03:33:16 oh man 03:33:29 splenectomies hurt 03:33:32 recommend against for recreation 03:36:07 [crosses off his weekend plans list] 03:48:00 wisdom 05:00:50 Monero Defcon28 Village playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsSYUeVwrHBn43BwoeplKKdJDFJFGH-9_ 05:00:51 [ Defcon 2020 - YouTube ] - www.youtube.com 05:01:02 missing the Dr. Daniel Kim talks (will be re-recorded) 05:06:34 surae! 05:06:35 wb 07:22:12 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. 07:31:34 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. 07:32:48 The only thing missing at this point is writing "fake news!" all in caps. I'm in disbelieve. 07:57:20 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 :) 07:58:39 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) 08:51:34 Calling a workgroup "monero community" while ignoring / ridiculing feedback from community members is kinda ironic. 08:55:02 ErCiccione[m]: it's pretty obvious they are continuing on regardless of the concerns raised. i think that is clear for everybody to see 08:56:22 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 08:57:21 how feedback has been handled certainly makes me feel uninvited in this workgroup 08:57:34 ^ 08:58:14 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 08:59:42 yeah, the sad thing is, is that it's the most comprehensive vehicle for channeling efforts into Monero 09:00:12 though, we could start going through #monero-tranmissions 09:00:31 or ask for another channel here 09:01:06 *another channel on IRC that is 09:01:40 i am not sure what you have to do to get opped on a channel, or a channel created 09:01:43 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". 09:01:53 selsta: exactly 09:02:12 even the "we need to delegate" part 09:02:25 instead, of "hey all, we need some help" 09:03:03 oits not like there isn't a host of companies/entities/individuals that would happily own asstes/pay bills 09:03:18 i mean, i know i have one, am sure others do 09:04:11 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. 09:04:46 selsta: I absolutely agree and the dismissal of the criticism is the real deal changer for me 09:15:24 midipoet: what is #monero-transmissions? 09:28:41 oh, i meant #monero-outreach actually 09:28:52 transmissions is about the mesh network stuff 09:29:24 outreach is a vehicle for marketing related activities, and is overseen by thunderosa and xmrhaelan (afaiu) 09:29:50 however, there are also no ops in that channel, so who the fuck knows 09:51:24 midipoet: I registered it, so ops can be fixed 09:52:27 do i get to create an LLC if i become op? 09:52:55 I doubt I could stop you from creating an LLC 09:55:38 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. 09:56:20 That LLC thing really hit a nerve, I see 10:02:27 is there a TLDR version of reddit thread? 10:04:01 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). 10:04:09 that's the tl;dr as i understand it 10:37:22 How does one invest in such a great company? 11:05:03 rdymac: 87J5eanp8pMG59amf5yfoJfB6Lq963zqpN9hYPY4WZPfeHnDPBPk7gDW86y676ScHLeUC7fckSaYhNsr7ccKNyCn4gSpv4B 11:05:17 we have set starting price of 0.1 XMR per share 11:05:32 will I get 2x back? 11:06:45 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. 11:15:53 how does any of that make sense? "community" pretty much means there is no company 11:17:34 if some folks want to start a company, great. but calling it "monero community" sounds like an oxymoron 11:22:15 it’s called `monero community support llc` 11:22:32 still bad, as almost everyone gave feedback to not include "monero community" in the name to avoid confusion 11:23:20 oh, yeah apols. i thought it was Monero Community Workgroup LLC. apologies. 11:57:26 Rehrar I don't think having a "portable" transaction history which can be regenerated from the block chain alone is a good idea 11:57:50 Transaction history recording should be a personal choice, just like with cash 11:58:35 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 12:00:26 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 12:02:05 Optional and better UX for backups of wallet history is a good idea though and I'm all for that 12:38:05 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. 12:38:20 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. 12:38:37 * lh1008[m] sent a long message: < https://matrix.org/_matrix/media/r0/download/matrix.org/YBWPtogDGskgyYZrbaHHkbCr/message.txt > 12:40:01 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. 12:44:23 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! 12:45:09 +1 on that xmrhaelan 12:49:35 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 12:50:41 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 12:52:04 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 12:53:01 At the end of the day, NOTHING is changing in this channel. NOTHING 12:53:25 No one is charging you fees to be here. No one is changing the existing rules 12:53:55 And no one seems to complain about the goals I outlined both times 12:54:06 I'm public too sgp_. If this breaks, this will break my ass too. Taking liability is part of life. 12:54:07 So I think we really have a lot more on the same page than without 12:54:25 *than not 12:55:09 That's the problem, nothing has changed 12:55:27 lh1008[m]: there's unavoidable liability and then there's someone sitting on the sidelines dictating that someone else needs to take needless liability 12:55:42 Doing the latter is unfair 12:56:55 If you wouldn't have mind being public you would have stayed private 12:57:25 Life is unfair [:what_can_we_do:] 12:57:57 Keep doing your stuff. Just don't step on others way of working. 12:58:13 I don't see how this is stepping on others' way of working 12:58:43 Since funding has centralized itself it has been stepping on others way of working 12:58:58 Now is going to another level 12:59:01 We're a group of people who want to support the communities, and people are not obligated to join or help out 12:59:13 And at the moment we have 0 funding 12:59:19 That's what, keep building. I'm not against it 12:59:28 That's why*** 13:00:01 Okay, it's hard to tell what you are arguing 13:01:50 It might be hard because we think differently. I'm part of the church :). We're crazy horses. <3 13:05:59 Too much reason will make you crazy too. That's why we all need each other. 13:06:17 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. 13:06:49 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 13:15:04 https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/i8hbr8/monero_community_workgroup_is_preparing_for_the/ 13:15:05 [REDDIT] Monero Community Workgroup is preparing for the large growth ahead (self.Monero) | 18 points (62.0%) | 86 comments | Posted by SamsungGalaxyPlayer | Created at 2020-08-12 - 16:52:06 13:15:20 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 13:16:17 then don’t include the "monero community" in the LLC name like suggested by literally everyone :/ 13:16:58 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. 13:17:22 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 13:18:11 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 13:18:43 This room is not an "asset of the LLC" plain and simple 13:19:59 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... 13:20:11 *respond with a link 13:20:23 It was listed under a grouped "assets and services" 13:20:33 Moderating this channel is a service 13:20:37 Just because you have deleted the evidence doesn’t mean it wasn’t there 13:21:57 Well for the 100th time this channel is neither hosted by us, nor supreme-controlled by us 13:22:10 And when mentioned 100 times this is still repeated by many of the same people 13:22:59 It's not true that this channel is becoming a company or whatever. That makes no sense 13:23:09 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 13:23:22 People tend to believe what is read on official looking documents vs comments on an internet forum 13:23:39 The document was not saying it was an asset 13:23:41 I read it many times 13:23:47 Its been clarified many times. 13:23:52 What else would help to clarify this for you? 13:24:20 They probably should have been separated there since it was unclear, but I have clarified this 100 times and people keep repeating it 13:24:23 Pay my bills 13:24:37 An updated document that does a better job distinguishing between the two would be a great start 13:24:43 For sure 13:25:03 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.... 13:25:44 I think that was the point of sharing in IRC first 13:25:51 This is the most "internal" way to share things 13:26:19 Yeah, pitch the idea small, make an announcement a week later 13:26:27 There are much more private ways to share things 13:27:16 Sgp no one read that as a pitch. 13:27:27 no feedback from the initial sharing on IRC has been considered 13:27:36 ^ 13:27:43 xmrhaelan: can you remove comments like these? They are simply not true: https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/i8hbr8/monero_community_workgroup_is_preparing_for_the/g1bo91x/ 13:27:44 [REDDIT] Monero Community Workgroup is preparing for the large growth ahead (self.Monero) | 17 points (62.0%) | 86 comments | Posted by SamsungGalaxyPlayer | Created at 2020-08-12 - 16:52:06 13:27:56 it felt more like "this is what we will do and deal with it" 13:28:30 though at least now a name change is considered 13:28:49 first, we revised the post we sent out earlier to clearly distinguish between assets and services 13:29:13 we made most of the wording about "Monero communities" rather than "Monero community" 13:29:27 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. 13:30:07 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) 13:30:46 Don’t act like I am making that claim. It was on the document that you’ve since removed. 13:31:03 THE DOCUMENT DID NOT CLAIM THAT 13:31:04 I never specifically said it was an asset, jesus dude 13:31:09 It was clarified what was meant 13:31:45 selsta: we also added a whole Q&A part about why we want an entity at all 13:32:08 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 13:32:40 Its not cyclical, you're just refusing to accept the clear answers to your issues. 13:33:33 xmrhaelan here's a draft of the revision, happy? https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/9A3lLh0N/document 13:33:52 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 13:34:46 xmrhaelan: do you see the screenshot? is that unclear? 13:35:34 It is clear. But even claiming #monero-community is a service of the LLC implies ownership. 13:35:35 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? 13:35:48 🤦 13:36:03 the specific structure of how this works has been described to you many times 13:36:10 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. 13:36:15 if you are purposefully ignoring this, then so be it 13:36:27 Moderating is a service, the channel is an asset which is ultimately actually controlled by core 13:36:42 Yup 13:36:46 Exactly on point canker 13:36:54 And that was the clarification provided many times 13:37:01 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. 13:37:09 Okay, soy maintain the LLC decentralized then. 13:37:25 You will have to trust someone else 13:38:00 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 13:38:03 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 13:38:16 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. 13:38:20 This is all just my interpretation of course 13:38:25 and it also requires more agreement before actions can be taken 13:38:26 I know that Core is the owner. 