<midipoet:matrix.org> MK7 operated as a loss too, as I understand it. A small one, but a loss nonetheless. > <@ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> the translation of this into reality is

<midipoet:matrix.org> The non-profit framing is focused on the fact that any surplus from prior events would have to be forwarded to the next event.

<midipoet:matrix.org> Surpluses are why TE now has a 155 XMR to give to whomever runs the next event. Whether that surplus stems from CCS or sponsoring, or ticket streams, doesn't really matter. What matters is that any surplus is used for further events, for the community.[... more lines follow, see mrelay.p2pool.observer/e/xvm0ppQLc0tEdmVD ]

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> 100xmr of that surplus came from ccs

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> and that 155xmr was not used for mk7

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> so, if mk7 operated at a loss, than what is the fud about profit?

<midipoet:matrix.org> Personally, I do care. But if the community want to hand MK to a company that's fine as well. > <@321bob321> Tbh do people care aslong as they get there conference

<midipoet:matrix.org> Personally, I think it was clear that running it as a "community event" wasn't sustainable either, given the attrition rate of volunteer organising teams.

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> essentially, youre saying that orangefren should have broke even by pulling funds from TE

<midipoet:matrix.org> @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: Honestly, I don't know. There is a lot I also don't understand about this whole situation

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> and your framing is wrong

<midipoet:matrix.org> Yeah, I don't know the answer to this either. > <@ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> and that 155xmr was not used for mk7

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> te didnt forward surplus to orangefren

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> orangefren did it all on his own

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> and now that hes set to do it again, ajs wants the funds sent to generalfund

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> even though OF isnt looking to touch them

<midipoet:matrix.org> I think it wasn't clear whether we should/could just have given the funds to another organiser/and or there wasn't time to decide this until after "the vote", which we agreed should happen after MK7, so people could fairly appraise the success of MK7 > <@ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> essentially, youre saying that orangefren should have broke even by pulling funds from TE

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> and correction, i thjink you emant mk6

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> mk7 hasnt happened yet

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> meant*

<midipoet:matrix.org> Oh yeah, sorry. Whatever the most previous one was

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> ajs wanted to operate mk7 under his own llc, and pay himself 40k (120xmr?). what is the difference between that and and orangefren operating at no profit

<midipoet:matrix.org> We couldn't decide (or didn't have time) whether to give available funds to a relatively unknown organiser.

<midipoet:matrix.org> @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: I can't answer this, as I don't know enough about it

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> except that ajs 120xmr would come from te, and orangefrens zero would come from sponsors and ticket sales

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> the votw was a week ago

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> whether to pay ajs 40k to use his llc, or to allow orangefren to oraganize the next one

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> there was never a discussion or plan for orangefren to take ownership of monerokon, he simply hosted mk6 and was voted to host mk7

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> whether its te, ajs llc, or orangefrens llc, there is no difference. as as i posted on the issue, ajs himself has said numerous times that anyone could host a mk

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> monero-project/meta #1417#issuecomment-4900607823 this this screenshot and the one below it.

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> sorry for the huge screenshot

<midipoet:matrix.org> I think a lot of aspects weren't clear, and I think this was felt by many people.

<midipoet:matrix.org> I think the miscommunication probably influenced a lot of opinions/votes. The only thing that was clear to me was the existence of a proposed governance framework, and orangfren continuing with MK7. The rest was pretty opaque.

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> the one thing that was clead: mk6 happened. another thing that was clear: ajs said he didnt want to be involved unless some other org was taking liability. another thing that was clear, was that ajs had said numerous times that ANYONE could host a monerokon of their own

<hbs:matrix.org> As one of the custodians of MK funds I can answer this question, post MK6 we tranfered the proceeds of the ticket sales to @orangefren:matrix.org , leaving extra amounts (supporter tickets) in MK's wallet. > <@midipoet:matrix.org> Yeah, I don't know the answer to this either.

<hbs:matrix.org> For preciseness, following the payment of the storage unit the current balance of MK wallet is just shy of 150 XMR.

<midipoet:matrix.org> I don't think it's bad to have a wider discussion here, even just to clarify things better

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> i dont think theres anything to clarify

<midipoet:matrix.org> @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: I don't think you should make ajs take all the flak for this though. I think ajs is standing up for a principle, not for himself, which is how many people are framing this

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> the price of tea in china has nothing to do with whom is hosting the next kon

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> since anyone can host one, it doesnt even need to be approved

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> ajs is taking flak because he is being a bitch

<midipoet:matrix.org> @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: If the funds are MKs though, it does matter to some degree.

