Brief follow up.
Hi Noemi,
I’m not attempting to create conflict - I am trying to raise a set of questions and points as originally outlined here. Had I not been referenced in this thread, or read statements that seem to be contradictory of the current set up, I wouldn’t have necessarily entered this discussion at this stage.
The most relevant point is this and why I think the idea of non-execs having oversight is a farce, in the company governance document it reads: “Openness is our best safeguard against opportunistic or misguided behavior. People vote with their feet: if the kernel abuses the community, the community will evaporate, and the kernel will be left without a viable company. They definitely don’t want that! But what happens if they don’t notice something is wrong? Or if there is a major disagreement? If somebody else does something stupid that threatens your project as it unfolds? Our second safeguard is the board of directors. We are giving it statutory powers to overrun management and act as benevolent dictator when it perceives a threat. At the moment they are: Ásta Helgadóttir Vinay Gupta”
We’re both aware that this has been contradicted or undermined, as I’ve witnessed both in the admin forum and in Georgia @hexayurts guidance and oversight be disregarded by execs. Whilst at LOTE4 one of the executive directors in the final meeting told a non-exec director to “shut up”. I think it’s important given this track record that there is a very clear re-clarification on what this role is for and what anyone signing up might actually expect. I signed up to ER and have continued to participate and contribute to ER on the basis that there wouldn’t ever be a concentration of power - that exists now in the form of future and existing contracts, technical rights over the platform and personal objectives overriding individuals work.
As it stands, I have experienced personal attacks from exec’s, witnessed defamation of character, been approached by EdgeRyders both working on unMonastery and from the broader community reporting issues with ER LBG and I’ve had to personally put energy into repairing professional relationships that were burnt by ER LBG directors. As the governance structure sets out, I have voiced these to both execs and non-execs of ER LBG - though nothing seems to have come of this.
I would be happy to work towards better processes, alternative structures and a general reassessment of how things have shifted over the past few years, but any attempt to do that is generally shouted down, and I am generally disenfranchised by things like having my technical admin rights taken away, and being asked to capitulate or reprioritise on behalf of many peoples work.
The point is, as you rightly say in your last sentence, that a lot of trust has been damaged, and people have “voted with their feet” - and their doesn’t seem to be any interest in resolving those trust issues, except superficially. I am sorry this is the case.
When it comes down to continual damage to years of work - it’s simply not enough to put this down to personal fights or disagreements.
But clearly this is viewed as a waste of time, and concern about nothing, so I’ll take a step back, as I’d prefer not to invoke in anyone else the same frustration and upset I feel about this situation.