13:39:38 My criticism is about the “optics” of perception of ownership by an LLC. 13:39:39 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 13:40:08 Think you're spot on cankerwort. 13:40:26 I believe the LLC has a lot of benefits. So long as the main criticisms are addressed by official documentation 13:40:26 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 13:40:36 I will say it then. sgp_, rehrar, and needsmoney90, one of you should not be part of the LLC board. 13:40:40 So rehrar is an advisor? Is he using the time paid by core to be an advisor for this LLC? 13:41:04 selsta: good question, and we are still talking about that, but I can share some updates here 13:42:06 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) 13:42:46 You will have to add someone else there. 13:42:47 part of this has to do with his connection to Core 13:43:42 but for all "official" purposes he is not a board member 13:43:48 at his own request 13:43:56 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. 13:44:22 selsta: to some extent it is and is not reasonable to restrict what people do outside of work 13:44:23 You will have to add a trusted party not close to the other board members 13:44:50 for paid time however, I agree 13:44:54 I’m specifically talking about core paid time. 13:45:07 idk if he is salaried or hourly 13:47:24 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 13:47:38 something containing MCW maybe 13:47:44 just not "monero community" 13:47:48 I daresay you would have hated them more for other reasons 😅 13:48:06 It doesn't matter if he uses core paid time here. What matters is the little, "we're crypto friendy", shitty thing. 13:48:13 sgp: since when is it acceptable to restrict what people do outside of work? 13:48:15 You will have to add a third party not close to the board members 13:48:33 NDAs? 13:48:42 To a limit of "acceptable" 13:48:59 suraeNoether_: that's common practice sadly 13:49:20 in some cases I think it makes sense but it's usually over-used and over-enforced 13:49:37 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. 13:50:21 Yeah, anyone is capable of doing things in their time 13:50:42 I agree with suraeNoether_ 13:51:49 The, "we're crypto shitty friends", is now paying its due 13:52:22 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 13:52:45 Or make their own board with their own services 13:52:47 i can pretend not to be malicious. wen board? 13:52:55 correct, the board isn't permanently set in stone 13:53:03 it can be changed 13:53:15 The LLC thing, is for getting pay and receive legal donations, let's be honest for one second please. 13:53:19 sgp: i don't mean in "jobs generally." i mean in this space in particular. 13:54:35 can someone link me the most up-to-date CCS i'm not seeing it 13:54:41 When I mean legal donations is the fiat system integration to the Monero Community 13:54:53 suraeNoether_: CCS? 13:54:58 the ccs for this llc 13:55:02 no CCS 13:55:07 oh 13:55:07 suraenoether there is no CCS and no one is asking for money 13:55:09 ... 13:55:33 needmoney90 pretty much always asks for money though since he needs it 13:55:37 very demanding person 13:55:45 There is a reddit post and an apparently withdrawn document 13:56:04 oh. well. the strength of my opinions just vanished. what's the controversy, then, using "Monero" in the LLC title? 13:56:15 I withdrew it because of the confusion. We will put out another 13:56:20 ok 13:56:29 suraeNoether_: many people don't seem to like "Monero Community Support LLC" 13:56:29 until then i'll bug out :P 13:57:13 that name was recommended to me by a contributor I trust to have good opinions most of the time :) 13:58:28 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. 13:58:30 "Service for the Monero Community LLC"? :D 13:58:47 makes it clear that it isn't *the* monero community. whatever that is 13:59:31 @moneroservice 13:59:56 * suraeNoether got rid of the underscore sorry about that 14:00:18 so here's the problem 14:00:30 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? 14:00:37 you want ot pick a anme that doesn't ring people's "Rachel from Cardholder Services" or "Paul from MIcrosoft Account Services" phishing bells 14:00:53 I can see how it's very difficult to be 100% clear that the LLC is not "the community/communities" 14:01:12 now, iirc there is definitely a drawback to using "monero" in LLC titles 14:01:37 There's also the benefit of not confusing people, perhaps 14:02:07 basically everyone gave feedback to avoid the name "monero" or "monero community" in the LLC name to avoid confusion / drama 14:02:09 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 14:02:17 *nod* 14:02:26 this is why i did NOT name the konferenco LLC using the word monero 14:02:44 that's one reason we didn't choose a super generic name like "Global Services" :p 14:02:48 suraeNoether: I had recommended overhauling the "Community" stuff on getmonero to highlight that there are "Communities", kinda like subreddits 14:02:54 which was a whole different world of mistakes: "Colorado Crypto Conferences" abbreviates to cons. :P 14:03:02 and that some stuff, like getmonero, is operated in a more overarching way 14:03:15 suraeNoether: what's wrong with cons? people don't like lisp functions? :'( 14:03:36 :D 14:03:51 a con man is just a backward walking nman 14:04:02 * suraeNoether high fives sarang 14:04:12 * suraeNoether happy with crickets 14:04:49 Making it more clear how the communities are organized (to the extent they are) may be helpful overall, not just in this discussion 14:05:05 i.e. communities have their own standards (to a point), moderators, etc. 14:06:34 *nod* lesley carhart got me thinking about how i've been using "community" lately 14:06:58 if this is too off-topic i can ramble in -research-lounge 14:07:03 certianly don't want to interrupt anything 14:07:23 Q: if the LLC needs funds to run some of these self hosted services, is there likely to be a CCS for that? 14:10:41 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? 14:14:03 which is the best and most immediate way to buy monero 14:14:07 i have bitcoin 14:15:15 Probably Kraken 14:16:02 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 14:16:17 profitable is relative, how about "breaking even" :) 14:18:08 we would like to have a revenue stream not not be entirely reliant upon donations 14:18:19 s/not/to 14:18:19 sgp_ meant to say: we would like to have a revenue stream to not be entirely reliant upon donations 14:19:08 Curious what kinds of revenue streams could be relied on for that 14:19:25 Q2: I expect the conversation to be entirely around what people are doing, like it is now, not about bureaucratic nonsense 14:19:46 Maybe a monero gambling site like Minko 14:20:03 haha, probably not with a US entity :p 14:20:19 Good point 14:20:39 Maybe raffles or bingo or something 14:20:40 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) 14:20:52 Elite Kahoot championships 14:21:51 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 14:22:00 midipoet: I think it is more healthy to try and find a way to pay for these things ourselves, in our mutual interests 14:22:27 "mutual interests"? 14:22:27 Lots of charities aim to break even and still manage to support whatever cause/community they were set up for 14:22:30 what does that mean? 14:22:35 Elite Kahoot championships <- LOL 14:23:21 cankerwort: how can we be sure that the LLC will always try to break even, as opposed to "turn profit"? 14:23:35 Public accounts? 14:23:35 is that written down anywhere? 14:23:49 the public accounts come after the fact 14:23:53 it wouldn't be against making money, just that the money will be spent on community resources 14:23:54 But yeah bylaws and CoCs or whatever are a good idea 14:24:06 the more $$$ we make, the more community resources, woo-hoo 14:24:08 sgp_: how do we know this? by trusting the board? 14:24:29 I mean yeah, its money that we will have earned and have the right to spend 14:25:13 I agree with midipoet. LLC should be backed of by the CCS. 14:25:22 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 14:26:06 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. 14:26:13 imagine if every workgroup had its own LLC? 14:26:14 lol 14:26:15 I mean I'm not going to turn down donations, but I'd rather not HAVE to 14:26:35 *to take them 14:26:35 sgp_: how do we know that the LLC will reinvest all profits? 14:27:03 and how do we know that the pursuit of profit won't skew the incentives model? 14:27:09 midipoet: nothing forcing xmr.to to support the community at all but people seem to like them 14:27:20 sgp_: i am not talking about xmr.to 14:27:29 midipoet: because I spend so much time here already a week with no money lol 14:28:07 so that's the answer? past experience/knowledge ensures future behaviour? 14:28:15 if you want to personally give me money such that I am more likely to follow your will, by all means do so lol 14:28:26 sgp_: wise up and answer the questions 14:28:36 That's why. In the Monero Outreach we have to comply with the community goals. 14:28:36 so its all about money? 14:28:51 lh1008[m]: that's a goal, not a legal obligation 14:29:08 midipoet: lol dude cool down, no it's not all about the money and it's not all about turning a profit 14:29:26 If the LLC is not complying with the community goals, sorry but f** it 14:29:39 Yes this is about the money 14:29:42 lh1008[m]: did you read the goals in the Reddit post? 14:29:45 We are a money community 14:29:55 those are our goals 14:29:57 Yes I did 14:30:06 no where does it say "maximize shareholder return" lol 14:30:07 I won't be here I haven't read it 14:30:12 Wouldn't*** 14:30:14 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? 14:30:30 and/or where are the rules of engagement/bylaws? 14:30:35 Yeah, it's not clear anywhere 14:30:49 You want to build a LLC and don't have a incentive model? 14:32:28 an LLC is an incentive model . it's not clear how THIS LLC will be different from any other LLC 14:32:37 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 14:32:46 the intent is to not require to ask for donations all the time 14:33:09 to make the community resources immune to the risks of an unfunded CCS one bad quarter 14:33:22 so Monero Support LLC will be actively seeking revenue 14:33:37 on a continual basis from the open market 14:33:42 whether CCS or not? 14:33:46 yes, I made that clear in the very first paste I shared here 14:33:57 yeah. fair enough. i don't agree with the LLC 14:33:58 but we don't need to pursue that absent other goals 14:34:15 good luck with it though. 14:34:22 Midipoet you don't say 14:34:23 that's fine, you don't need to be a part of it 14:34:35 why not smth like dao bisq 14:34:53 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 14:34:56 what exactly are the "assets"? this channel, @monerocommunity twitter and mastodon handle? 14:35:14 subreddit? 14:35:18 And server infrastructure hosted. Because we pay. 14:35:27 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. 14:35:36 well but that is fungible 14:35:42 It's always another problem lol 14:35:54 'change the name' is so disingenuous as a fix 14:35:56 midipoet: I can make money through any number of other means too 14:36:11 I can sell surveillance software on the side but I don't 14:36:56 sgp_: yes, i am aware of that, thanks 14:36:56 it doesn't seem like such a big deal to have one llc control a stupid irc channel, subreddit, and twitter handle 14:37:04 "jwinterm" (https://matrix.to/#/@freenode_jwinterm:matrix.org): Meeting services (noy actual channel, that's core), Youtube, @xmrcommunity 14:37:06 It doesn't even control the irc 14:37:11 More or less, cureently 14:37:14 jwinterm: just to note it just moderates this channel 14:37:46 The outrage politics some of you are playing are disappointing. 