<cankerwort> Lots of charities aim to break even and still manage to support whatever cause/community they were set up for

what does that mean?

<cankerwort> Elite Kahoot championships <- LOL

cankerwort: how can we be sure that the LLC will always try to break even, as opposed to "turn profit"?

<cankerwort> Public accounts?

is that written down anywhere?

the public accounts come after the fact

it wouldn't be against making money, just that the money will be spent on community resources

<cankerwort> But yeah bylaws and CoCs or whatever are a good idea

the more $$$ we make, the more community resources, woo-hoo

sgp_: how do we know this? by trusting the board?

I mean yeah, its money that we will have earned and have the right to spend

I agree with midipoet. LLC should be backed of by the CCS.

cankerwort: i think a CoC is kinda worthless. the good people that read it are already not going to fall foul of it. the people that fill the channel up with inane spam (like me) won't bother

If not, this is just a party company of three guys who want to play "we're the Monero Community" and decide against everyone else.

imagine if every workgroup had its own LLC?

lol

I mean I'm not going to turn down donations, but I'd rather not HAVE to

*to take them

sgp_: how do we know that the LLC will reinvest all profits?

and how do we know that the pursuit of profit won't skew the incentives model?

midipoet: nothing forcing xmr.to to support the community at all but people seem to like them

sgp_: i am not talking about xmr.to

midipoet: because I spend so much time here already a week with no money lol

so that's the answer? past experience/knowledge ensures future behaviour?

if you want to personally give me money such that I am more likely to follow your will, by all means do so lol

sgp_: wise up and answer the questions

That's why. In the Monero Outreach we have to comply with the community goals.

so its all about money?

lh1008[m]: that's a goal, not a legal obligation

midipoet: lol dude cool down, no it's not all about the money and it's not all about turning a profit

If the LLC is not complying with the community goals, sorry but f** it

Yes this is about the money

lh1008[m]: did you read the goals in the Reddit post?

We are a money community

those are our goals

Yes I did

no where does it say "maximize shareholder return" lol

I won't be here I haven't read it

Wouldn't***

sgp_: words in a reddit post are just that. i am asking how we can verify that this will actually happen. what is the incentive model?

and/or where are the rules of engagement/bylaws?

Yeah, it's not clear anywhere

You want to build a LLC and don't have a incentive model?

an LLC is an incentive model . it's not clear how THIS LLC will be different from any other LLC

I suppose it is a case of trust us to spend the money we earn on you. Remember, this is money we earn that we are spending on resources for you

the intent is to not require to ask for donations all the time

to make the community resources immune to the risks of an unfunded CCS one bad quarter

so Monero Support LLC will be actively seeking revenue

on a continual basis from the open market

whether CCS or not?

yes, I made that clear in the very first paste I shared here

yeah. fair enough. i don't agree with the LLC

but we don't need to pursue that absent other goals

good luck with it though.

Midipoet you don't say

that's fine, you don't need to be a part of it

why not smth like dao bisq

not saying you don't need to be a part of this channel, that's a separate thing as we have described 1 million times now

what exactly are the "assets"? this channel, @monerocommunity twitter and mastodon handle?

subreddit?

And server infrastructure hosted. Because we pay.

if you believe that a pursuit of revenue won't alter your actions/decisions/behaviours, good luck. i cannot see how it won't. it's literally what capitalism is all about.

well but that is fungible

It's always another problem lol

'change the name' is so disingenuous as a fix

midipoet: I can make money through any number of other means too

I can sell surveillance software on the side but I don't

sgp_: yes, i am aware of that, thanks

it doesn't seem like such a big deal to have one llc control a stupid irc channel, subreddit, and twitter handle

"jwinterm" (matrix.to/#/@freenode_jwinterm:matrix.org): Meeting services (noy actual channel, that's core), Youtube, @xmrcommunity

It doesn't even control the irc

More or less, cureently

jwinterm: just to note it just moderates this channel

The outrage politics some of you are playing are disappointing.

<cankerwort> Could even have a range of MCW LLC swag on cyphermarket

jwinterm: i don't see how "what it controls now" is a mitigation concerns about "what it may control in the future"

cankerwort: exactly stuff like that

I will say it again, you will have to decentralize decision making in the LLC. The only way is a third party liability that is not close to the, "crypto friendy" BS.

midipoet: I don't know how I can talk with you that could ever change your opinion. What evidence or success would look like in your book

that's pretty nebulous midipoet

bylaws would have helped

Companies bad

Corporations bad

Libertarianism 5evr

Money bad

needmoney90: yes. that is it.

needmoney90: lol let's cool it a bit

<cankerwort> Hey I have an idea

outstanding contribution to the discussion

but fear not. they are on the board!!

It's pretty much what you guys are saying lol

That's the gist at least

<cankerwort> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_purpose_corporation

cankerwort: there's no effective legal difference for what we are doing

I vote for midipoet on th LLC board if this thing keeps going

an LLC can operate as a nonprofit in effect

<cankerwort> True but there is no effective legal difference with having nice bylaws, a CoC, a different name or an extra board member

needmoney90: yes. that's right. i am saying money is bad

excelletnt summary

which again, we are open do doing later down the line (registering if we get some help)

Yup, if we so much as touch money, it corrupts us and we can't stop making it or qelse

Oh no!

indeed.

See? I can badly interpret your arguments too!

Isn’t ridiculing differing viewpoints and criticism against the CoC? lol

okay that's enough of all this lol

I just can't put together a scenario in my head where the monero evil corporation could be compromised by a state actor or something, but justin and doug and diego the US citizens would be immune from such

I really don't see how incorporation is relevant

the standards imposed on this are high which is good, but they unquestionably are higher than the standards imposed on anything else

also the "assets" seem fairly worthless

.shrug

Ding ding

eg: is there a policy in place to prevent r/monero mods from taking bribes? How is this enforceable?

I think the Monero forum is not a worthless asset.

<cankerwort> having some non-US admins for these services would ad a lot of resilience

jwinterm: again, i ask you why the "assets owned today" are mitigation for concerns about "assets owned in the future"

at least now we can have the discussion

how would that change the fact if those US citizens were in control of unknowable future assets versus the llc?

We're integrating the fiat system to the Monero community, we should really address what we're talking about here.

eg: how do we know n r/monero moderator will not promote certain content? Should we restrict what they can invest in?

No one would bat an eyelash if I told people the number of psuedoanon core members still living in the US and that I a scrub like me can Id one of them, three letter agencies most certainly can

Reddit is f**ed up, I can't even post links. Terrible service

if only someone was willing to pay for Flarum :p

super excited about that personally btw

<cankerwort> Concerns about assets owned in the future seem unwarranted given those assets will be created by the LLC as a result of it being easier to set them up with an LLC

cankerwort: thank you :)

As jwinterm said surely this is all better than random people owning assets

<cankerwort> Or are you worried the LLC is going to take over some already existing asset? Seems unlikely

Even if people think its not the best solution (but have yet to propose other realistic ones)

shared LLC owning assets > one US citizen owning assets

we wish to perform a hostile takeover over the @monero Twitter account by buying 51% of the shares

<cankerwort> The LLC is the twitter hacker!

maybe the fear is that we buy Reddit lol

little known fact: I paid for the @monero Twitter handle, and have loaned it to Monero, so you're welcome to buy it from me :-P

selsta, as of now, even all of my time dealing with this LLC thing I have not counted as hours specifically for the reasons you're saying.

I change my mind: our goal is now to buy Reddit and Twitter

<cankerwort> Fluffypony did you buy it off that furniture shop called monero?

No assets in monero cankerwort you're right, but we will all agree that this little friendy crypto thingy goes and we will support it. Why will we support it, because we need to understand decentralization and decentralization is not move far apart from centralized entities but how are we going to keep growing in a stable manner and not go crazy our of linem

Line***

cankerwort: lol

I would buy reddit or twitter.

Wouldn't**

I'll put money somewhere else

it was a joke :p

I think the whole discussion of evil corporation stealing assets or good corporation being compromised is to some degree rendered moot by monero.org

sadly I'm not sitting here with fat stacks of billions

Jokes could turn to reality, just saying :)

Also, history is being revised here. Originally, as I recall, selsta was the only one who's feedback was 'dont put community in the name'. Everyone else's feedback was "don't do this". So it's a catch 22, if the LLC is made at all then people say "our comments were ignored"

if there was some malicious activity by evil monero corp llc that started serving misinformation or bad software, people would simply move to a new domain

right?

rehrar: even sethsimmons agreed with the name thing

No, I agree on this

and a lot of others too, I was not the only one suggesting this

and the stuff monero evil corp llc will control is far more worthless than monero.org

Don't generalize

lh1008[m]: I understand you agree on this now. But I'm talking when the idea was initially presented.

The main issue is that we as a community want it, so we have to be careful on what we're doing

rehrar: am pretty certain other's raised concerns about the name - including yourself

we can check the logs if you like

The main arguments put forward by erciccione, midipoet , and geonic had nothing to do with the name.

rehrar: true - but that does preclude that the name was also an issues, and communicated

saying its "revisionist" is underhanded

*does not preclude

Saying that the name is the only problem does seem like a simplification.

