Having problems registering on Coin Return? Please email support@coin-return.org, and include your PA username and PIN.
w̵h̵a̸t̷ ̶i̴s̶ ̵t̶h̴i̵s̵ ̷t̴h̷a̵t̷ ̶t̵w̵i̸t̵c̸h̴e̶s̵ ̶s̵l̵i̸t̸h̶e̵r̷s̵ ̸m̶o̵v̵e̴s̸ ̴s̸o̵ ̶f̷a̸r̴ ̴b̵e̷n̵e̴a̴t̴h̸ ̴u̴s̷ ̶w̸h̴a̴t̴ ̸i̸s̶ ̸t̸h̷i̵s̵ ̵l̷i̷g̵h̴t̷ ̸i̸n̵ ̴t̶h̶e̶ ̵v̸o̴i̵d̶
Posts
Was thinking fiscal fiduciary, not general fiduciary. All EOs will be fiduciaries in the broader term.
Can you like
Ever write a post in here without taking this kind of tone
http://www.audioentropy.com/
I believe that is actually a simple oversight in the wording and should read “fiscal fiduciary.” All of the EOs would technically be fiduciaries.
Edit: beat by gereg, again.
Will there be a dedicated subforum for creating proposals leading to a vote? How do we give it sufficient visibility?
So I know there's a specific post type that Delz wants to use for Feature Suggestions specifically, but I'm not sure what else we would use an actual Admin board for if Bugs and Features are both in their own boards.
There would need to be a dedicated forum in some form, yes. It should be relatively painless and friction-free using the Xenforo upvote system we’re currently using in the Beta for (software) feature suggestions. We’ll have to work out placement and details, but a big part of it will simply be “retraining” folks to remember to check out the suggestions forum (or whatever it ends up being called) on a regular basis to upvote things they thing would be important improvements to the community. And of course, we’re open to other suggestions on how to ensure visibility, without everyone being inundated over it, of course
I was thinking there's a pretty major difference between posting a feature suggestion for a new button or something, as opposed to proposing a mod be removed or the forums restructured - something that needs 20% quorum and will trigger a vote. So I'm wondering how these more serious proposals that need quorum will be communicated. Maybe with prefixes we can visually distinguish them, but I suspect a lot of people won't be in the habit of checking the suggestion forum(s) all the time.
But yeah, no getting around the fact that people will just need to learn to check in on this stuff occasionally, I think. But that’s also the reason we settled on 20% for the threshold there, since that’s a number that isn’t oppressively high—especially if we keep people in the habit of being involved in the management of CoRe—but it still remains high enough bar to weed out being notified constantly of nuisance suggestions from one or two folks with axes to grind.
And as mentioned above, the 20% mark is just the point at which the board is obligated to consider the suggestion and vote on it. If members of the board see a great suggestion that has only hit 10% so far, there’s no reason a couple of board members can’t present that directly to the board for a vote if they feel it makes sense to act immediately instead of waiting for it to hit 20%.
Something akin to a newsletter?
But... I don't know how that doesn't come across as a letter of grievances?
So, it's a little more complicated than just a yes/no answer on that.
Essentially, all members of the Board of Directors, plus at least one Executive Officer (the President, in all likelihood, although it could, technically, be any of the EOs) must have their names listed on the Delaware Annual Report for the company.
Technically the information on this document is public record, however, after talking to our registered agent in Delaware (and then also confirming myself by trying to look it up), it turns out that there are a couple of hurdles to anyone looking that information up.
First, it costs $20 to get that report digitally from the state website. But notably, the state does not provide the actual form with Director names on the digital version that anyone can request fairly easily.
In order to get a copy of the actual form that includes the Director names, a person needs to submit a lengthy request with the state which requires them to know the corporation name and our state filing number (not something that would normally be shared outside of the Directors/Officers), pay somewhere between $50 and $100 (the fee schedule is kind of unclear, tbh), and wait a couple of weeks for a hard copy to be mailed out.
Now, I'm certainly not going to tell someone who is extremely concerned for their privacy what's worth being concerned about or not, but in practical terms I think it's safe to say that your personal info will be reasonably hard to find unless someone is truly going all out to track you down -- definitely all but impossible for someone to simply stumble across.