14:37:53 Could even have a range of MCW LLC swag on cyphermarket 14:38:02 jwinterm: i don't see how "what it controls now" is a mitigation concerns about "what it may control in the future" 14:38:05 cankerwort: exactly stuff like that 14:38:29 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. 14:38:36 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 14:38:47 that's pretty nebulous midipoet 14:38:48 bylaws would have helped 14:38:48 Companies bad 14:38:53 Corporations bad 14:38:57 Libertarianism 5evr 14:39:07 Money bad 14:39:14 needmoney90: yes. that is it. 14:39:16 needmoney90: lol let's cool it a bit 14:39:29 Hey I have an idea 14:39:38 outstanding contribution to the discussion 14:39:51 but fear not. they are on the board!! 14:39:58 It's pretty much what you guys are saying lol 14:40:04 That's the gist at least 14:40:07 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_purpose_corporation 14:40:08 [WIKIPEDIA] Social purpose corporation | "A social purpose corporation (SPC) is a type of for-profit entity, a corporation, in some U.S. states that enables, but does not require, considering social or environmental issues in decision making. SPCs are similar to benefit corporations (B corporations) and flexible purpose corporations (FPCs)...." 14:40:26 cankerwort: there's no effective legal difference for what we are doing 14:40:37 I vote for midipoet on th LLC board if this thing keeps going 14:40:59 an LLC can operate as a nonprofit in effect 14:41:11 True but there is no effective legal difference with having nice bylaws, a CoC, a different name or an extra board member 14:41:17 needmoney90: yes. that's right. i am saying money is bad 14:41:23 excelletnt summary 14:41:25 which again, we are open do doing later down the line (registering if we get some help) 14:41:33 Yup, if we so much as touch money, it corrupts us and we can't stop making it or qelse 14:41:39 Oh no! 14:42:06 indeed. 14:42:06 See? I can badly interpret your arguments too! 14:42:19 Isn’t ridiculing differing viewpoints and criticism against the CoC? lol 14:42:24 okay that's enough of all this lol 14:42:42 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 14:42:59 I really don't see how incorporation is relevant 14:43:01 the standards imposed on this are high which is good, but they unquestionably are higher than the standards imposed on anything else 14:43:08 also the "assets" seem fairly worthless 14:43:09 .shrug 14:43:09 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:43:14 Ding ding 14:43:29 eg: is there a policy in place to prevent r/monero mods from taking bribes? How is this enforceable? 14:43:31 I think the Monero forum is not a worthless asset. 14:43:38 having some non-US admins for these services would ad a lot of resilience 14:43:48 jwinterm: again, i ask you why the "assets owned today" are mitigation for concerns about "assets owned in the future" 14:43:51 at least now we can have the discussion 14:44:15 how would that change the fact if those US citizens were in control of unknowable future assets versus the llc? 14:44:25 We're integrating the fiat system to the Monero community, we should really address what we're talking about here. 14:44:26 eg: how do we know n r/monero moderator will not promote certain content? Should we restrict what they can invest in? 14:44:30 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 14:44:48 Reddit is f**ed up, I can't even post links. Terrible service 14:45:01 if only someone was willing to pay for Flarum :p 14:45:13 super excited about that personally btw 14:46:04 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 14:46:18 cankerwort: thank you :) 14:46:39 As jwinterm said surely this is all better than random people owning assets 14:46:47 Or are you worried the LLC is going to take over some already existing asset? Seems unlikely 14:46:51 Even if people think its not the best solution (but have yet to propose other realistic ones) 14:47:20 shared LLC owning assets > one US citizen owning assets 14:47:21 we wish to perform a hostile takeover over the @monero Twitter account by buying 51% of the shares 14:48:06 The LLC is the twitter hacker! 14:48:31 maybe the fear is that we buy Reddit lol 14:48:32 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 14:48:38 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. 14:48:54 I change my mind: our goal is now to buy Reddit and Twitter 14:49:07 Fluffypony did you buy it off that furniture shop called monero? 14:49:09 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 14:49:15 Line*** 14:49:20 cankerwort: lol 14:49:53 I would buy reddit or twitter. 14:49:59 Wouldn't** 14:50:16 I'll put money somewhere else 14:50:24 it was a joke :p 14:50:43 I think the whole discussion of evil corporation stealing assets or good corporation being compromised is to some degree rendered moot by monero.org 14:50:44 sadly I'm not sitting here with fat stacks of billions 14:50:53 Jokes could turn to reality, just saying :) 14:50:56 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" 14:51:15 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 14:51:18 right? 14:51:21 rehrar: even sethsimmons agreed with the name thing 14:51:28 No, I agree on this 14:51:29 and a lot of others too, I was not the only one suggesting this 14:51:35 and the stuff monero evil corp llc will control is far more worthless than monero.org 14:51:35 Don't generalize 14:51:58 lh1008[m]: I understand you agree on this now. But I'm talking when the idea was initially presented. 14:52:27 The main issue is that we as a community want it, so we have to be careful on what we're doing 14:52:34 rehrar: am pretty certain other's raised concerns about the name - including yourself 14:52:44 we can check the logs if you like 14:52:55 The main arguments put forward by erciccione, midipoet , and geonic had nothing to do with the name. 14:53:17 rehrar: true - but that does preclude that the name was also an issues, and communicated 14:53:29 saying its "revisionist" is underhanded 14:53:52 *does not preclude 14:54:16 Saying that the name is the only problem does seem like a simplification. 14:54:21 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 14:54:35 Exactly 14:54:37 rehrar: for sure ErCCicione didn't agree with the name 14:54:41 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" 14:54:42 we will buy the entire pony supply 14:54:44 It needs more changes 14:54:47 Implying otherwise is underhanded. ;) 14:55:00 rehrar: that's not what you stated initially 14:55:15 you implied that selsta was the only one that had an issue with the name 14:55:32 13:41:31 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 14:55:43 13:46:21 i would also worry about having Monero in a LLC name 14:55:48 13:46:40 Yeah i don't like that at all 14:57:17 can search up more but a lot of people had issues with the name 14:57:30 Monero is already in an LLC name. :P the distribution one. 14:57:34 The name was changed, new one is fine IMO 14:57:42 we hoped that "Monero Community Support LLC" would not carry that they were conflated 14:57:58 selsta: ok. I'll rephrase my initial statement. You were the only one who's primary concern was the name. 14:59:56 my other concerns is that it makes the whole workgroup more uninviting to me personally, but I don’t have any takeover concerns 15:00:22 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 15:00:55 What would make it more inviting? 15:01:05 Just not formalizing anything? 15:01:11 Or is it just the LLC you have issues with ATM? 15:01:56 Seeing that outside ("non board members") feedback getting more acknowledged. The reaction to the feedback in the last days certainly made it worse. 15:02:02 Lots of ridiculing. 15:02:44 Yeah the vitriol on both sides has been... not great :/ 15:02:58 I don't like legal entities but I'm not so idiot to not understand that we might even need one 15:03:40 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. 15:03:51 would there be any employees of the LLC? 15:03:53 I can spin up a flarum. I can spin up many things on behalf of core. 15:04:00 But then core holds all of the cards always. 15:04:04 This is not decentralized. 15:04:11 Exactly 15:04:15 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 15:04:42 Exactly, ahndres. 15:04:52 Its a tool that helps accomplish goals already in place before it. 15:04:55 The means to an end, if you will :) 15:05:31 the core about what we do and why we do it isn't changing 15:05:36 the way I see it, it's the fiat-run world and its corporations what most of us don't like much 15:05:42 How do we plan to deal with the centralization around core? 15:05:55 Let's hard fork? 15:05:56 anhdres[m]: it was explicitly stated that this was not about payments only 15:06:04 Fighting for the status quo does not equal fighting for decentralization. 15:06:18 but the LLC works just like a bridge, like the one we're using right now IRC > riot 15:06:22 rehrar: if that is a goal, why are you on the board (even in an advisory capacity?) 15:06:36 it's literally a conflict of interests, is it not? 15:06:44 or at least somewhat competing interests? 15:06:58 That's literally why I decided I wasn't on the board and had no vote. 15:07:09 so why an advisory capacity? 15:07:15 That's why someone out of the, "we're the crypto friendies" should be part of the board 15:07:19 why can't you just be a member of the community? 15:07:19 It was a courtesy to me since I started this workgroup. 15:07:29 right 15:07:30 because we trust his advice and he started this whole thing 15:07:34 Before I was paid btw 15:07:40 sgp_: you can still ask him for advice!! 15:07:53 Can no one be an advisor if they're not exclusively in that workgroup lol? 15:07:56 doesn't need to be written into the bylaws (i assume it would be?) 15:08:04 midipoet: he will not be formally listed in any corporate docs so we are talking past each other 15:08:04 So if I mainly do MCW I cannot contribute any advice outside of MCW? 15:08:11 How in the world does that work midipoet? 15:08:15 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 15:08:19 midipoet: but you are correct. Just yesterday I asked to not even be labeled as an advisor for this reason. 15:08:19 you can not "informally" and "formally" be a board member 15:08:50 I agree with anhdres 15:08:59 so it was on the proposal as a nod to the efforts that rehrar has put in. 15:09:06 i understand now 15:09:14 and he has helped us a lot so far obviously 15:09:27 sure, i am not doubting that 15:09:37 We should understand what are we all going to be accepting, if we do. 15:10:08 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) 15:10:27 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? 15:10:27 so shouting that the LLC will centralize things too much is wrong 15:10:57 especially if the LLC is subsuming the work that went into the open source project 15:10:57 Why does participating in OSS mean we *cant* form legal entities? 