Yes point being I think, it was not the main issue being raised. Changing a name while it would help some perhaps is not going to stop people falsely claiming the LLC is going to buy out Core or what have you

Exactly

rehrar: for sure ErCCicione didn't agree with the name

It's revisionist to say "if you guys just would have launched this with a different name then you wouldn't have nearly the response you're getting"

we will buy the entire pony supply

It needs more changes

Implying otherwise is underhanded. ;)

rehrar: that's not what you stated initially

you implied that selsta was the only one that had an issue with the name

13:41:31 <sethsimmons> I think just clear signalling/branding that makes it hard for people to conflate MCW the organization and Monero the project as one and the same

13:46:21 <midipoet> i would also worry about having Monero in a LLC name

13:46:40 <ErCiccione> Yeah i don't like that at all

can search up more but a lot of people had issues with the name

Monero is already in an LLC name. :P the distribution one.

The name was changed, new one is fine IMO

we hoped that "Monero Community Support LLC" would not carry that they were conflated

selsta: ok. I'll rephrase my initial statement. You were the only one who's primary concern was the name.

my other concerns is that it makes the whole workgroup more uninviting to me personally, but I don’t have any takeover concerns

we do have an inventive to reasonably relate to Monero, though in a way that shows an obvious distinction, to assist outside perception. We hoped this was a good compromise that met all of these goals

<selsta "my other concerns is that it mak"> What would make it more inviting?

Just not formalizing anything?

Or is it just the LLC you have issues with ATM?

Seeing that outside ("non board members") feedback getting more acknowledged. The reaction to the feedback in the last days certainly made it worse.

Lots of ridiculing.

Yeah the vitriol on both sides has been... not great :/

I don't like legal entities but I'm not so idiot to not understand that we might even need one

The primary reason I thought this would be good was because, we lack a way to get more digital infrastructure out there that isn't related to core.

would there be any employees of the LLC?

I can spin up a flarum. I can spin up many things on behalf of core.

But then core holds all of the cards always.

This is not decentralized.

Exactly

Sorry but I have to ask, does this LLC thing really change things that much? Because to me it looks more like a tool for this community workgroup to interact with the fiat world instead of doing stuff in the name of individuals

Exactly, ahndres.

Its a tool that helps accomplish goals already in place before it.

The means to an end, if you will :)

the core about what we do and why we do it isn't changing

the way I see it, it's the fiat-run world and its corporations what most of us don't like much

How do we plan to deal with the centralization around core?

Let's hard fork?

anhdres[m]: it was explicitly stated that this was not about payments only

Fighting for the status quo does not equal fighting for decentralization.

but the LLC works just like a bridge, like the one we're using right now IRC > riot

rehrar: if that is a goal, why are you on the board (even in an advisory capacity?)

it's literally a conflict of interests, is it not?

or at least somewhat competing interests?

That's literally why I decided I wasn't on the board and had no vote.

so why an advisory capacity?

That's why someone out of the, "we're the crypto friendies" should be part of the board

why can't you just be a member of the community?

It was a courtesy to me since I started this workgroup.

right

because we trust his advice and he started this whole thing

Before I was paid btw

sgp_: you can still ask him for advice!!

Can no one be an advisor if they're not exclusively in that workgroup lol?

doesn't need to be written into the bylaws (i assume it would be?)

midipoet: he will not be formally listed in any corporate docs so we are talking past each other

So if I mainly do MCW I cannot contribute any advice outside of MCW?

How in the world does that work midipoet?

<selsta "anhdres: it was explicitly state"> I understand that, but there's only so much you can do besides that. I mean I'd like to evaluate the cons of this move with real, practical examples, to avoid it being only a discussion on principles

midipoet: but you are correct. Just yesterday I asked to not even be labeled as an advisor for this reason.

you can not "informally" and "formally" be a board member

I agree with anhdres

so it was on the proposal as a nod to the efforts that rehrar has put in.

i understand now

and he has helped us a lot so far obviously

sure, i am not doubting that

We should understand what are we all going to be accepting, if we do.

the way I see it, the workgroup is already "centralized" because the work is mostly done by a few people (in this case in both sides of the argument, I'm not meaning SGP alone)

what i really doubt is whether efforts into an open source community grant anybody the right to form an LLC and appoint themselves on the board, under the pretence that it is "for the greater good, and will continue to be". i mean i am sure you can see the potential abuse there, no?

so shouting that the LLC will centralize things too much is wrong

especially if the LLC is subsuming the work that went into the open source project

Why does participating in OSS mean we *cant* form legal entities?

What contract did I sign here

well, what if ye had written code?

would that be subsumed as well?

The idea that we need permission to interact with the law is silly

needmoney90: nobody is saying you need permission

Rock fact: Efforts in FOSS don't grant you the right to form an LLC. The laws of whatever jurisdiciton do

you can do as you like

the community doesn't have to follow you....which is what the discussion is about

anhdres[m]: most efforts are done by the few. Think of the number of Reddit subs vs the number of people here. Thousands versus ~150

Anyone can form a Verge Currency, MoneroV, DentaCoin LLC here should they so choose

its not about whether you can form a company or not

Hahah you make me laugh needsmoney90, you basically are a law actor haha

midipoet: hypotheticals aren't helpful here imo. What if statements could take a million different avenues. Let's deal with what is.

I'm not sure what that means.

indeed, I see these are useful thought exercises but we should focus on what's actionable

To understanders understanding

:D

<sgp_ "anhdres: most efforts are done b"> that's exactly my point. I like the way this community fosters discussions, but in this case I really not see a big change

rehrar: hypotheticals aren't helpful when trying to understand the impacts/ramifications of a structural and legal change to a cor component of the Monero ecosystem?

right

Okay fellow Monero brethers. See you at Monero Outreach.

Love you all

the LLC is just a group of people already working in the community, but it's not the community nor it could be even if they tried

midipoet: not that they can't be useful, but we need to FOCUS on the actionable parts

what do you mean?

we can't stop anything you do

we have an immediate need for new services

people have voiced concerns

that's it

sure, but now we need people to help build the damn communities :p

build build build

my advice would be not to fracture the community that you already have

I think that if people use the LLC to open new services for the Monero community and we all feel that their grasp is too heavy or we'd like things to be run some other way, we can always organize, do the work, and convince people to move there, otherwise maybe we should accept that it's not really a problem

Exactly

It would also be nice if people just paid for these services out of pocket and moderated them without our needing to cover them.

But that hasn't really happened so

Unlike Core's control of the repository, etc, tangent resources can change

we can always split and address issues as they arise

we don't claim to have every solution for every problem now

right now it feels like if rehrar wrote a reddit post telling that "hey I'll start a monero-marketing workgroup" and it was a bad thing, with time and work it ended up being this very workgroup we're having this discussion in, with a different name, different participants, and way more "decentralized" than in the beginning

but we are doing our best to position ourselves to address these forthcoming (unpredictable) problems

needmoney90: there is nothing stopping individuals opening CCSs for this, is there? is that not exactly how it has been in the past?

If arm chair libertarians hate that a Mastodon instance blocks neo-nazis, they can create their own instance

midipoet: we can do this but hopefully we will not need to

<lh1008[m] "monerooutreach.org"> I always thought there was some overlap on what the monero community and outreach workgroups do, and I think it's fine. The more the better.

now, instead of this, we will now have an LLC that will try and generate revenue from things like sponsorship, t-shirt sales, fluffy dice, and any other manner of tack

lh1008[m]: outreach and community do two very different things

anhdres[m]: lol! it seems we disagree.

So your primary issue has changed to 'merch is tacky' midipoet?

some similar, some different

<rehrar "anhdres: lol! it seems we disagr"> haha, on what?

Just trying to understand how we can remedy this.

lol if you don't like merch don't buy it, don't suggest others shouldn't sell it

I'm trying to find what is actionable to remedy midipoet's concerns

It feels like his current sticking point is merch being tacky

And I want to fix this.

needmoney90: yes, that's my main issue. if after all that, you actually believe that, then fair fucking play to your cognitive abilities.

Why are you bringing up this concern if you don't intend to remedy it?

It feels disingenuous. I was taking you at face value.

After all, I want to fix things, not stir the pot.

What's your goal here?

Calling out my cognitive abilities for taking you at face value isn't exactly the nicest thing you could do.

Im trying to have a productive discussion.

needmoney90: sorry? so requesting bylaws , requesting a MoA, proposing different legal structures, proposing jurisdictional and/or geographical distribution, proposing name changes, requesting clear oversight of the board, proposing different models of incentive (not profit based), proposing clarification on control of assets...

did all of that go over your head?

So merch isn't on the list?

and you are left with a sentence about tack?

Just to be clear.