And for one last wrinkle, Delaware does not require reporting changes to the Board of Directors. The only time the names of the Directors have to be reported is once per year when the annual tax report is filed and it just has to include the directors as of the date of the filing. And on that particular form, it does not require an SSN, photo ID, or anything of that sort.
by setting the quorum for all Board votes to 5, every board vote is now supermajority, at least for the "yes" or non-status-quo side of the vote
(i.e., 3 members opposed to a majority vote could instead refuse to participate, denying quorum, and defeating the 4 members in favor)
imo quorum should be defined as the number of member needed for a vote to pass, were all the members present
(this opens up another avenue of foul play, pushing though votes when you don't have a winning threshold, but it can be countered, e.g. 3 members initiate a majority vote when they know only one other member will attend, but that 4th member can refuse to vote and this time justly deny quorum)
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
thanks all!
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I feel like the President should be ratified by the community? like, we're getting input on moderators, but not President? seems weird. or maybe they could be appointed from the elected board, and we could elect 6 board members instead.
I don't think I have anything valuable to add about decisions regarding Graphic Violence, for instance, as I do not visit that board, and so I do not think that I should have any say in changes to that board, unless perhaps it affects the common space of the forum index substantially.
I think I agree in principal. If the people who most commonly post in the crafting forum really want a particular change that has no impact on any other subforum, then the opinions of a bunch of people who only post in politics seems less relevant. I like to think that people in other forums wouldn't be jagweeds about something that doesn't affect them, but you never know.
That said, I don't know how you really define "is a member of a subforum impacted by a change" in a good, common sense manner that isn't either too limiting or so broad as to include everyone.
More generally, I think that the super majority requirement for any kind of structure change of any type is a de facto bar to the structure ever changing in any substantive way. I don't care too much, because I pretty much accepted at the time of the structure vote that this was just the structure CoRe would have forever. I just think that inertia combined with change aversion means that what we start with is what we get.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
In prior voting sessions, the TT found that we have a significant population of lurkers engaged with the forums. In the GC, we're taking a general stance that lurkers are members of our community who enjoy the forums in a manner that feels right for them, and we want to be inclusive of that.
Personally, I (and other members of the GC) recognize that this does carry some additional risk of fuckery. We also expect that this risk can be partially mitigated by some of our other controls against bot and alt accounts. Meanwhile, requiring posts for membership can also be gamed by an adversary.
Overall, we're leaning towards the risk being manageable, and not being worth alienating non-hostile lurkers. But of course we're open to feedback.
Yes.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Could the forum be placed lower down the page and then bumped up to the top whenever there’s a new thread?
I originally thought hidden then unhidden with a new thread, but that obvs will not work functionally.
Speaking for myself, that's not a bad idea and I suspect we'll probably revisit it in the future. I'd amend it a little bit - there are valid use cases for a new account to be able to DM people, at least DM mods. There are a lot of similar soft restrictions on new accounts I could see being useful.
From a governance committee perspective, we're not trying to capture all of the (potential) restrictions on new accounts in this phase of decision making. We're looking at the privileges related to governance - which for members primarily means voting (and expressing interest in moderatorship).
Edit: clarified some verbiage.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I don't particularly think it's fair to force people who's preferred method of forum use is lurking to post a bunch of times.
20 times is not "a bunch"
Lurking is not adequate participation in the community to be automatically part of it as an organization
I dont know about the new threads thing but the 30 day / 20 post bar for voting is absurdly low
Lurkers are part of the community even if they only post once a year in the lurker thread (or not at all). Some of them may choose to start posting, some may not for various reasons.
If someone spams 20 posts to hit that threshold, or create accounts and let them mature for a month before harassing / spamming the forums those parameters for membership can be adjusted.
20ish posts+30 days to move from new to full membership or 3 (maybe 6?) months isn't really that long of a wait. It stops a lot of the dumb shit we've been putting up with for a few years too, but if someone's that devoted to talking about the papacy they might just make a bunch of accounts on 6ish month rotations to harass users.
lurker should just have a longer wait, no reason to force them to post
I do agree with Douglas that we should limit the new members from DMs and such (I don't recall if that was in the documents or not). Members can initiate and new members can respond, but new members should be limited in some regard from just spamming/harassing folks. Maybe rate limit them like jailing does to users on PA. I don't know.
I'm not disagreeing about DM limits at all, this is just curiosity.
I dont know why you feel bad about it. They dont post, they dont shape the conversation. Why should they shape the forum'
I've never gotten any of the Papist DMs or anything, but is DM spam a widespread issue or is it just one deeply disturbed but motivated person?