I believe in life that actions speak louder than words. My intent has always been transparency and inclusion. That is why I think it’s important to immediately transition the discord.
The discord is administered today by 5 individual contributors (not the Association) including myself. My intention was never to maintain administrative rights around it indefinitely but instead from a legacy state it remained administered in this manner.
I’d want nothing more than to relinquish my administrative role and for the community council to manage it and have authority over the discord moving forward.
Key governance oriented technology like Snapshot and the Badger Forum already have administrative responsibilities by both @1500Badger and @FreddyTheFilosopher who are on the community council.
However, the other members of the community council could be considered as new additions via consensus vote amongst themselves.
I encourage token holders and the community at large to ensure adequate management of these software tools and transparency around their functions.
What about…waves hands around frantically… All the other stuff.
As to this specifically… As the face of BadgerDao and founder you should be one of the key holders. Just not one who can unilaterally shit things down.
Or do you want “nothing more” than to walk away from Badger leaving behind it’s technology and IP?
We’ve seen how disruptive mis-steps with Discord can be. Even restoring it was complicated. This issue is too complex of a topic for emoji and go - we don’t want a repeat of this weekend.
Over the course of this server’s lifespan, it has been overseen by several individuals. In the early days at least, there was often no rhyme or reason to who was granted permissions, only that someone was more active in the space and it made sense for them to possess some level of admin privileges to support their contribution efforts to the DAO. There is and never was a rule book for this platform nor is there a compensation framework tied directly to its operation. The current administrators are in place simply because it makes sense based on their contributions to the DAO - Support, Operations & Marketing.
As the server evolves over time, it gets messy. We’ve always archived channels over deletion and preserve all data in the essence of transparency. The wording could have been better in the original post but the intention was to remove channels from view while preserving them and the information contained within indefinitely.
As a longtime community member and active participant in the Discords evolution over the past 3 years, I truly believe that this platform is a security liability and that having too many platforms for important communication is just not good UX. The transition was made with the best intentions around security and user safety, contrary to what is being said. As evident over the past several days, there is a difference of opinion on how this should have been handled and I do not believe I will be changing anyones mind on this anytime soon - nor do I wish to.
Discord was removed from a read-only state based on concerns raised by the community counsel. I fully support the community’s right to have a voice. However, as someone who believes in the deprecation of this platform for the reasons shared, I no longer wish to carry the responsibility associated with administering this platform and would happily support the transfer of rights to a member of the community counsel.
The more I think about your post, the more pissed I get.
If you were so unhappy moderating it, then as a stalwart of the community, why the f’ck didn’t you think to even ask the Council or anyone in the Discord, before shutting down the Discord?
The only intention that matters is that you worked to shut down an important avenue for communication that the Council used to make choices on things, without giving them any sort of alternative.
You obviously don’t care about the DAO first. So yea… GTFO.