I was addressing your latest concern.

i know you were. you were implying that it was a primary concern

and also implying that i hadn't proposed any other avenues for solving this issue

Is it a concern? Is it important? Why did you bring it up

Clearly it's important enough to sling it into the conversation

AND you implied that it was because i was acting disingeniously

Forgive me for listening.

you aren't listening. you are typing

I don't understand why you're being so hostile.

I see what you are both doing here and it's super frustrating to watch on the sidelines lol

indeed for good measure you even threw around political ideologies as if that made things easier

I'm tired of people slinging shit and then pretending it was in good faith

I want to have a conversation, and *some people* aren't helping.

literally none of the concerns from anybody have been fixed

Literally none, yep

ok, so what has been fixed?

I think it's best to cut this here (already too long)

my 2 cents if it means much - i see the rationale in forming an LLC, both for the ease of having to pay for infrastructure etc, and for any legal protections that might be enjoyed. I don't see why its more complicated than that. If it has to do with the name "monero community" being in there, just use a different name.

For sure, I'm not sure why its being fought with such vigor, seems like a fine tool for the issues at hand.

I agree

I don't think monero is about practicality to begin with to be honest.

if i were doin it, i would specify that whatever the llc is doing is just the infrastructure and support etc. that it has nothing to do with the actual community. i mean, its like the wheels of a car. its great to have wheels.

I have been part of monero for 2 years now and it was always about the ethics behind it. Not practicality

In another coin or community maybe it could be seen as such. But in the monero there are major implications.

well sure. but there are meat hook realities that have to dealt with eventually

There isnt anything unethical in this proposal though, msavoritias

Because the whole community as long as I remember was about decentralization and permission less. Nobody ibcharge

Is it wrong to do something practical that helps Monero grow and improve?

The protocol is about decentralization and permissionlessness

Not everything has to be 100% decentralized.

Thats a common fallacy I see in the space.

There is a company

That is enough for some

Judging by thread.

(Company Bad)

Of course some people are sticking to their guns and hating on anything that recognizes legal entities.

That doesn't mean its the wrong step forward for this work group

I don't see it as a fallacy personally. I see it as something hard. But something that we need to work towards it

I'm a little purist so

its like my dumbass brother and his girl that don't wanna get married because its an antiquated institution

like yeah. it is. but the laws of the land mean that only family can come into hospital rooms etc blah blah blah

Basically. Which I must say I agree

<sethsimmons "That doesn't mean its the wrong "> For this work group no. And changing the name is a good step. But I think even with that a lot of people will want to distance themselves. Simply because they think the monero ethos doesn't apply here

In centralized companies

Its a question as you said

Guess we shouldn't recommend cakewallet

Or xmr.to

Or binance

Or kraken

The LLC is, as far as I'm concerned, far better than 1 person owning several assets

Which is the current state of things

Practical or purist. In the end its up to each person

This helps to spread that out and reduce the "bus factor"

Who recommends it?

Or abuse risk for that matter

<sethsimmons "The LLC is, as far as I'm concer"> Because I thought there is no centralized recommendations in monero

What?

I recommend many of those services regularly

They are great, and should be recommended.

to the counterpoint though, i would get all sorts of wordy if this morphs into the equivalent of the bitcoin foundation or those sorts of things. which i don't think this is.

<sethsimmons "The LLC is, as far as I'm concer"> For you. And I understand it may mean that for you

<sethsimmons "I recommend many of those servic"> OK. I wouldn't recommend anything non GPL or from a company if I can personally.

<msavoritias[m] "Who recommends it?"> You can argue them being listed on getmonero is an endorsement by way of guiding people

GetMonero recommends things owned by companies???

The key thing here is the LLC is neither representing the Monero community, nor Monero itself

So Core is recommending people use for profit companies. Shame. #Doomero

True. Which is something that needs fixing if you ask me

You can keep your ethos as you like

Lol

<sethsimmons "The key thing here is the LLC is"> I know.

but you should do it on a smart contract on ethereum

<xmrscott[m] "So Core is recommending people u"> When you are in a community there is bound to be some compromise. Depends where you draw the line in the sand

<sethsimmons "You can keep your ethos as you l"> I know. Same for you

I don't understand your issue then personally

Centralization bad. Companies bad.

The LLC affects none of that, is not representative, and is not unethical.

<sethsimmons "The LLC affects none of that, is"> Its a for profit centralized entity with three people in charge.

Simple as that.

Also I don't see it as needed like many other people

How else would you share ownership of assets and handle payment for services?

When you're not paying for a dozen server fees every month it's easy to assume it all runs on pixie dust

Always open for recommendations

<sethsimmons "How else would you share ownersh"> That's a nice question and ones that needs to be raised. I think there were actually some recommendations on the reddit thread that the news were posted

All I've seen are recommendations to do more difficult legal entities but no one willing to help do the work behind that.

I am sure that it can be something that we can find a solution

<needmoney90 "When you're not paying for a doz"> Nobody assumes that

An LLC is approachable and a fitting tool IMO, and in no way subsumes the community

sethsimmons: that's not exactly true, someone suggested an excel spreadsheet with passwords in it to share accounts.

yikes

big yikes

I think they were serious too ._.

<sethsimmons "All I've seen are recommendation"> What do you mean nobody is willing to do the work?

<sethsimmons "An LLC is approachable and a fit"> Ok

Is the name going to change?

<msavoritias[m] "What do you mean nobody is willi"> No one has stepped up to do the work needed to be a non-profit etc.

<sethsimmons "No one has stepped up to do the "> Because from what I saw nobody wants an organization

<selsta "Is the name going to change?"> I think the current name is fine but it could change, idc either way

Current name is clear IMO

In the reddit i mean

<msavoritias[m] "Because from what I saw nobody w"> Lots of people were fine with it if it was a non-profit or co-op, both of which require far more overhead

AFAICT

Oh, idk, haven't looked at the reddit post today

Probably some new stuff I've missed.

<sethsimmons "Lots of people were fine with it"> We shouldn't dismiss stuff just because they are hard. Monero wouldn't be a private coin otherwise

Obviously not

Yes no is saying that

TMK anyways

Are you signing up for the job of doing the filing paperwork and ongoing filing requirements?

But we can't do things that no one is willing to contribute to and expect the same three people to do it :)

Obviously we're all here because we want to do something hard, build a digital cash that gains adoption

That doesn't mean we ignore easy and approachable solutions to problems simply because they are "not hard"

The thing with idealism is Monero wouldn't exist if idealism was strictly followed. RingCT of only 3? Not good enough; we need to have ring size include all tx

Perfect is the enemy of good enough and all

<needmoney90 "Are you signing up for the job o"> I said I don't want any company or organization before

Before we can create a first block

<xmrscott[m] "The thing with idealism is Moner"> Depends where you draw the line

<sethsimmons "But we can't do things that no o"> How do you know? I haven't seen any serious discussion or proposals to share the work. But maybe I have missed them

If someone thought the alternatives were doable, presented why, and offered to help I'm sure no one would say no

People are just screaming "LLC bad", and not offering solutions

Or if they are, they're not offering to actually help make them reality

As far as I have seen

sethsimmons: that’s a disingenuous take

"LLC bad" or "company bad" is just ridiculing the feedback

more oversimplified than disingenuous imo

there has been a lot of different feedback

If someone brought a clear counter-proposal with realistic ways it can be implemented I doubt anyone would say no, if it had clear advantages.

I'm all for "centralization/corporation bad" narratives, but in this case I think they're missing the point.

This is neither centralizing nor subsuming the community, and is simple making overhead/paperwork easier on the three people who have dedicated the most to this workgroup.

Hi

There was actually a very good comment by midipoet

Basically three people came and said this is our solution to a problem that wasn't even brought up before

How do you expect people to find a solution if the problem is not brought up?

<sethsimmons "People are just screaming "LLC b"> I see people here and reddit having discussions. I don't see why you have to devalue the people you don't agree with

<sethsimmons "Or if they are, they're not offe"> Where have you seen them not offering?

<sethsimmons "If someone thought the alternati"> Was there an honest room for discussion though? All day I have been reading here people trying to defend why the don't want the llc. I haven't seen solution discussion

ty Lovera[m]

<selsta ""LLC bad" or "company bad" is ju"> True, poorly worded/oversimplified.

Thanks for the feedback Lovera

<sethsimmons "This is neither centralizing nor"> Well its one company. That's a centralization right there.

Also its not even three now from what I get.

There are two board members on a LLC

To control a few assets and help drive the workgroup forward

I have no issues with that, and it seems a clear next step for our continued growth

<sethsimmons "If someone brought a clear count"> It seems to me there is a clear bias towards structure though

Anything that is not some structure is bad

I have yet to see a serious counter proposal.

If we never gain any structure in workgroups/community we will fail to reach the adoption we could.

We need an entity to aggregate payments -> who controls the entity legally speaking -> omg a board??

It's as simple as that in my book.

If you want this to remain a niche thing that almost no one benefits from globally, we can keep fighting any structure/organization.