15:11:04 What contract did I sign here 15:11:17 well, what if ye had written code? 15:11:23 would that be subsumed as well? 15:11:26 The idea that we need permission to interact with the law is silly 15:11:39 needmoney90: nobody is saying you need permission 15:11:42 Rock fact: Efforts in FOSS don't grant you the right to form an LLC. The laws of whatever jurisdiciton do 15:11:43 you can do as you like 15:11:58 the community doesn't have to follow you....which is what the discussion is about 15:12:01 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 15:12:03 Anyone can form a Verge Currency, MoneroV, DentaCoin LLC here should they so choose 15:12:08 its not about whether you can form a company or not 15:12:10 Hahah you make me laugh needsmoney90, you basically are a law actor haha 15:12:11 midipoet: hypotheticals aren't helpful here imo. What if statements could take a million different avenues. Let's deal with what is. 15:12:27 I'm not sure what that means. 15:12:45 indeed, I see these are useful thought exercises but we should focus on what's actionable 15:12:54 To understanders understanding 15:12:58 :D 15:13:03 that's exactly my point. I like the way this community fosters discussions, but in this case I really not see a big change 15:13:11 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? 15:13:13 right 15:13:18 Okay fellow Monero brethers. See you at Monero Outreach. 15:13:35 Love you all 15:13:57 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 15:14:08 midipoet: not that they can't be useful, but we need to FOCUS on the actionable parts 15:14:25 what do you mean? 15:14:29 we can't stop anything you do 15:14:33 we have an immediate need for new services 15:14:35 people have voiced concerns 15:14:36 that's it 15:14:49 sure, but now we need people to help build the damn communities :p 15:15:08 build build build 15:15:36 my advice would be not to fracture the community that you already have 15:16:53 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 15:17:28 Exactly 15:17:45 It would also be nice if people just paid for these services out of pocket and moderated them without our needing to cover them. 15:17:54 But that hasn't really happened so 15:18:04 Unlike Core's control of the repository, etc, tangent resources can change 15:19:23 we can always split and address issues as they arise 15:19:34 we don't claim to have every solution for every problem now 15:19:36 https://www.monerooutreach.org/ 15:19:37 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 15:19:57 but we are doing our best to position ourselves to address these forthcoming (unpredictable) problems 15:20:01 needmoney90: there is nothing stopping individuals opening CCSs for this, is there? is that not exactly how it has been in the past? 15:20:16 If arm chair libertarians hate that a Mastodon instance blocks neo-nazis, they can create their own instance 15:20:18 midipoet: we can do this but hopefully we will not need to 15:20:58 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. 15:20:59 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 15:21:01 lh1008[m]: outreach and community do two very different things 15:21:13 anhdres[m]: lol! it seems we disagree. 15:21:37 So your primary issue has changed to 'merch is tacky' midipoet? 15:21:43 some similar, some different 15:22:01 haha, on what? 15:22:05 Just trying to understand how we can remedy this. 15:22:08 lol if you don't like merch don't buy it, don't suggest others shouldn't sell it 15:22:29 I'm trying to find what is actionable to remedy midipoet's concerns 15:22:39 It feels like his current sticking point is merch being tacky 15:22:43 And I want to fix this. 15:23:06 needmoney90: yes, that's my main issue. if after all that, you actually believe that, then fair fucking play to your cognitive abilities. 15:23:30 Why are you bringing up this concern if you don't intend to remedy it? 15:23:39 It feels disingenuous. I was taking you at face value. 15:23:50 After all, I want to fix things, not stir the pot. 15:23:54 What's your goal here? 15:24:23 Calling out my cognitive abilities for taking you at face value isn't exactly the nicest thing you could do. 15:25:32 Im trying to have a productive discussion. 15:26:04 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... 15:26:13 did all of that go over your head? 15:26:19 So merch isn't on the list? 15:26:21 and you are left with a sentence about tack? 15:26:22 Just to be clear. 15:26:27 I was addressing your latest concern. 15:26:45 i know you were. you were implying that it was a primary concern 15:26:59 and also implying that i hadn't proposed any other avenues for solving this issue 15:27:01 Is it a concern? Is it important? Why did you bring it up 15:27:13 Clearly it's important enough to sling it into the conversation 15:27:13 AND you implied that it was because i was acting disingeniously 15:27:20 Forgive me for listening. 15:27:30 you aren't listening. you are typing 15:27:44 I don't understand why you're being so hostile. 15:27:57 I see what you are both doing here and it's super frustrating to watch on the sidelines lol 15:27:58 indeed for good measure you even threw around political ideologies as if that made things easier 15:28:19 I'm tired of people slinging shit and then pretending it was in good faith 15:28:36 I want to have a conversation, and *some people* aren't helping. 15:28:44 literally none of the concerns from anybody have been fixed 15:28:55 Literally none, yep 15:29:02 ok, so what has been fixed? 15:29:13 * needmoney90 is out of the conversation 15:29:29 I think it's best to cut this here (already too long) 15:34:22 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. 15:35:19 For sure, I'm not sure why its being fought with such vigor, seems like a fine tool for the issues at hand. 15:35:38 I agree 15:36:03 I don't think monero is about practicality to begin with to be honest. 15:36:52 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. 15:36:52 I have been part of monero for 2 years now and it was always about the ethics behind it. Not practicality 15:37:05 In another coin or community maybe it could be seen as such. But in the monero there are major implications. 15:37:10 well sure. but there are meat hook realities that have to dealt with eventually 15:37:28 There isnt anything unethical in this proposal though, msavoritias 15:37:40 Because the whole community as long as I remember was about decentralization and permission less. Nobody ibcharge 15:37:40 Is it wrong to do something practical that helps Monero grow and improve? 15:37:54 The protocol is about decentralization and permissionlessness 15:38:16 Not everything has to be 100% decentralized. 15:38:23 Thats a common fallacy I see in the space. 15:38:25 There is a company 15:38:26 That is enough for some 15:38:28 Judging by thread. 15:38:59 (Company Bad) 15:39:01 Of course some people are sticking to their guns and hating on anything that recognizes legal entities. 15:39:12 That doesn't mean its the wrong step forward for this work group 15:39:13 I don't see it as a fallacy personally. I see it as something hard. But something that we need to work towards it 15:39:17 I'm a little purist so 15:39:24 its like my dumbass brother and his girl that don't wanna get married because its an antiquated institution 15:39:46 like yeah. it is. but the laws of the land mean that only family can come into hospital rooms etc blah blah blah 15:40:00 Basically. Which I must say I agree 15:40:56 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 15:41:02 In centralized companies 15:41:21 Its a question as you said 15:41:27 Guess we shouldn't recommend cakewallet 15:41:30 Or xmr.to 15:41:32 Or binance 15:41:35 Or kraken 15:41:37 The LLC is, as far as I'm concerned, far better than 1 person owning several assets 15:41:40 Which is the current state of things 15:41:40 Practical or purist. In the end its up to each person 15:41:49 This helps to spread that out and reduce the "bus factor" 15:41:54 Who recommends it? 15:42:27 Or abuse risk for that matter 15:42:33 Because I thought there is no centralized recommendations in monero 15:42:46 What? 15:42:51 * needmoney90 blinks 15:42:51 I recommend many of those services regularly 15:42:56 They are great, and should be recommended. 15:43:04 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. 15:43:11 For you. And I understand it may mean that for you 15:44:14 OK. I wouldn't recommend anything non GPL or from a company if I can personally. 15:44:14 You can argue them being listed on getmonero is an endorsement by way of guiding people 15:44:35 GetMonero recommends things owned by companies??? 15:44:41 * needmoney90 gasps 15:44:44 The key thing here is the LLC is neither representing the Monero community, nor Monero itself 15:44:48 So Core is recommending people use for profit companies. Shame. #Doomero 15:44:49 True. Which is something that needs fixing if you ask me 15:44:55 You can keep your ethos as you like 15:44:57 Lol 15:44:57 I know. 15:45:29 but you should do it on a smart contract on ethereum 15:45:39 When you are in a community there is bound to be some compromise. Depends where you draw the line in the sand 15:45:49 I know. Same for you 15:46:04 I don't understand your issue then personally 15:46:20 Centralization bad. Companies bad. 15:46:20 The LLC affects none of that, is not representative, and is not unethical. 15:46:58 Its a for profit centralized entity with three people in charge. 15:47:01 Simple as that. 15:47:23 Also I don't see it as needed like many other people 15:47:55 How else would you share ownership of assets and handle payment for services? 15:48:01 When you're not paying for a dozen server fees every month it's easy to assume it all runs on pixie dust 15:48:06 Always open for recommendations 15:49:13 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 15:49:42 All I've seen are recommendations to do more difficult legal entities but no one willing to help do the work behind that. 15:49:43 I am sure that it can be something that we can find a solution 15:49:55 Nobody assumes that 15:49:57 An LLC is approachable and a fitting tool IMO, and in no way subsumes the community 15:50:06 sethsimmons: that's not exactly true, someone suggested an excel spreadsheet with passwords in it to share accounts. 15:50:12 yikes 15:50:15 big yikes 15:50:44 I think they were serious too ._. 15:50:50 What do you mean nobody is willing to do the work? 15:50:57 Ok 15:50:59 Is the name going to change? 15:51:05 No one has stepped up to do the work needed to be a non-profit etc. 15:51:27 Because from what I saw nobody wants an organization 15:51:35 I think the current name is fine but it could change, idc either way 15:51:39 Current name is clear IMO 15:51:44 In the reddit i mean 15:51:57 Lots of people were fine with it if it was a non-profit or co-op, both of which require far more overhead 15:52:01 AFAICT 15:52:11 Oh, idk, haven't looked at the reddit post today 15:52:17 Probably some new stuff I've missed. 15:52:52 We shouldn't dismiss stuff just because they are hard. Monero wouldn't be a private coin otherwise 15:53:31 Obviously not 15:53:35 Yes no is saying that 15:53:37 TMK anyways 15:53:47 Are you signing up for the job of doing the filing paperwork and ongoing filing requirements? 