I think we've missed a lot of opportunity because of that ethos, and will continue to miss it

The hard part is that we need to find a middle ground where we make practical steps towards meaningful structure

That is the bias I'm saying

Can we talk about myMonero? Fluffy runs that and he's part of cord and he's practically calling Monero his

Clear step forwards

Core*

And it's a corporation

Anything else other than an LCC is out

Im not sure what you mean msavoritias

What bias?

Towards wanting to see Monero grow as a whole? Towards wanting adoption?

If you don't want those things to happen, or just dislike structure entirely then keep using Monero and enjoy it!

There's nothing stopping that

But those of us that see the benefits structure bring, in moderation, will move forward.

Exactly thank you for proving my point. Counter proposals that are for decentralizations are bad

What?

Is Zcash being a corp helping them getting more contributors? I know that I wouldn’t contribute to them because of their structure.

This is in no way analagous to Zcorp

<sethsimmons "But those of us that see the ben"> Exactly. You already decided. There is not proposals to have

Its a structure or nothing

<selsta "Is Zcash being a corp helping th"> If it was I would be running for the hills and screaming all the way

At least I don't see it as such

This is a tiny workgroup that some members of are forming an LLC to help drive forward

This is completely different than a block reward-funded corporation with sketchy/scammy ends in mind and little commitment to driving privacy forward.

<sethsimmons "The hard part is that we need to"> Here is the bias

Among others

If I'm missing something please help me see the gaps, selsta, as I really do not want to see Monero become like Zcash at all

I don’t see Monero becoming Zcash.

msavoritias: thats an opinion, not a bias. or call it that if you want

Never claimed that, I said that the corp structure makes it uninviting to me.

I think if we stay in the mindset of "no structure" we will lose and fail to see Monero gain the adoption it should.

<sethsimmons "I think we've missed a lot of op"> Or here

Structure can be good, in moderation, and with checks and balances

FOSS is great for this because the most powerful check and balance is simple forking and creating your own tool

And all of the tools the LLC will create are FOSS and easily forked

<sethsimmons "But those of us that see the ben"> Or this

The only one that needs deeper discussion IMO is the forum, as that would be more "splitting" for the community if there was a falling out.

<selsta "I don’t see Monero becoming Zcas"> Good to see -- anything in this proposal/plan that you would like to see changed besides the LLC name?

<sethsimmons "I think if we stay in the mindse"> Exactly. There is no proposals that are valid outside of structure.

Would you be open to something without a structure

?

Sure

If you can show the clear benefits

And can show clearly how the community can maintain it moving forward/handle exponential growth

But monero is not a business. Why does it need growth?

That sounds way profit centered

<sethsimmons "If you can show the clear benefi"> Decentralization for one

Sharing of responsibility for second

growth allows for decentralization

^^^

I could care less about profit/number go up

I want to see more people using Monero

This is a tool for freedom

If no one hears about it/knows how to use it because the community does nothing to drive adoption, less people benefit from the tool

<msavoritias[m] "But monero is not a business. Wh"> Come on guys, Bitcoin is not a business and behind it there are thousands of companies that directly or indirectly make it grow.

sethsimmons: I find the whole workgroup is kinda "us 3 and the rest". Yes, they do the most work but it feels like none of the feedback from outside has been acknowledged, apart from ridiculed. It is uninviting. If they want to lead it like this don’t call it "Monero Community".

I definitely don't like the way it has been handled, on both sides.

I agree there!

A lot of people have gotten a bit pissy over this lol

Personally all these discussions don't touch me. i'm very disappointed by the fact that feedbacks were ignored and criticisms rediculed. i also don't like the corporate structure that wasn't discussed at all in the workgroup. I don't like the fact that 3 people make a decision and everybody have to agree or leave. i don't like this mindset at all.

<sethsimmons "I want to see more people *using"> It will happen. It just needs time

I see it as the LLC helps the three who have contributed most to continue and to spread the load.

All crypto is down now pretty much

<ErCiccione[m] "Personally all these discussions"> I agree about how feedback was responded to in tone, but I don't think serious proposals have been made as alternatives.

Or at least not ones that are actionable/backed up by how it will actually work/get done.

But I need to catch up on the Reddit post when I get a chance to see what new feedback has been made, I may have missed some there.

I have a question

I understand the dislike of any legal entity, but I'm not sure how the LLC is a negative in this instance and implementation to anyone contributing/involved in the MCW

Can we have a clearly defined problem/question that we are trying to solve?

I underestand the general dislike of legal entities/corporations.

sethsimmons: That's not really a valid point. You can make proposal and discuss when you feel that's a discussion. You talk like before creating a company there was a discussion where everybody gave their own opinion but at the end there was no other choice

I thought that was why this was presented in IRC originally?

Because it feels like the proposals are just to defend the llc not happening

No LLC has been created etc.

sethsimmons: It was presented but all feedback has been ignored. Even on simple things like name.

They changed the name though

<anhdres[m] "I always thought there was some "> I agree anhdres, that's why I'm not against this initiative. I believe we need to understand decentralization in all of its forms.

Although I guess the new name is still not acceptable.

To more complex like no structure at all

And let's not forget that the board already voted for whatever they decided before talking about it on IRC

<selsta "sethsimmons: It was presented bu"> I'm sure at least the name will be changed

I hope so!

That seems to be the biggest sticking point so far.

Lovera[m]: they acknowledged the feedback last time and didn’t change it. But I hope it will now.

<rehrar "lh1008: outreach and community d"> Yes, again, that's why I'm not against the initiative but the community needs to find ways to be more opened. Funding is centralized here.

<selsta "Lovera: they acknowledged the fe"> It has changed already once.

But people still don't like the new name so it will change again I imagine

The feedback was "not include monero or monero community", which was ignored.

dude come on. It was specifically asked to not put "monero community" in the name

saying "it was already changed" it's a moot point.

True

I thought adding support was fine

Whats a good name that doesn't include any Monero/Monero Community?

But still actually describes what it is?

MCW Support LLC

"you thought", but that's not what people was asking

I'm just sharing my opinion :(

<selsta "MCW Support LLC"> So its fine to use Monero Community Workgroup as an acronym?

Id be fine with that if so.

Thoughts sgp_ needmoney90

i know, i'm saying that the fact you were fine with it doesn't change the fact that people asked for something different :)~

we're busy having another conversation at the moment, please continue to toss around name ideas

I'm sure people will take issue with that too, but if that makes these bikeshedders happy, sure. Why not.

Sigh

No need to be snarky needmoney90

needmoney90 ridiculing again

needmoney90: your attitude is the most annoying thing ever

Yeah...

No reason for that tbh.

Apologies.

you are making this conversation way worse and you should be one fo the leaders we should trust?

no fucking way

Protocols are a lot easier than communities, is what I'm learning :P

I can only take so much abuse. I'll try to be better.

Abuse??

Why not have the community vote who should be part of the board?

ridiculus

It's hard repeating the same thing a dozen times and still have people spin it differently.

Just crazy ideas

tbf ErCiccione there has been abuse/sarcasm/ridicule against him and others as well.

But that doesn't excuse anyone lashing out.

Hopefully we can all transcend a bit of the vitriol here and find (and implement!) a good solution to help support the community and drive adoption as we grow.

That's the hope

So is MCW LLC or MCW support LLC acceptable?

Or does that also have issues.

Fine by me

sethsimmons: i think if we stay in the mindsight of "yes structure" we will lose and fail to see Monero gain the adoption it should.

<midipoet "sethsimmons: i think if we stay "> So we should avoid all structure with no exceptions? In all community workgroups?

Yep

Structure != necessarily evil

<sethsimmons "Hopefully we can all transcend a"> What is the adoption problem we are trying to solve?

Idk why thats such a major sticking point for people

My vote between the two would be MCW Support LLC as I view 'support' as critical to have in it to better prevent confusion

<xmrscott[m] "My vote between the two would be"> Yeah +1 to that

<needmoney90 "So is MCW LLC or MCW support LLC"> Maybe put a vote on reddit?

Or call for proposals

Assuming ErCiccione et al don't add name proposals of their own

Not a lot of people are in irc

I really don't care about the name, MCW LLC is fine for me. My main criticisms are other as can be read from my reddit post

either way, i won't support or be part of this company

<msavoritias[m] "What is the adoption problem we "> The problem of not many people using Monero, and not having the tools we need to help solve that problem.

<ErCiccione[m] "I really don't care about the na"> How would you rather it be done? Could you distill how you would help to build out new tools for MCW without this, how you would handle infra costs, and how you would handle focusing the group as a whole?

What tools ?

<sethsimmons "How would you rather it be done?"> Focusing can be done by discussing

sethsimmons: As i said. I would have liked to have a discussion with the workgroup as whole. I would have liked to see criticism rised and discussed. I don't like to have overlords who take decisions and i have to accept them, because i'm just a community member.

midipoet gave some good suggestions on reddit tho

open a ccs, distribute responsabilities, etc

<ErCiccione[m] "open a ccs, distribute responsab"> I could see that being an alternative stepping stone

If there are people ready to step up and handle payments for infra as part of it out of pocket

And handling taxes etc.

sethsimmons: we can go into the depths of how structure implies hierarchy, if you like - but its a long discussion, especially if we include how distributed ledgers were "meant" to remove hierarchies (or at least mitigate against them). there is a wealth of enquiry into this, especially from the context of trust and control.