15:53:53 But we can't do things that no one is willing to contribute to and expect the same three people to do it :) 15:54:16 Obviously we're all here because we want to do something hard, build a digital cash that gains adoption 15:54:26 That doesn't mean we ignore easy and approachable solutions to problems simply because they are "not hard" 15:54:29 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 15:54:45 Perfect is the enemy of good enough and all 15:54:49 I said I don't want any company or organization before 15:54:50 Before we can create a first block 15:55:05 Depends where you draw the line 15:55:37 How do you know? I haven't seen any serious discussion or proposals to share the work. But maybe I have missed them 15:56:12 If someone thought the alternatives were doable, presented why, and offered to help I'm sure no one would say no 15:56:25 People are just screaming "LLC bad", and not offering solutions 15:56:34 Or if they are, they're not offering to actually help make them reality 15:56:37 As far as I have seen 15:57:11 sethsimmons: that’s a disingenuous take 15:59:09 "LLC bad" or "company bad" is just ridiculing the feedback 15:59:16 more oversimplified than disingenuous imo 15:59:25 there has been a lot of different feedback 15:59:36 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. 15:59:39 I'm all for "centralization/corporation bad" narratives, but in this case I think they're missing the point. 15:59:43 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. 16:00:18 Hi 16:01:06 * Lovera[m] sent a long message: < https://matrix.org/_matrix/media/r0/download/matrix.org/lNrrQwyTEvVrQBLnJOQdirnO/message.txt > 16:01:32 There was actually a very good comment by midipoet 16:01:33 Basically three people came and said this is our solution to a problem that wasn't even brought up before 16:01:33 How do you expect people to find a solution if the problem is not brought up? 16:01:33 I see people here and reddit having discussions. I don't see why you have to devalue the people you don't agree with 16:01:33 Where have you seen them not offering? 16:01:33 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 16:01:34 ty Lovera[m] 16:01:46 True, poorly worded/oversimplified. 16:02:13 Thanks for the feedback Lovera 16:02:15 Well its one company. That's a centralization right there. 16:02:16 Also its not even three now from what I get. 16:02:28 There are two board members on a LLC 16:02:38 To control a few assets and help drive the workgroup forward 16:02:48 I have no issues with that, and it seems a clear next step for our continued growth 16:02:53 It seems to me there is a clear bias towards structure though 16:02:53 Anything that is not some structure is bad 16:02:56 I have yet to see a serious counter proposal. 16:03:14 If we never gain any structure in workgroups/community we will fail to reach the adoption we could. 16:03:15 We need an entity to aggregate payments -> who controls the entity legally speaking -> omg a board?? 16:03:20 It's as simple as that in my book. 16:03:41 If you want this to remain a niche thing that almost no one benefits from globally, we can keep fighting any structure/organization. 16:03:53 I think we've missed a lot of opportunity because of that ethos, and will continue to miss it 16:04:09 The hard part is that we need to find a middle ground where we make practical steps towards meaningful structure 16:04:11 That is the bias I'm saying 16:04:20 Can we talk about myMonero? Fluffy runs that and he's part of cord and he's practically calling Monero his 16:04:22 Clear step forwards 16:04:25 Core* 16:04:32 And it's a corporation 16:04:33 Anything else other than an LCC is out 16:04:42 Im not sure what you mean msavoritias 16:04:46 What bias? 16:05:05 Towards wanting to see Monero grow as a whole? Towards wanting adoption? 16:05:21 If you don't want those things to happen, or just dislike structure entirely then keep using Monero and enjoy it! 16:05:25 There's nothing stopping that 16:05:38 But those of us that see the benefits structure bring, in moderation, will move forward. 16:05:40 Exactly thank you for proving my point. Counter proposals that are for decentralizations are bad 16:05:47 What? 16:05:48 Is Zcash being a corp helping them getting more contributors? I know that I wouldn’t contribute to them because of their structure. 16:06:06 This is in no way analagous to Zcorp 16:06:09 Exactly. You already decided. There is not proposals to have 16:06:12 * sethsimmons cant spell 16:06:17 Its a structure or nothing 16:06:27 If it was I would be running for the hills and screaming all the way 16:06:35 At least I don't see it as such 16:06:50 This is a tiny workgroup that some members of are forming an LLC to help drive forward 16:07:16 This is completely different than a block reward-funded corporation with sketchy/scammy ends in mind and little commitment to driving privacy forward. 16:07:17 Here is the bias 16:07:24 Among others 16:07:34 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 16:07:44 I don’t see Monero becoming Zcash. 16:07:51 msavoritias: thats an opinion, not a bias. or call it that if you want 16:08:27 Never claimed that, I said that the corp structure makes it uninviting to me. 16:08:57 I think if we stay in the mindset of "no structure" we will lose and fail to see Monero gain the adoption it should. 16:09:24 Or here 16:09:24 Structure can be good, in moderation, and with checks and balances 16:09:32 FOSS is great for this because the most powerful check and balance is simple forking and creating your own tool 16:09:33 And all of the tools the LLC will create are FOSS and easily forked 16:09:33 Or this 16:09:34 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. 16:09:36 Good to see -- anything in this proposal/plan that you would like to see changed besides the LLC name? 16:09:47 Exactly. There is no proposals that are valid outside of structure. 16:09:55 Would you be open to something without a structure 16:09:58 ? 16:10:03 Sure 16:10:08 If you can show the clear benefits 16:10:23 And can show clearly how the community can maintain it moving forward/handle exponential growth 16:11:16 But monero is not a business. Why does it need growth? 16:11:29 That sounds way profit centered 16:11:41 Decentralization for one 16:11:51 Sharing of responsibility for second 16:11:57 growth allows for decentralization 16:12:17 ^^^ 16:12:24 I could care less about profit/number go up 16:12:29 I want to see more people using Monero 16:12:34 This is a tool for freedom 16:12:51 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 16:13:20 Come on guys, Bitcoin is not a business and behind it there are thousands of companies that directly or indirectly make it grow. 16:13:56 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". 16:14:23 I definitely don't like the way it has been handled, on both sides. 16:14:24 I agree there! 16:14:35 A lot of people have gotten a bit pissy over this lol 16:14:52 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. 16:14:57 It will happen. It just needs time 16:14:57 I see it as the LLC helps the three who have contributed most to continue and to spread the load. 16:15:05 All crypto is down now pretty much 16:15:37 I agree about how feedback was responded to in tone, but I don't think serious proposals have been made as alternatives. 16:15:54 Or at least not ones that are actionable/backed up by how it will actually work/get done. 16:16:23 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. 16:16:40 I have a question 16:16:47 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 16:17:02 Can we have a clearly defined problem/question that we are trying to solve? 16:17:05 I underestand the general dislike of legal entities/corporations. 16:17:07 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 16:17:24 I thought that was why this was presented in IRC originally? 16:17:28 Because it feels like the proposals are just to defend the llc not happening 16:17:31 No LLC has been created etc. 16:17:44 sethsimmons: It was presented but all feedback has been ignored. Even on simple things like name. 16:17:59 They changed the name though 16:18:03 I agree anhdres, that's why I'm not against this initiative. I believe we need to understand decentralization in all of its forms. 16:18:06 Although I guess the new name is still not acceptable. 16:18:11 To more complex like no structure at all 16:18:27 And let's not forget that the board already voted for whatever they decided before talking about it on IRC 16:18:33 I'm sure at least the name will be changed 16:18:39 I hope so! 16:18:47 That seems to be the biggest sticking point so far. 16:18:58 Lovera[m]: they acknowledged the feedback last time and didn’t change it. But I hope it will now. 16:19:19 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. 16:19:38 It has changed already once. 16:20:00 But people still don't like the new name so it will change again I imagine 16:20:14 The feedback was "not include monero or monero community", which was ignored. 16:20:19 dude come on. It was specifically asked to not put "monero community" in the name 16:20:38 saying "it was already changed" it's a moot point. 16:20:42 True 16:20:48 I thought adding support was fine 16:20:56 Whats a good name that doesn't include any Monero/Monero Community? 16:21:00 But still actually describes what it is? 16:21:09 MCW Support LLC 16:21:12 "you thought", but that's not what people was asking 16:21:21 I'm just sharing my opinion :( 16:21:32 So its fine to use Monero Community Workgroup as an acronym? 16:21:36 Id be fine with that if so. 16:21:52 Thoughts sgp_ needmoney90 16:22:01 i know, i'm saying that the fact you were fine with it doesn't change the fact that people asked for something different :)~ 16:22:14 we're busy having another conversation at the moment, please continue to toss around name ideas 16:22:17 I'm sure people will take issue with that too, but if that makes these bikeshedders happy, sure. Why not. 16:22:28 Sigh 16:22:36 No need to be snarky needmoney90 16:22:37 needmoney90 ridiculing again 16:22:44 needmoney90: your attitude is the most annoying thing ever 16:22:44 Yeah... 16:22:57 No reason for that tbh. 16:23:04 Apologies. 16:23:11 you are making this conversation way worse and you should be one fo the leaders we should trust? 16:23:13 no fucking way 16:23:16 Protocols are a lot easier than communities, is what I'm learning :P 16:23:57 I can only take so much abuse. I'll try to be better. 16:24:10 Abuse?? 16:24:11 Why not have the community vote who should be part of the board? 16:24:18 ridiculus 16:24:18 It's hard repeating the same thing a dozen times and still have people spin it differently. 16:24:26 Just crazy ideas 16:24:41 tbf ErCiccione there has been abuse/sarcasm/ridicule against him and others as well. 16:24:46 But that doesn't excuse anyone lashing out. 16:25:18 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. 16:25:26 That's the hope 16:26:06 So is MCW LLC or MCW support LLC acceptable? 16:26:13 Or does that also have issues. 16:26:22 Fine by me 16:26:22 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. 16:26:44 So we should avoid all structure with no exceptions? In all community workgroups? 16:26:55 Yep 16:27:01 Structure != necessarily evil 16:27:17 What is the adoption problem we are trying to solve? 16:27:18 Idk why thats such a major sticking point for people 16:27:18 My vote between the two would be MCW Support LLC as I view 'support' as critical to have in it to better prevent confusion 16:27:29 Yeah +1 to that 16:27:42 Maybe put a vote on reddit? 16:27:48 Or call for proposals 16:27:51 Assuming ErCiccione et al don't add name proposals of their own 16:28:04 * Lovera[m] sent a long message: < https://matrix.org/_matrix/media/r0/download/matrix.org/ADpsrMvBqhTzPdjJmxPioagi/message.txt > 16:28:10 Not a lot of people are in irc 16:28:30 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 16:28:44 either way, i won't support or be part of this company 16:28:45 The problem of not many people using Monero, and not having the tools we need to help solve that problem. 