<ErCiccione[m] "open a ccs, distribute responsab"> Fully support that

sethsimmons: why are we having this conversation now? it clearly doesn't matter. Decisions have been already made.. and definitely not by the workgroup

sethsimmons: a CCS would include infrastructure costs. why would it not?

The LLC does not exist, and there is a coming community meeting

<midipoet "sethsimmons: a CCS would include"> They still have to be paid/invoiced/reported on taxes

By people

<ErCiccione[m] "sethsimmons: why are we having t"> That is what demotivates me

<ErCiccione[m] "sethsimmons: why are we having t"> Hopefully there is still opportunity for tuning/changing the next steps for MCW.

<midipoet "sethsimmons: we can go into the "> But a CW is not the same as a decentralized protocol

The criticism has been taken very welcoming here

They dont both need the same lack of structure/hierarchy/decentralization

The lack can be applied anywhere. With enough effort

and it is needed everywhere

Idk what that means

if the issue is legal liability and the bus factor - that is different. needmoney90 ridiculed the shared credentials idea. Having an LLC is not going to change this problem, you will need to still share credentials. nor will it immediately guard against the rogue account. it will provide a legal means of redress, however. i have also suggested a joint-controllership agreement for this.

If there are people ready to step up and handle payments for infra as part of it out of pocket <- people voiced they are available for that, but you are still missing my point sethsimmons. *this wasn't even considered* and the matter not discussed with us peasants. This is unacceptable to me, and doesn't make me want to be part of the workgroup

sethsimmons: sure. there are tax implications. i never said there was not.

<sethsimmons "Idk what that means"> Simple. There should be lack of hierarchy everywhere. And as much as we can

<midipoet "if the issue is legal liability "> So in otherwords, there is an advantage to having an LLC

<ErCiccione[m] "If there are people ready to ste"> Was the initial proposal in IRC not exactly this?

What? no, of course no

<ErCiccione[m] "If there are people ready to ste"> So speaking as someone on the localization team, people can say stuff all the live long day

sethsimmons: the LLC does exist. it is named r/cryptocurrency LLC is it not? they have to just agree on the name change?

My favorite example is the Japanese post a few months ago

<xmrscott[m] "So in otherwords, there is an ad"> That's what you got from it's not going to solve anything?

I am tackling this from a utilitarian angle

xmrscott: I don't understand what you are referring to

Give me a moment erc, two conversations

<midipoet "sethsimmons: the LLC does exist."> Thats existed for ages, it's not being used right now

<xmrscott[m] "I am tackling this from a utilit"> We need to consider the ethical angle too though

<msavoritias[m] "That's what you got from it's no"> If all other things being equal as suggested by midi, and the LLC offers legal redress advantages, LLC is favored ,no?

<msavoritias[m] "We need to consider the ethical "> There is nothing unethical in any part of this proposal.

xmrscott[m]: for that particular use case/problem - then yes

What about the negative? Centralization for profit and all the other

xmrscott[m]: however, that is NOT the only thing that is being proposed

<xmrscott[m] "So speaking as someone on the lo"> So re: Japanese, several people comment like 'yes, will totally help contribute strings'. And maybe 30 or so strings were contributed across website, etc by them which I agreed with and seconded

People did follow through is the point I'm getting at despite the upvotes and multiple people saying they'd contribute

<sethsimmons "There is nothing unethical in an"> Hierarchy and for profit companies. Are. Its silly to pretend otherwise

The endless jokes that will come of this, conflating the Monero community with a corporation.

*didn't

<msavoritias[m] "Hierarchy and for profit compani"> Hierarchy and profit are unethical? What?

sethsimmons: i think its. fair to say there are ethical issues with both

there is also a long history of enquiry into this

How?

Pleas enlighten me.

<msavoritias[m] "What about the negative? Central"> It's already centralized is what people are missing and can be profitted

<sethsimmons "Hierarchy and profit are unethic"> Hierarchy and profit are ethical now? Since when?

lol

sgp can turn on monetization at any time and take the profits himself if he so chooses

they are honest pursuits!!

(For the MCW channel)

<xmrscott[m] "It's already centralized is what"> So we should look to decentralize it. Not centralize it more

yep. he can

but the community can also disagree with his efforts and let him be known/ostracise/ignore/etc

Yes, and a board is more decentralized than a single shareholder which forunately people here have recognizedc

they could't do that with the MCW LLC could they? especially if they own the assets

<midipoet "they could't do that with the MC"> Exactly

xmrscott: a self elected board which didn't discuss the creation with the rest of the workgroup? hard to see it as an effort for decentralization

<xmrscott[m] "Yes, and a board is more decentr"> How is one company more decentralized? Its one

Its 3+ people sharing assets instead of one person owning many assets

That is a clear move towards decentralization

Cred sharing is a nightmare that no one should propose outside of a joke

Its one company towards the law. And also the community can remove these people

<midipoet "they could't do that with the MC"> The community can totally ignore the LLC if they so choose

Arguably worse than now

We can at least remove the people now

No one is holding a gun to everyone's head to watch Coffee Chat

sethsimmons: Maybe in spirit, yes. if we ignore the self-election, the ignored feedback and the now binding legal structure.

<xmrscott[m] "The community can totally ignore"> That doesn't mean the llc is good

<ErCiccione[m] "sethsimmons: Maybe in spirit, ye"> True, maybe I'm putting too much faith in the people who have gotten the MCW here with no income from it.

Which is why I'm more than open to a counter-proposal.

Electric Coin Company? Boooo! Monero Community Workgroup LLC? Yay! *applause*

I don't want this to hinge on the three of them -- and this seems like a way to move past that, while countering the issues they're facing now.

sethsimmons: No, you are just making the mistake of basing your opinion on your trust to the people that funded the company, not on the company itself and what rappresents.

* Its one company towards the law. And also the community cant remove these people

I think I'm assessing both and just coming to a different conclusion.

But I could be wrong, for sure.

<Inge- "Electric Coin Company? Boooo! "> These are in no way comparable.

Once the llc is formed it's not the three people anymore. Its a company now

This false equivalency is dangerous and unhelpful.

<msavoritias[m] "Once the llc is formed it's not "> *governed by three people with ways to add more

<sethsimmons "These are in no way comparable."> Both are for profit. Its just that with this you know the people kind of

That only helps support the MCW

And does not own it.

<msavoritias[m] "That doesn't mean the llc is goo"> And just because someone rando owns monero.how doesn't mean they're "good"

<xmrscott[m] "And just because someone rando o"> Your point?

LLC != company

Im not sure why people keep conflating the two

Its in the name

Company

An LLC that supports MCW is not in any way, in any world, on any planet equivalent to a company owning and running a coin and all related assets.

<msavoritias[m] "Company"> Yes in the name of the ECC

My point is arguing about ethics is a moot point because any LLC bad can be argued for individuals

Not in the LLC :0

It needs to be tackled in a more game theory type angle

As you youself said, depends on where people draw the line in the sand

On what is 'acceptable'

sethsimmons: i dont mind an LLC, I don't mind assets transferred from one individual to an LLC. I do note however a certain irony in a cypherpunk community - perhaps THE cypherpunk community in crypto, seeking statist protection for redress - although that is a side point. My maim gripe is the look of Monero Community = an incorporated entity. Even if you know that isn't ACTUALLY what it is, and I

know, it is embarrassing as hell.

<Inge- "sethsimmons: i dont mind an LLC,"> Yeah, that will definitely be the trickiest part, and is why extreme clarity in all documents/sharing of this is needed.

sethsimmons: that's like saying that one company (LLC) with a board of 100,000 board members but owning 51% of the hashing rate is more decentralised that 99,000 individual entities taking up the 51% hashrate.

If this moves forward, we have to be extremely careful to make it clear this LLC in no way represents or constitutes the community, or even the workgroup

<sethsimmons "Yeah, that will definitely be th"> At the end of the day its still an llc

But is merely a legal entity to help assist the MCW in running assets that are needed as we grow.

Someome has to sacrifice

<midipoet "sethsimmons: that's like saying "> Protocol != community

That comparison is bogus and unhelpful.

If you think that this llc will be different than all the other llc its a pipe dream

One does not need to be like the other

Protocol needs extreme focus on decentralization, permissionlessness, etc to be functional and avoid attacks

A community (and specifcally a community workgroup) does not require the same level of these things

Thinking that it does, IMO, is flawed and hurts forward progress by stopping any useful standardization/structure/focus.

I'm not saying this LLC is the perfect solution, far from it

But it's the best I've seen so far, and seems to be a good next step.

Decentralize funding, I vote yes for LLC

<sethsimmons "But it's the best I've seen so f"> There hasn't been a call for proposals even

sethsimmons: ok, then how about this. your measure of decentralisation is like saying that one LLC with 100,000 people is more decentralised than 100,000 individual people working on their own behalf.

<msavoritias[m] "There hasn't been a call for pro"> Then let this be a call for proposals :)

How do we know its the best one?

<midipoet "sethsimmons: ok, then how about "> Thats still not even a valid comparison

<msavoritias[m] "How do we know its the best one?"> We don't, so make a better proposal

All the avenues are open

share it here, reddit, etc

<sethsimmons "That comparison is bogus and unh"> Both of them ideally should be decentralized though

all openm

make a better proposal

I will vote for it if its better and advocate for it

<sethsimmons "Then let this be a call for prop"> Is it really? All this time you have been calling for structures?

How is that open to anything?

IM CALLING FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE COMMUNITY

sethsimmons: seriously? that is not a similar comparison. its literally an extension of your logic

Especially with the way critisim has been handled

If they come via the LLC or some magic anarchical effort, i couldnt care less

Make. A. Better. Proposal.

Its an open community

midipoet: It's not the real world example

If this LLC was called "Three troubadours for Monero" what are the main objections to having it exist and be used to help funding/spending/tax management for the Mcw?

Let's say for simplifciation sgp owns 10 assets

xmrscott[m]: ok. what number means it's "real world"?

<midipoet "sethsimmons: seriously? that is "> No, I'm saying each of the three owning various assets individually is worse (more centralized) than an LLC with the three of them involved owning all assets together

<xmrscott[m] "midipoet: It's not the real worl"> Why?

That is now split across 3

thank you xmrscott

As it exists now, there are not 10 people in the real world who have build 10 different assets being put into an LLC

Exactly :)

<sethsimmons "If they come via the LLC or some"> Well with the way you are taking about hierarchy it seems like you do

Dude just stop.

ok. i think we aren't going to agree here

Either contribute a better proposal or stop trolling me.

I could care less the avenue, as long as the growth of the community is helped instead of hindered

LLC is the best proposal so far

Make a better one and I'll change my mind.

Decentralize the CCS, vote yes to LLC!

i do not understand how you can think that 10 assets spread across 10 different people is more decentralised than 10 assets under one LLC

sorry - but that makes no sense to me

<sethsimmons "No, I'm saying each of the three"> Three individuals is more decentralized than one owning everythingm

<midipoet "i do not understand how you can "> You're not reading anything I or xmrscott are saying.

How does that make sense

You didn't even read the simplification xmrscott shared

sethsimmons:

that's exactly what you are saying!

ok. there are 10 assets

agreed?

sgp owning 6 things, nm90 owning 4 things, and rehrar owning 7 things is worse than one LLC owning 17 things

sure

sethsimmons: LLC is the best proposal so far <- not a proposal. If you are ok with decisions forced on you, that's ok. it's not ok for me, but let's just stop calling it a proposal.

I don't feel it is forced, i feel this is under discussion right now

but apparently not everyone feels the same way

It has been posted as something final on reddit

i should have said before: i do not understand how you can think that 10 assets spread across 10 different people is more centralised than 10 assets under one LLC

If someone made a clearly better proposal and it was ignored I would raise all hell

It wasn't a call for comments to begin with

Let me rephrase here

<midipoet "i should have said before: i do "> You're. Not. Reading. What. I. Am. Saying.

What you are saying is not reality as it exists now

I have said that is not my poiunt over and over again

You obviously have no interest in actually discussing this midipoet

Is asset ownership the main gripe against this proposal?

Idk

It changes frequently

I think you are the only person that feels that way to be honest. The board had already voted when the conversation started. No opinion was asked and the feedback was ignored. You are surely discussing about it, but maybe you are not noticing that the 3 people who made the decision are not participating as you are sethsimmons and the only opening for now is to change the name of the LLC

Inge-: there are a lot of gripes, from a number of angles

There are not 10 people who own 10 assets. Let's say again, sgp owns 10 assets. Those 10 assets are now owned across three people

It was at the beginning, then fell out of favor, now is back again.

sethsimmons: it changes as there a lot of gripes from a number of people.

ok

xmrscott[m]: and there is no way to distribute that ownership without an LLC?

<ErCiccione[m] "I think you are the only person "> Those three are free to form an LLC and do whatever the hell they want

We're discussing what the group does about it

We can ignore their LLC and do something different if there is a better alternative.

midipoet: There is, but we've already mutually established the legal retainership problem

They don't control the group nor the future of it.

<sethsimmons "You obviously have no interest i"> You haven't made your point clear anyway

sethsimmons: but that's not what you said 2 minutes ago. Your point was that this was a conversation, but now you say they are free to do whatever they want?

LLC is more powerful for keeping assets secure than throwing an excel password party

<msavoritias[m] "You haven't made your point clea"> I have in several ways, if you two choose to ignore it so be it.

xmrscott[m]: as far as i see it we have established one solution- the LLC solution

<ErCiccione[m] "sethsimmons: but that's not what"> We cannot stop their forming an LLC

They are people

with legal rights lol

Yes, because no one has proposed a better one that sovles the two problems

sethsimmons: No, we cannot. That was never a point

<sethsimmons "I have in several ways, if you t"> Stop trolling

xmrscott[m]: when was the suggestion period?

Since Wednesday of last week at least

ok, so in between the initial fully fleshed out solution, and the update?

<xmrscott[m] "Yes, because no one has proposed"> What are the two problemsm

Worth noting that the LLC, TMK is not yet formed either

alright. Now we are pretending it was a democratic decision. i'm done with this conversation

<msavoritias[m] "What are the two problemsm"> See reddit post

(Accounting, bus factor)

<ErCiccione[m] "alright. Now we are pretending i"> Whos pretending?!?

They decided on the LLC and their thoughts on how to move forward

They can do that

as they are people

We as the MCW can choose to go with it or not

If you have a better proposal please make it, and I'd love to do it

If you can avoid an LLC/legal entity as part of that and not put more burden on the three of them, by all means do it

Idk how to do that, and their proposal seems sane and helpful.

Obviously we're never going to have 100% support for something

So now this discussions has turned into of we follow our benevolent dictators?

* So now this discussions has turned into if we follow our benevolent dictators?

I'm begging other people who have good ideas to contribute them in a clear and readable fashion, i.e. reddit post, gist, etc.

<midipoet "ok, so in between the initial fu"> And as I told you on reddit, nm90 at least is open to structural change

<msavoritias[m] "So now this discussions has turn"> You're being unhelpful and just trolling at this point, please stop.

Yes we follow our benevolent dictators. Vote Yes to LLC, decentralize funding!

<sethsimmons "I'm *begging* other people who h"> But its not you who needs to heard the alternatives anyway

<lh1008[m] "Yes we follow our benevolent dic"> Also unhelpful.

People can can argue

Its the three people who decided by themselves

to form an LLC that we can reject/ignore

They can do that

sethsimmons: you clearly don't see an issue with how the matter was handled. Try to understand people that do have a problem with that, i don;t think continuing this conversation is useful.

<ErCiccione[m] "sethsimmons: you clearly don't s"> I will do my best to understand it, and I think I do understand it.

to form an LLC that we can reject/ignore <- the idea of the LLC was overwemghly rejected by most of the community, for what it worth

But bailing from the convo/not contributing alternatives doesn't help avoid the end you and others so desperately do not want to see.

*People can argue that there's no guarantee the LLC will handover to whatever new solution is proposed. But then don't bemoan the lack of a solution apart from an LLC

<ErCiccione[m] "to form an LLC that we can rejec"> So we ignore it and move on

Well calling people you don't agree with trolls doesn't help in having a discussion

If thats actually consensus

sethsimmons: You do realize that "ignore it" means a community split, right?

<msavoritias[m] "Well calling people you don't ag"> I call trolls what they are, trolls, you're not contributing to the conversation.

that's the choice is forced upon us

I would hope that if there was a better alternative they would come with it

<sethsimmons "I call trolls what they are, tro"> And who are you exactly to judge that?

If that didn't happen we'd have to split, yes

I don't think it has come to that.

The reddit post is at 62%

I think that is a good indicator if people want this llc

Also the comments are negative

Most of them

They got fed up with the status quo of them getting fucked over by having to own/drive so much, and contributed a clear-cut proposal.

If that didn't happen we'd have to split, yes -> and you are ok with the fact that 3 community leader forced the rest of the community to either folow them or split? without having a discussion first.

If we don't like the proposal we come up with a better way to spread the load and move forward.

sethsimmons: ^

<ErCiccione[m] "If that didn't happen we'd have "> No, I don't think its forced, its a proposal

It hasn't happened yet

We can create a new chat group :).

New freshly credentials :D

Monero-llc or something

sethsimmons: have you read the reddit thread yet? is that not close enough to consensus as it is?

<sethsimmons "No, I don't think its forced, it"> How was it framed as a proposal?