16:29:31 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? 16:29:57 What tools ? 16:30:25 Focusing can be done by discussing 16:30:35 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. 16:30:41 midipoet gave some good suggestions on reddit tho 16:30:57 open a ccs, distribute responsabilities, etc 16:31:47 I could see that being an alternative stepping stone 16:31:59 If there are people ready to step up and handle payments for infra as part of it out of pocket 16:32:04 And handling taxes etc. 16:32:04 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. 16:32:09 Fully support that 16:32:34 sethsimmons: why are we having this conversation now? it clearly doesn't matter. Decisions have been already made.. and definitely not by the workgroup 16:32:58 sethsimmons: a CCS would include infrastructure costs. why would it not? 16:32:59 The LLC does not exist, and there is a coming community meeting 16:33:12 They still have to be paid/invoiced/reported on taxes 16:33:16 By people 16:33:26 That is what demotivates me 16:33:39 Hopefully there is still opportunity for tuning/changing the next steps for MCW. 16:34:07 But a CW is not the same as a decentralized protocol 16:34:16 The criticism has been taken very welcoming here 16:34:19 They dont both need the same lack of structure/hierarchy/decentralization 16:34:46 The lack can be applied anywhere. With enough effort 16:35:16 and it is needed everywhere 16:35:34 Idk what that means 16:35:54 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. 16:36:32 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 16:36:42 sethsimmons: sure. there are tax implications. i never said there was not. 16:36:53 Simple. There should be lack of hierarchy everywhere. And as much as we can 16:37:04 So in otherwords, there is an advantage to having an LLC 16:37:07 Was the initial proposal in IRC not exactly this? 16:37:22 What? no, of course no 16:37:42 So speaking as someone on the localization team, people can say stuff all the live long day 16:37:49 sethsimmons: the LLC does exist. it is named r/cryptocurrency LLC is it not? they have to just agree on the name change? 16:37:51 My favorite example is the Japanese post a few months ago 16:37:58 That's what you got from it's not going to solve anything? 16:38:31 I am tackling this from a utilitarian angle 16:38:33 xmrscott: I don't understand what you are referring to 16:38:47 Give me a moment erc, two conversations 16:39:18 Thats existed for ages, it's not being used right now 16:39:19 We need to consider the ethical angle too though 16:39:29 If all other things being equal as suggested by midi, and the LLC offers legal redress advantages, LLC is favored ,no? 16:39:59 There is nothing unethical in any part of this proposal. 16:40:14 xmrscott[m]: for that particular use case/problem - then yes 16:40:26 What about the negative? Centralization for profit and all the other 16:40:32 xmrscott[m]: however, that is NOT the only thing that is being proposed 16:40:45 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 16:41:07 People did follow through is the point I'm getting at despite the upvotes and multiple people saying they'd contribute 16:41:13 Hierarchy and for profit companies. Are. Its silly to pretend otherwise 16:41:18 The endless jokes that will come of this, conflating the Monero community with a corporation. 16:41:32 *didn't 16:41:48 Hierarchy and profit are unethical? What? 16:42:20 sethsimmons: i think its. fair to say there are ethical issues with both 16:42:28 there is also a long history of enquiry into this 16:42:29 How? 16:42:32 Pleas enlighten me. 16:42:33 It's already centralized is what people are missing and can be profitted 16:42:46 Hierarchy and profit are ethical now? Since when? 16:42:52 lol 16:42:56 sgp can turn on monetization at any time and take the profits himself if he so chooses 16:43:00 they are honest pursuits!! 16:43:04 (For the MCW channel) 16:43:16 So we should look to decentralize it. Not centralize it more 16:43:19 yep. he can 16:43:40 but the community can also disagree with his efforts and let him be known/ostracise/ignore/etc 16:43:43 Yes, and a board is more decentralized than a single shareholder which forunately people here have recognizedc 16:44:10 they could't do that with the MCW LLC could they? especially if they own the assets 16:44:24 Exactly 16:44:26 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 16:44:55 How is one company more decentralized? Its one 16:45:13 Its 3+ people sharing assets instead of one person owning many assets 16:45:38 That is a clear move towards decentralization 16:45:42 Cred sharing is a nightmare that no one should propose outside of a joke 16:46:05 Its one company towards the law. And also the community can remove these people 16:46:09 The community can totally ignore the LLC if they so choose 16:46:13 Arguably worse than now 16:46:20 We can at least remove the people now 16:46:25 No one is holding a gun to everyone's head to watch Coffee Chat 16:46:25 sethsimmons: Maybe in spirit, yes. if we ignore the self-election, the ignored feedback and the now binding legal structure. 16:46:36 That doesn't mean the llc is good 16:46:59 True, maybe I'm putting too much faith in the people who have gotten the MCW here with no income from it. 16:47:12 Which is why I'm more than open to a counter-proposal. 16:47:26 Electric Coin Company? Boooo! Monero Community Workgroup LLC? Yay! *applause* 16:47:33 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. 16:47:34 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. 16:47:38 * Its one company towards the law. And also the community cant remove these people 16:47:54 I think I'm assessing both and just coming to a different conclusion. 16:47:57 But I could be wrong, for sure. 16:48:16 These are in no way comparable. 16:48:32 Once the llc is formed it's not the three people anymore. Its a company now 16:48:33 This false equivalency is dangerous and unhelpful. 16:48:46 *governed by three people with ways to add more 16:48:49 Both are for profit. Its just that with this you know the people kind of 16:48:50 That only helps support the MCW 16:48:52 And does not own it. 16:49:01 And just because someone rando owns monero.how doesn't mean they're "good" 16:49:22 Your point? 16:49:23 LLC != company 16:49:29 Im not sure why people keep conflating the two 16:49:42 Its in the name 16:49:44 Company 16:49:55 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. 16:50:08 Yes in the name of the ECC 16:50:09 My point is arguing about ethics is a moot point because any LLC bad can be argued for individuals 16:50:13 Not in the LLC :0 16:50:37 It needs to be tackled in a more game theory type angle 16:51:01 As you youself said, depends on where people draw the line in the sand 16:51:19 On what is 'acceptable' 16:52:18 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 16:52:24 know, it is embarrassing as hell. 16:53:18 * lh1008[m] sent a long message: < https://matrix.org/_matrix/media/r0/download/matrix.org/BETalyQcVYmxvsZCBgyiAPZW/message.txt > 16:53:41 Yeah, that will definitely be the trickiest part, and is why extreme clarity in all documents/sharing of this is needed. 16:54:02 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. 16:54:05 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 16:54:10 At the end of the day its still an llc 16:54:31 But is merely a legal entity to help assist the MCW in running assets that are needed as we grow. 16:54:43 Someome has to sacrifice 16:54:43 Protocol != community 16:54:49 That comparison is bogus and unhelpful. 16:54:51 If you think that this llc will be different than all the other llc its a pipe dream 16:54:53 One does not need to be like the other 16:55:09 Protocol needs extreme focus on decentralization, permissionlessness, etc to be functional and avoid attacks 16:55:23 A community (and specifcally a community workgroup) does not require the same level of these things 16:55:46 Thinking that it does, IMO, is flawed and hurts forward progress by stopping any useful standardization/structure/focus. 16:55:58 I'm not saying this LLC is the perfect solution, far from it 16:56:07 But it's the best I've seen so far, and seems to be a good next step. 16:56:41 Decentralize funding, I vote yes for LLC 16:57:21 There hasn't been a call for proposals even 16:57:23 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. 16:57:35 Then let this be a call for proposals :) 16:57:35 How do we know its the best one? 16:58:00 Thats still not even a valid comparison 16:58:07 We don't, so make a better proposal 16:58:11 All the avenues are open 16:58:14 share it here, reddit, etc 16:58:17 Both of them ideally should be decentralized though 16:58:18 all openm 16:58:23 make a better proposal 16:58:32 I will vote for it if its better and advocate for it 16:58:36 Is it really? All this time you have been calling for structures? 16:58:43 How is that open to anything? 16:58:46 IM CALLING FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE COMMUNITY 16:58:50 sethsimmons: seriously? that is not a similar comparison. its literally an extension of your logic 16:58:58 Especially with the way critisim has been handled 16:58:58 If they come via the LLC or some magic anarchical effort, i couldnt care less 16:59:10 Make. A. Better. Proposal. 16:59:13 Its an open community 16:59:22 midipoet: It's not the real world example 16:59:23 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? 16:59:39 Let's say for simplifciation sgp owns 10 assets 16:59:40 xmrscott[m]: ok. what number means it's "real world"? 16:59:45 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 16:59:47 Why? 16:59:51 That is now split across 3 16:59:59 thank you xmrscott 17:00:21 As it exists now, there are not 10 people in the real world who have build 10 different assets being put into an LLC 17:00:30 Exactly :) 17:00:31 Well with the way you are taking about hierarchy it seems like you do 17:00:40 Dude just stop. 17:00:49 ok. i think we aren't going to agree here 17:00:50 Either contribute a better proposal or stop trolling me. 17:01:05 I could care less the avenue, as long as the growth of the community is helped instead of hindered 17:01:08 LLC is the best proposal so far 17:01:16 Make a better one and I'll change my mind. 17:01:17 Decentralize the CCS, vote yes to LLC! 17:01:21 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 17:01:30 sorry - but that makes no sense to me 17:01:30 Three individuals is more decentralized than one owning everythingm 17:01:40 You're not reading anything I or xmrscott are saying. 17:01:42 How does that make sense 17:01:53 You didn't even read the simplification xmrscott shared 17:01:55 sethsimmons: 17:02:06 that's exactly what you are saying! 17:02:19 ok. there are 10 assets 17:02:21 agreed? 17:02:25 sgp owning 6 things, nm90 owning 4 things, and rehrar owning 7 things is worse than one LLC owning 17 things 17:02:37 sure 17:02:57 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. 17:03:16 I don't feel it is forced, i feel this is under discussion right now 17:03:26 but apparently not everyone feels the same way 17:04:14 It has been posted as something final on reddit 17:04:14 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 17:04:23 If someone made a clearly better proposal and it was ignored I would raise all hell 17:04:24 It wasn't a call for comments to begin with 17:04:25 Let me rephrase here 17:04:35 You're. Not. Reading. What. I. Am. Saying. 