I read all the replies as of last night

But not today yet

sethsimmons: There it's where we disagree. I really don't understand how you see it as a proposal when most of "the proposal" was already decided and not up for discussion and the feedback went unheard. I really don't understand that

They never called for comments or alternatives

No is not a proposal

They voted on what to propose

They have done nothing with it AFAICT

Other than decide what they see as the best next steps and share it here

Proposals should go to CCS and forced to either be funded because some like it or not :D

we cannot continue to keep fucking over the people contributing time with no financial recourse and expect them to not want to change that status quo

the reddit thread is literally a "this is our plan" is it not?

its not even a request for comments?

its a "be excited this is gonna be great"

no financial recourse and expect them to not want to change that status quo -> that's really nobody's point

fyi, Justin, Doug, and I are discussing all of this feedback. There will be an update before the end of today.

<midipoet "the reddit thread is literally a"> The proposal is what they're doing to further MCW

right. but its a plan

<sethsimmons "we cannot continue to keep fucki"> Seriously? That's what you get from the discussion?

its literally a "this is the future of the MCW"

<midipoet "its a "be excited this is gonna "> Its no ones point, but its what happens when nobody acts to change it -- thats what status quo is

sethsimmons: they didn't tell anybody there was a problem

i have been in the community for a pretty ling time

<sethsimmons "we cannot continue to keep fucki"> This has been an issue since we started pointing to which proposals were important and which were not important to the community. That's why we need to decentralize funding.

nobody mentioned the problems

<sethsimmons "Its no ones point, but its what "> They didn't say there was a problen

<lh1008[m] "This has been an issue since we "> The CCS already exists, this isn't relevant.

They did discuss anything. Or say what the problems are

<midipoet "nobody mentioned the problems"> They mentioned the problems in the proposal

oh fuck me

* They didnt discuss anything. Or say what the problems are

And the problem has been evident for some time, which is why i've been trying to help out here where I can

sethsimmons: the bus factor has been evident?

<midipoet "sethsimmons: the bus factor has "> yes for a long time

i have NEVER heard anyone complaining about server costs

there is a general fund, and a CCS

sethsimmons: that's absolutely not a point at all. The problem was *never* raised. Never.

So its either follow the irc channels or you are not interested now?

The issue is not the costs

<sethsimmons "The CCS already exists, this isn"> Why have some proposals been negated from this chat?

That won't change with this proposal

Am I supposed to spend three hours everyday reading logs?

<ErCiccione[m] "sethsimmons: that's absolutely n"> It could have been raised more clearly, for sure.

I saw the issues in having basically 3 people doing all the core work for MCW

And them owning handles/yt/etc solo

But yes, they did not clearly raise the issues and call for proposals before this

Which probably would have been a better first step

If they wanted help they should have asked the community. Call for proposals

It seems that they tried to bear up under the load

And then when it was clear that wouldn't work they formed this proposal

I am in no way saying they handled this perfectly

sethsimmons: You are twisting it. Nobody forced them to create tools/platforms. They created them because they thought it was useful

Of course not

I never said they were forced

now you are trying to pass the "they were too overloaded" point. If they felt so, they should have just made it clear

But no one volunteered either

Which is a common issue with no clear focus/structure

You wait and wait for people to step up who may never do it

And then you hit a breaking point

What? That's how it works for you?

<sethsimmons "But no one volunteered either"> How could someone volunteer if they don't know there is a problemm

?

I've been part of decentralized structures all of my life, and they destroy people when there isn't clear focus on how to keep spreading the work

I've seen it time and time again

I create a tool and then i am weired out by the fact that people don't step up to maintain it?

no, if i need people to help me I ASK

If its a necessary tool yes

Yes they should have asked more clearly

I've stated that already

It could have been handled better before the proposal, yes

I do not disagree

more clearly implied there was a request for help. There wasn't

That doesn't change the actual state of things though

<ErCiccione[m] "more clearly implied there was a"> What? I said there wasn't a clear one

I said I saw the need

If they get financed with the LLC and keep running services for monero I'm okay with it, they are contributing to the Monero Project. The only issue is that forcing rules behind it, that ercicciones has been trying to assess.

they could have been more clear before reaching this point

Yeah, that's what i'm saying. You cannot not talk about an issue and expect people to step up to solve it. My point is that this is literally the worst possible approach to resolve the issue

I agree the handling of the load before this was not ideal

I disagree that this proposal is the "worst possible approach"

Its basically three people deciding by themselves. And then being like there were no proposals

I disagree that this proposal is the "worst possible approach"

-> you missed my point. it's not the proposal the worst possible approach. It's the absence of one

How can there be of you don't ask? Or call for proposalsm

Ah, yeah, that was a poor choice before this proposal.

I agree.

<sethsimmons "I disagree that this proposal is"> There wasn't a proposal though. It was anannouncment.

if this mess it's happening now, it's because there was no proposal. Only a solution arrived from above that people could comment (and the feebacks got ignored, let's not forget that part). And the approach seems to be: "you like this proposal, or you build your own tools", which translates in "if you don't like it, you split"

which is something i'm hating to see in the community

i don't call somebody a king because they put a crown on their head

I agree, if this is a "like it or else" move then I am not happy about that.

and i'm saying as somebody who has a lot of respect for all three

But that's not the way I see it.

Hopefully I am not wrong in my interpretation

i simply deeply dislike how they are dealing with this "us 3" vs "the rest of you"

What do you mean?

literally my main point in this whole conversation

<xmrhaelan> <sgp_> we're busy having another conversation at the moment, please continue to toss around name ideas

<xmrhaelan>

<xmrhaelan> Socio Servo (Esperanto for community service) and completely avoids any potential for misinterpretation)

<xmrhaelan> Or just the simple: Servo

Ooh thats good!

<xmrhaelan> After reading most of the discussion on this, I have to say that I fundamentally believe there is no ill will here from SGP, and I will have no issues with any of this if they are able to change the name and develop strong documentation outlining the views, structure, and goals of the LLC in a way that takes into consideration all of the criticism that’s been shared.

Well said

<xmrhaelan> I do however question needmoney90 at this point. I don’t recall seeing a single contribution from him in this entire discussion that was productive or conducive to spreading good faith. His responses to criticism have been rather toxic and immature. If I were an outsider who just stepped into Monero land and read this discussion I wouldn’t touch this community with a ten foot pole.

<xmrhaelan> I hope any observers reading this understand this is not a complete representation of Monero’s community. We actually get a lot of great things done and usually work very well together!

For sure, this is not the norm :)

I will have to step away for a while, but thankful to all those contributing to the discussion, whether I agree with you or not :)

<xmrhaelan> I do however question needmoney90 at this point. I don’t recall seeing a single contribution from him in this entire discussion that was productive or conducive to spreading good faith. His responses to criticism have been rather toxic and immature. If I were an outsider who just stepped into Monero land and read this discussion I wouldn’t touch this community with a ten foot pole.

<xmrhaelan> I hope any observers reading this understand this is not a complete representation of Monero’s community. We actually get a lot of great things done and usually work very well together!

Agree

He's the worst

oops, I was actually copying that to a friend because I thought it was a little harsh

you're a volunteer and this is how a group runs off volunteers

maybe if you were a paid employee I could understand this sentiment, but you're not

<xmrhaelan> I have thanks needmoney90 personally in the past for his dedication and thoughtfulness to moderation.

I'm used to getting the short end of the stick, most people resent moderation.

And the world keeps turning

<xmrhaelan> It is possible to simultaneously be grateful for someone and disappointed in their actions

1. I agree opening a broader discussion of the issues that need to be resolved, instead of jumping to a solution which can rub the community the wrong way would have been a stronger opening. 2. I am grateful for the work the 3 do and have done, and do not in any way suspect any ill will behind the proposal. 3. For asset protection, this potential LLC is more like a mining pool - if it gets to

manage too many assets, that hurts decentralization and does not necessarily help the community e.g. if the LLC itself ends up going rogue at some point in the future. 4. My main gripe is naming related - Socio Servo or Servo LLC as an LLC used by the MCW to help manage funding/bills etc I find fairly harmles. Monero Community Workgroup LLC I find quite disagreeable as the community would end up

in an endless meaningless round of seeing the two be conflated - and it is a bad look. FIN

<xmrhaelan> Needmoney90 I am sure your callousness helps a lot in your role as a moderator, but it doesn’t appear to be very useful in responding to peoples legitimate concerns about the LLC

Well said Inge-

<xmrhaelan> +1 great summary lnge

<xmrmatterbridge "<xmrhaelan> Needmoney90 I am sur"> I agree it hasn't been handled perfectly, but he has contributed some and was part of the initial proposal as well.

I admit I don't really understand what's happening here. Let's say I want to start Monero Communty LLC right now on my own and I use my new business to sell succulents... I can do that, righ?t

But we also need to be extremely careful of how we treat unpaid volunteers

<bemore "I admit I don't really understan"> of course!