17:04:39 What you are saying is not reality as it exists now 17:04:44 I have said that is not my poiunt over and over again 17:04:54 You obviously have no interest in actually discussing this midipoet 17:04:58 Is asset ownership the main gripe against this proposal? 17:05:03 Idk 17:05:07 It changes frequently 17:05:14 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 17:05:14 Inge-: there are a lot of gripes, from a number of angles 17:05:16 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 17:05:19 It was at the beginning, then fell out of favor, now is back again. 17:05:39 sethsimmons: it changes as there a lot of gripes from a number of people. 17:05:52 ok 17:06:06 xmrscott[m]: and there is no way to distribute that ownership without an LLC? 17:06:12 Those three are free to form an LLC and do whatever the hell they want 17:06:18 We're discussing what the group does about it 17:06:29 We can ignore their LLC and do something different if there is a better alternative. 17:06:38 midipoet: There is, but we've already mutually established the legal retainership problem 17:06:42 They don't control the group nor the future of it. 17:06:55 You haven't made your point clear anyway 17:06:55 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? 17:07:02 LLC is more powerful for keeping assets secure than throwing an excel password party 17:07:09 I have in several ways, if you two choose to ignore it so be it. 17:07:10 xmrscott[m]: as far as i see it we have established one solution- the LLC solution 17:07:22 We cannot stop their forming an LLC 17:07:26 They are people 17:07:29 with legal rights lol 17:07:29 Yes, because no one has proposed a better one that sovles the two problems 17:07:39 sethsimmons: No, we cannot. That was never a point 17:07:41 Stop trolling 17:07:45 xmrscott[m]: when was the suggestion period? 17:07:58 Since Wednesday of last week at least 17:08:18 ok, so in between the initial fully fleshed out solution, and the update? 17:08:18 What are the two problemsm 17:08:20 Worth noting that the LLC, TMK is not yet formed either 17:08:29 alright. Now we are pretending it was a democratic decision. i'm done with this conversation 17:08:30 See reddit post 17:08:39 (Accounting, bus factor) 17:08:42 Whos pretending?!? 17:08:50 They decided on the LLC and their thoughts on how to move forward 17:08:52 They can do that 17:08:53 as they are people 17:09:00 We as the MCW can choose to go with it or not 17:09:13 If you have a better proposal please make it, and I'd love to do it 17:09:30 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 17:09:39 Idk how to do that, and their proposal seems sane and helpful. 17:09:47 Obviously we're never going to have 100% support for something 17:09:51 So now this discussions has turned into of we follow our benevolent dictators? 17:10:02 * So now this discussions has turned into if we follow our benevolent dictators? 17:10:09 I'm begging other people who have good ideas to contribute them in a clear and readable fashion, i.e. reddit post, gist, etc. 17:10:29 And as I told you on reddit, nm90 at least is open to structural change 17:10:35 You're being unhelpful and just trolling at this point, please stop. 17:10:38 Yes we follow our benevolent dictators. Vote Yes to LLC, decentralize funding! 17:10:44 But its not you who needs to heard the alternatives anyway 17:10:47 Also unhelpful. 17:10:50 People can can argue 17:10:53 Its the three people who decided by themselves 17:11:06 to form an LLC that we can reject/ignore 17:11:07 They can do that 17:11:10 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. 17:11:28 I will do my best to understand it, and I think I do understand it. 17:11:43 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 17:11:47 But bailing from the convo/not contributing alternatives doesn't help avoid the end you and others so desperately do not want to see. 17:11:52 *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 17:11:55 So we ignore it and move on 17:11:57 Well calling people you don't agree with trolls doesn't help in having a discussion 17:12:00 If thats actually consensus 17:12:15 sethsimmons: You do realize that "ignore it" means a community split, right? 17:12:16 I call trolls what they are, trolls, you're not contributing to the conversation. 17:12:27 that's the choice is forced upon us 17:12:43 I would hope that if there was a better alternative they would come with it 17:12:48 And who are you exactly to judge that? 17:12:53 If that didn't happen we'd have to split, yes 17:13:15 I don't think it has come to that. 17:13:21 The reddit post is at 62% 17:13:34 I think that is a good indicator if people want this llc 17:13:43 Also the comments are negative 17:13:46 Most of them 17:13:49 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. 17:13:55 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. 17:14:01 If we don't like the proposal we come up with a better way to spread the load and move forward. 17:14:01 sethsimmons: ^ 17:14:17 No, I don't think its forced, its a proposal 17:14:20 It hasn't happened yet 17:14:22 We can create a new chat group :). 17:14:41 New freshly credentials :D 17:14:50 Monero-llc or something 17:14:53 sethsimmons: have you read the reddit thread yet? is that not close enough to consensus as it is? 17:14:56 How was it framed as a proposal? 17:15:05 I read all the replies as of last night 17:15:06 But not today yet 17:15:07 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 17:15:12 They never called for comments or alternatives 17:15:17 No is not a proposal 17:15:17 They voted on what to propose 17:15:23 They have done nothing with it AFAICT 17:15:36 Other than decide what they see as the best next steps and share it here 17:15:45 Proposals should go to CCS and forced to either be funded because some like it or not :D 17:15:54 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 17:16:06 the reddit thread is literally a "this is our plan" is it not? 17:16:15 its not even a request for comments? 17:16:26 its a "be excited this is gonna be great" 17:16:26 no financial recourse and expect them to not want to change that status quo -> that's really nobody's point 17:16:31 fyi, Justin, Doug, and I are discussing all of this feedback. There will be an update before the end of today. 17:16:47 The proposal is what they're doing to further MCW 17:16:58 right. but its a plan 17:17:03 Seriously? That's what you get from the discussion? 17:17:10 its literally a "this is the future of the MCW" 17:17:14 Its no ones point, but its what happens when nobody acts to change it -- thats what status quo is 17:17:35 sethsimmons: they didn't tell anybody there was a problem 17:17:48 i have been in the community for a pretty ling time 17:17:50 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. 17:17:54 nobody mentioned the problems 17:17:56 They didn't say there was a problen 17:18:05 The CCS already exists, this isn't relevant. 17:18:14 They did discuss anything. Or say what the problems are 17:18:21 They mentioned the problems in the proposal 17:18:29 oh fuck me 17:18:30 * They didnt discuss anything. Or say what the problems are 17:18:32 And the problem has been evident for some time, which is why i've been trying to help out here where I can 17:18:45 sethsimmons: the bus factor has been evident? 17:18:52 yes for a long time 17:19:00 i have NEVER heard anyone complaining about server costs 17:19:08 there is a general fund, and a CCS 17:19:10 sethsimmons: that's absolutely not a point at all. The problem was *never* raised. Never. 17:19:15 So its either follow the irc channels or you are not interested now? 17:19:21 The issue is not the costs 17:19:24 Why have some proposals been negated from this chat? 17:19:25 That won't change with this proposal 17:19:30 Am I supposed to spend three hours everyday reading logs? 17:19:46 It could have been raised more clearly, for sure. 17:20:10 I saw the issues in having basically 3 people doing all the core work for MCW 17:20:19 And them owning handles/yt/etc solo 17:20:31 But yes, they did not clearly raise the issues and call for proposals before this 17:20:36 Which probably would have been a better first step 17:20:44 If they wanted help they should have asked the community. Call for proposals 17:20:47 It seems that they tried to bear up under the load 17:20:59 And then when it was clear that wouldn't work they formed this proposal 17:21:19 I am in no way saying they handled this perfectly 17:21:20 sethsimmons: You are twisting it. Nobody forced them to create tools/platforms. They created them because they thought it was useful 17:21:35 Of course not 17:21:38 I never said they were forced 17:21:40 now you are trying to pass the "they were too overloaded" point. If they felt so, they should have just made it clear 17:21:44 But no one volunteered either 17:21:55 Which is a common issue with no clear focus/structure 17:22:07 You wait and wait for people to step up who may never do it 17:22:15 And then you hit a breaking point 17:22:25 What? That's how it works for you? 17:22:25 How could someone volunteer if they don't know there is a problemm 17:22:30 ? 17:22:36 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 17:22:44 I've seen it time and time again 17:22:45 I create a tool and then i am weired out by the fact that people don't step up to maintain it? 17:22:53 no, if i need people to help me I ASK 17:22:56 If its a necessary tool yes 17:23:01 Yes they should have asked more clearly 17:23:05 I've stated that already 17:23:13 It could have been handled better before the proposal, yes 17:23:17 I do not disagree 17:23:22 more clearly implied there was a request for help. There wasn't 17:23:25 That doesn't change the actual state of things though 17:23:40 What? I said there wasn't a clear one 17:23:43 I said I saw the need 17:23:51 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. 17:23:56 they could have been more clear before reaching this point 17:24:50 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 17:25:08 I agree the handling of the load before this was not ideal 17:25:16 I disagree that this proposal is the "worst possible approach" 17:25:44 Its basically three people deciding by themselves. And then being like there were no proposals 17:25:50 I disagree that this proposal is the "worst possible approach" 17:25:50 -> you missed my point. it's not the proposal the worst possible approach. It's the absence of one 17:25:59 How can there be of you don't ask? Or call for proposalsm 17:26:04 Ah, yeah, that was a poor choice before this proposal. 17:26:06 I agree. 17:26:40 There wasn't a proposal though. It was anannouncment. 17:27:51 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" 17:28:00 which is something i'm hating to see in the community 17:28:15 i don't call somebody a king because they put a crown on their head 17:28:27 I agree, if this is a "like it or else" move then I am not happy about that. 17:28:28 and i'm saying as somebody who has a lot of respect for all three 17:28:33 But that's not the way I see it. 17:28:46 Hopefully I am not wrong in my interpretation 17:28:47 i simply deeply dislike how they are dealing with this "us 3" vs "the rest of you" 17:28:56 What do you mean? 17:30:36 literally my main point in this whole conversation 17:31:51 we're busy having another conversation at the moment, please continue to toss around name ideas 17:31:51 17:31:53 Socio Servo (Esperanto for community service) and completely avoids any potential for misinterpretation) 17:32:11 Or just the simple: Servo 17:32:28 Ooh thats good! 17:34:52 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. 