I think more of the issue is that people think the LLC will somehow absorb MCW

But its just being used as a tool to support MCW and is separate.

so nm90's choice of name for his LLC is his own, it's just a matter of whether or not his CCS will be funded, right?

he only needs to please everyone if he wants funding

there is no current plan for a CCS.

bemore: nobody can stop you. But you would probably find the Monero Community less than eager to support you - as the naming would encroach on the mental space of Monero

Thus why the feedback has been to change the name, and it has been changed (and likely will change again)

To please the community -- which is not necessary, but smart for sure

<xmrhaelan> I may have been harsh in my critique of needmoney90 approach. For that I apologize.

<3

Its been a hairy discussion from the get-go lol

<xmrhaelan> I still think he could put more care into how he responds to critics. It isn’t a good look. This whole discussion isn’t a good look.

Agreed.

rehrar is funded through the general fund, and not the CCS, right? If rehrar is to be a big part of a Monero Community LLC, I might worry about XMR core being too closely associated with an LLC

Yes, thats correct

Thats why he is not going to be a board member, and will have no official role

<xmrhaelan> I’ll reiterate my offer. If anyone has plans to make an announcement in the future that has ANY potential to be misinterpreted or fracture the community in any way, please reach out to Monero Outreach and consult with us first. We spend a lot of time thinking about how to message things in a way that will be beneficial to Monero and its community...

But will still offer advice of course, as he started MCW and has lots of valuable input :)

<xmrmatterbridge "<xmrhaelan> I’ll reiterate my of"> Thats a great offer, could definitely use more collaboration between WGs :)

well, from the perspective of a business, Monero Community is a good name

its not really a 'business', other than in name. Its a purpose-built legal entity

Some ideas we've floated are to potentially sell merch (like hats) to cover server costs, if donation's dont cut it. Thats about as far as attempting to profit goes.

I like socio Servo / Servo LLC

Servo is almost certainly taken fyi

because reasons

thats some prime real estate

as Monero continues to grow, someone will eventually register Monero Community and start selling stuff

speaking of servo, mozilla just killed off all of their servo browser engine developers

might as well be you

bemore: and be universally condemned for it by the community.

I think most Monero users are oblivious to these IRC channels

^

bet. 95%

But the ones here are so damn vocal

Man that Reddit thread is not kind to the proposal at all, just finished reading through most of the comments.

The summary seems to be that people are worried that assets including communication channels will be absorbed by the LLC and therefore controlled by the US

But that doesn't seem to match the actual proposal as no comms channels are an asset of the LLC AFAICT

Which is a fair worry - if the premise was true

Exactly

I think the premise is not true, but apparently the presentation of the proposal was not clear enough on that.

So a bit of communications job needs to be done - I can recommend getting some input from ... xmrhaelan :D

(i.e. Monero Outreach)

For sure

Unfortunately any clarifying comments by sgp and nm90 were downvoted into oblivion for some reason

So no one is going to see those

Yeah I'd suggest a new post that is cleaned up bit, and with an FAQ adressing the relevant concerns.

So maybe this needs to be scratched and re-done with new info and clarification

<Inge- "Yeah I'd suggest a new post that"> Yeah absolutely

Gather FAQ/points people are against and speak to each one individually

does nm90 want to be a business owner who supports and volunteers with Monero, or a workgroup administrator who works directly with core?

both of these are good things, I think. some people are just worried about overlap

<sethsimmons "Unfortunately any clarifying com"> "for some reason". I really cannot understand how can still be unclear why so many people got pissed about this announcement.

I understand being pissed about the announcement but not mass downvoting clarifications

Are there any issues people have with this I should add to this list?

^ that's not how downvote button is supposed to work but everyone (most) do that

... and the answers given

maybe because the clarifications weren't really satisfying for a lot of people?

Trying to bring together a concrete list of issues people have with it, would love any I may have missed from Reddit/here

Unsatisfying shouldnt equal a downvote, but it often does.

lza_menace: i like lobste.rs, the downvote button is replaced with a flag button and you have to pick a reason

<lza_menace "bet. 95%"> /raise 99%

yeah, probably right xmrscott :P

One meta-issue might be that this announcement seemed to appear out of nowhere, unless I missed something

Idk how the above paste came through on IRC so here is a link for those there just in case: paste.centos.org/view/a4a7692c

Ah, good add sarang

and that it affects not a proposed new workgroup, but one that already exists and has presumably evolved over time

Added that as well

One test I like for openness and transparency is whether or not the average person would be surprised/shocked to learn about something

This surprised me, certainly

(I'm sure it's a wildly imperfect test!)

Me as well in some ways

Thats a good litmus test :)

Note that I'm not saying I support or oppose this idea... I don't have a fully-formed opinion on it yet

For sure, thats helpful feedback though :)

Hopefully I can collect a good list to pass on to help further iterations of this proposal

im a nobody, and I don't really give a shit either way

Also note that I am a chanop in another workgroup (MRL), in case this is viewed as a conflict of interest of some kind

and that I receive community CCS support

reported

Baseless MRL shill :P

lol

Just trying to be open and transparent :D

Indeed surprising, I made a comment to the effect of 'did I miss an ask to help w/ biweekly meetings'. I tend to be of the mind people are allowed to do whatever they want w/ what they create within the confines of whatever licenses they're created under so not as concerning to me perhaps as others

I do want to note that I had previously suggested to sgp_ that the nature/structure of workgroups be made _much_ more clear on getmonero

and I still think this is a good idea

e.g. to help understand that Monero communities are kinda sorta like subreddits, with their own structure and rules and leadership to some extent

sethsimmons: what about the bylaws?

line of redress to the board?

Oversight?

Geographical/jurisdictional distribution of board members/asset ownership?

sethsimmons: not to mention there is talk of a flarum (which I think will be owned and operated by the LLC)

i feel like i didn't read the proposal closely enough, because i don't understand why there should be additional community oversight of this proposed LLC.

i am mainly concerned with "does it look like the monero community is basically governed by an LLC?" and "does the formation of an LLC cause some US situs concern that didn't exist before?"

agreed. with the anti-crypto stance in the US, it seems a poor choice

Why?

<scoobybejesus "i am mainly concerned with "does"> Basically what I understand about it is that the LLC will be another way to provide funding to other projects apart from the Monero Core team. So it matters who are putting their faces to lead the LLC because the community and external parties will trust them as a reliable source for funding more projects. That's why I say it might be a good idea because it will

eventually decentralize the funding from the Core team.

as a US LLC, which the project relies on to fund new initiatives, it becomes vulnerable to US regulations

which have a tendency to be used to shutdown commerce

e.g. the inability of marijuana businesses in the US to have regular bank accts

The main issue is the rules the community will have to attain themselves by accepting the LLC, so if the case that the LLC goes through. If not we're also building something outside this barriers. Monero Jobs

That's a really big issue, the US is not friendly at all.

hyc: fwiw we already have a crypto-friendly bank account

hyc has a huge point in favor

<lh1008[m] "The main issue is the rules the "> ***these

<sgp_ "hyc: fwiw we already have a cryp"> Friendly until Monero could be considered illegal by the state of law. At that point, poof, no more friends my friend.

that's something we can address if we get there

Getting there with millions worth of money is risky.

But the risk has to be taken.

Somewhere. It could be Europe. But somewhere.

Europe with GDPR is IMO a safer haven

with their pro-privacy stance, I think it would be much less likely to turn against us

<scoobybejesus "i am mainly concerned with "does"> Exactly, an LLC support the MCW is not a big deal IMO, but an LLC owning/running the entire workgroup is more questionable

North Americans seem not to understand how their country works, with all respects to native americans from the community. The US literally takes things from other regions.

Not questioning this could be a threat is very innocent

naive

cue US ban on crypto in 3...2...1... twitter.com/ForbesCrypto/status/1293997261559652354

Boom there you go :)

Oof

Better get Matt Green and Sarah Lewis on that

lolwut

no thank you

I've been hearing the 'but itll get banned' line since 2011 and its really played out by now

I am not convinced thats a significant enough threat at this point. If the situation changes it can be re-evaluated.

hyc: how do they seperate identity and vote?

<xmrhaelan> Sarang we have a fairly comprehensive breakdown of the different workgroups here: monerooutreach.org/stories/getting-started-helping-monero.html

xmrhaelan: he is talking more about the description of what workgroups are in general I think

<xmrhaelan> That page ^ has a 1-2 sentence description for each, as well as links to where people can get started. I think anything more than that would start to risk losing the audience.

in general, not about the specific workgroups

<xmrhaelan> Ahh I see. We do have an introduction that could be edited if we need to make something more clear.

<xmrhaelan> “Below is a list of Monero workgroups that will be updated as new workgroups become established. If you have an idea for a project to support Monero that is not currently on this list, take the initiative and get it going! There are some resources available to the Monero community to help facilitate effective development and operations of our workgroups. If you have any questions, hop on one of the forums and ask arou

xmrhaelan: this is in regards to the "community" page that currently exists. Needs a big redo

on getmonero.org

<xmrhaelan> Oh. Yes, it does.