17:35:40 Well said 17:40:58 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. 17:42:10 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! 17:42:27 For sure, this is not the norm :) 17:48:33 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 :) 17:56:32 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. 17:56:38 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! 17:59:21 Agree 17:59:38 He's the worst 18:02:20 oops, I was actually copying that to a friend because I thought it was a little harsh 18:02:33 you're a volunteer and this is how a group runs off volunteers 18:02:51 maybe if you were a paid employee I could understand this sentiment, but you're not 18:03:29 I have thanks needmoney90 personally in the past for his dedication and thoughtfulness to moderation. 18:04:01 I'm used to getting the short end of the stick, most people resent moderation. 18:04:07 And the world keeps turning 18:04:11 It is possible to simultaneously be grateful for someone and disappointed in their actions 18:05:02 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 18:05:08 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 18:05:14 in an endless meaningless round of seeing the two be conflated - and it is a bad look. FIN 18:05:37 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 18:05:48 Well said Inge- 18:07:00 +1 great summary lnge 18:07:06 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. 18:07:27 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 18:07:30 But we also need to be extremely careful of how we treat unpaid volunteers 18:07:41 of course! 18:08:05 I think more of the issue is that people think the LLC will somehow absorb MCW 18:08:14 But its just being used as a tool to support MCW and is separate. 18:08:17 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? 18:08:26 he only needs to please everyone if he wants funding 18:08:28 there is no current plan for a CCS. 18:08:30 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 18:08:46 Thus why the feedback has been to change the name, and it has been changed (and likely will change again) 18:08:56 To please the community -- which is not necessary, but smart for sure 18:09:01 I may have been harsh in my critique of needmoney90 approach. For that I apologize. 18:09:12 <3 18:09:28 Its been a hairy discussion from the get-go lol 18:09:55 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. 18:10:07 Agreed. 18:11:26 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 18:11:41 Yes, thats correct 18:11:52 Thats why he is not going to be a board member, and will have no official role 18:11:58 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... 18:12:04 But will still offer advice of course, as he started MCW and has lots of valuable input :) 18:12:29 I’ll reiterate my of"> Thats a great offer, could definitely use more collaboration between WGs :) 18:17:57 well, from the perspective of a business, Monero Community is a good name 18:19:11 its not really a 'business', other than in name. Its a purpose-built legal entity 18:19:44 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. 18:19:53 I like socio Servo / Servo LLC 18:20:01 Servo is almost certainly taken fyi 18:20:06 because reasons 18:20:18 thats some prime real estate 18:21:05 as Monero continues to grow, someone will eventually register Monero Community and start selling stuff 18:21:05 speaking of servo, mozilla just killed off all of their servo browser engine developers 18:21:16 might as well be you 18:21:22 bemore: and be universally condemned for it by the community. 18:22:51 I think most Monero users are oblivious to these IRC channels 18:23:03 ^ 18:23:32 bet. 95% 18:23:42 But the ones here are so damn vocal 18:24:10 Man that Reddit thread is not kind to the proposal at all, just finished reading through most of the comments. 18:24:38 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 18:24:59 But that doesn't seem to match the actual proposal as no comms channels are an asset of the LLC AFAICT 18:25:00 Which is a fair worry - if the premise was true 18:25:04 Exactly 18:25:19 I think the premise is not true, but apparently the presentation of the proposal was not clear enough on that. 18:25:36 So a bit of communications job needs to be done - I can recommend getting some input from ... xmrhaelan :D 18:25:44 (i.e. Monero Outreach) 18:25:53 For sure 18:26:06 Unfortunately any clarifying comments by sgp and nm90 were downvoted into oblivion for some reason 18:26:12 So no one is going to see those 18:26:39 Yeah I'd suggest a new post that is cleaned up bit, and with an FAQ adressing the relevant concerns. 18:26:50 So maybe this needs to be scratched and re-done with new info and clarification 18:26:56 Yeah absolutely 18:27:11 Gather FAQ/points people are against and speak to each one individually 18:27:49 does nm90 want to be a business owner who supports and volunteers with Monero, or a workgroup administrator who works directly with core? 18:28:02 both of these are good things, I think. some people are just worried about overlap 18:32:49 "for some reason". I really cannot understand how can still be unclear why so many people got pissed about this announcement. 18:33:15 I understand being pissed about the announcement but not mass downvoting clarifications 18:33:49 Are there any issues people have with this I should add to this list? 18:33:50 ^ that's not how downvote button is supposed to work but everyone (most) do that 18:33:50 * sethsimmons sent a long message: < https://matrix.org/_matrix/media/r0/download/matrix.org/rPerHqJzxVSGkncMUtrBVqPE/message.txt > 18:34:01 ... and the answers given 18:34:15 maybe because the clarifications weren't really satisfying for a lot of people? 18:34:36 Trying to bring together a concrete list of issues people have with it, would love any I may have missed from Reddit/here 18:35:00 Unsatisfying shouldnt equal a downvote, but it often does. 18:35:01 lza_menace: i like lobste.rs, the downvote button is replaced with a flag button and you have to pick a reason 18:35:12 /raise 99% 18:35:21 * sethsimmons sent a long message: < https://matrix.org/_matrix/media/r0/download/matrix.org/ARPpSLIsQyIIZomDhveQuarK/message.txt > 18:35:32 yeah, probably right xmrscott :P 18:36:16 One meta-issue might be that this announcement seemed to appear out of nowhere, unless I missed something 18:36:17 Idk how the above paste came through on IRC so here is a link for those there just in case: https://paste.centos.org/view/a4a7692c 18:36:29 Ah, good add sarang 18:36:58 and that it affects not a proposed new workgroup, but one that already exists and has presumably evolved over time 18:37:24 Added that as well 18:37:51 One test I like for openness and transparency is whether or not the average person would be surprised/shocked to learn about something 18:37:56 This surprised me, certainly 18:38:07 (I'm sure it's a wildly imperfect test!) 18:38:12 Me as well in some ways 18:38:17 Thats a good litmus test :) 18:38:46 Note that I'm not saying I support or oppose this idea... I don't have a fully-formed opinion on it yet 18:39:21 For sure, thats helpful feedback though :) 18:39:35 Hopefully I can collect a good list to pass on to help further iterations of this proposal 18:39:41 im a nobody, and I don't really give a shit either way 18:39:42 Also note that I am a chanop in another workgroup (MRL), in case this is viewed as a conflict of interest of some kind 18:39:51 and that I receive community CCS support 18:40:01 reported 18:40:14 Baseless MRL shill :P 18:40:17 lol 18:40:29 Just trying to be open and transparent :D 18:40:56 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 18:41:10 * sethsimmons sent a long message: < https://matrix.org/_matrix/media/r0/download/matrix.org/VVVOimTOTxAKokUNOlXPzwaL/message.txt > 18:41:15 * sethsimmons sent a long message: < https://matrix.org/_matrix/media/r0/download/matrix.org/XdIaBwRUNZKYITfRxBBpphis/message.txt > 18:42:42 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 18:42:58 and I still think this is a good idea 18:43:30 e.g. to help understand that Monero communities are kinda sorta like subreddits, with their own structure and rules and leadership to some extent 19:18:45 sethsimmons: what about the bylaws? 19:18:55 line of redress to the board? 19:18:57 Oversight? 19:19:28 Geographical/jurisdictional distribution of board members/asset ownership? 19:27:12 sethsimmons: not to mention there is talk of a flarum (which I think will be owned and operated by the LLC) 19:31:17 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. 19:33:12 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?" 19:43:39 agreed. with the anti-crypto stance in the US, it seems a poor choice 19:45:30 Why? 19:49:28 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 19:49:28 eventually decentralize the funding from the Core team. 19:51:50 as a US LLC, which the project relies on to fund new initiatives, it becomes vulnerable to US regulations 19:52:00 which have a tendency to be used to shutdown commerce 19:52:16 e.g. the inability of marijuana businesses in the US to have regular bank accts 19:52:22 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 19:52:45 That's a really big issue, the US is not friendly at all. 19:52:53 hyc: fwiw we already have a crypto-friendly bank account 19:53:07 hyc has a huge point in favor 19:53:38 ***these 19:55:32 Friendly until Monero could be considered illegal by the state of law. At that point, poof, no more friends my friend. 19:56:36 that's something we can address if we get there 19:57:35 Getting there with millions worth of money is risky. 19:57:46 But the risk has to be taken. 19:58:04 Somewhere. It could be Europe. But somewhere. 19:58:36 Europe with GDPR is IMO a safer haven 19:59:19 with their pro-privacy stance, I think it would be much less likely to turn against us 20:00:20 Exactly, an LLC support the MCW is not a big deal IMO, but an LLC owning/running the entire workgroup is more questionable 20:03:23 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. 20:04:52 Not questioning this could be a threat is very innocent 20:04:54 naive 20:04:59 cue US ban on crypto in 3...2...1... https://twitter.com/ForbesCrypto/status/1293997261559652354 20:06:13 Boom there you go :) 20:08:19 Oof 20:09:16 Better get Matt Green and Sarah Lewis on that 20:09:21 lolwut 20:09:47 no thank you 20:09:49 I've been hearing the 'but itll get banned' line since 2011 and its really played out by now 20:10:47 I am not convinced thats a significant enough threat at this point. If the situation changes it can be re-evaluated. 20:21:03 hyc: how do they seperate identity and vote? 22:00:25 Sarang we have a fairly comprehensive breakdown of the different workgroups here: https://www.monerooutreach.org/stories/getting-started-helping-monero.html 22:23:23 xmrhaelan: he is talking more about the description of what workgroups are in general I think 22:32:06 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. 22:32:20 in general, not about the specific workgroups 22:33:36 Ahh I see. We do have an introduction that could be edited if we need to make something more clear. 22:33:50 “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 22:34:59 xmrhaelan: this is in regards to the "community" page that currently exists. Needs a big redo 22:35:03 on getmonero.org 22:36:49 Oh. Yes, it does.