<midipoet:matrix.org> Though I don't think the argument here is about money

<321bob321> i dont even know the whole storey

<midipoet:matrix.org> It's about the continued "ownership" of MK (including figuring out what that means)

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> he initially gracefully lost the vote and agreed to amicably transfer / give access to socials etc to orangefren to allow a smooth transition for mk7

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> then he ragequit the room

<midipoet:matrix.org> @321bob321: I don't think anyone really does

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> then he came back, kicked orangefren, and posted on twittte

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> @midipoet:matrix.org: it means abosultely nothing

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> its not trademarked, and not owned

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> its just a bitch crying because he expected a landslide victory in his favor, where he profited, and his llc was chosen

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> instead, someone elses llc was chosen, and he wont accept that

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> its really that simple

<midipoet:matrix.org> @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: I don't think it's helpful calling people names like bitch and retard.

<midipoet:matrix.org> I mean you could, but it's pretty childish

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> he wants to make it about some corporate takeover, but orangefren isnt taking over anything

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> @midipoet:matrix.org: im not trying to be helpful

<321bob321> orangefren said that didnt want to do next years ?

<midipoet:matrix.org> @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: Oh yes. The wise ofrn

<midipoet:matrix.org> How could I forget!

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> ty for remembering

<midipoet:matrix.org> @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: You're definitely special

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> not as special as professional who revokes access to the socials because he lost a vote,

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> then tries to act maliciously

<midipoet:matrix.org> Honestly, ofrn, I don't think ajs is acting on his own behalf

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> he rejoin the room and kicked orangefren as soon as he rejoined

<midipoet:matrix.org> I know what happened.

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> nobody can make him dance

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> nobody can make him sent out tweets from the monerkon twitter acct

<321bob321> as long as i can keep converting video to audiio

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> what happened, midi?

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> enlighten us

<midipoet:matrix.org> Look, maybe it's easier to just wait until the community meeting and then see what is said there about moving forward and what the perspectives are from people that turn up

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> why?

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> the governance idea was nack'd by those involved with monerkon

<midipoet:matrix.org> I don't have the answer to that

<midipoet:matrix.org> I would happily let someone take MK over, as it's a pain in the ass!

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> REGARDLESS of what anybody says at the meeting, orangefren it 100% within his right to host as many monerkons as he likes. he doesnt need permission

<midipoet:matrix.org> who that is, probably does matter though, and probably deserves a wider community discussion

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> he was selected. so he has permission that he doesnt need

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> he doesnt WANT to take over mk

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> he just feels like hosting another one

<midipoet:matrix.org> @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: ?

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> libera.monerologs.net/monero-community/20260706#c689457

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> that fud is just ajs mad that he lost

<321bob321> ima going to go back to my homelab

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> as long as monerokon is a "community" event, ANYBODY can host one

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> ajs is acting like he is doug, and cake took over monerotopia. this is monero community, and monerokon, and orangefren is an active member of this community and the events/monerkon workfroup

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> ajs has llc

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> orangefren has llc

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> whats the difference between which one runs the show? aside from the face that OF pulled off a good conference, alone, in 6 months, and didnt burn himself out doing it?

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> made no excuses, did all of the legwork scouting venues, no red tape, no inflated expenses, didnt ask the community to pick up his slack

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> ajs doesnt have a path to victory here

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> his bid and governance were rejected in full.

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> even if you reject orangefren, the his idea was DOA and was voted out unanimously. i dont see him offering up an alternative solution.

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> its "if i cant win, nobody can!" meltdown

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> where was this nonsense for mk6? did the sky fall when orangefren did mk6?

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> if not, why is the sky falling now?

<midipoet:matrix.org> To be fair, I think the alternative was the Governance Framework, which attempted (as I understand it) to set out a broad framework for organising the event in a decentralised manner > <@ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> even if you reject orangefren, the his idea was DOA and was voted out unanimously. i dont see him offering up an alternative solution.

<midipoet:matrix.org> But maybe that's not important to you

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> decentralized by having only 1 staff member paid 40k to organize it?

<midipoet:matrix.org> @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: I don't think that's a fair representation of the situation. I questioned whether others would be paid and it was said they could/would be

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> that idea was DOA

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> where is the money coming from?

<midipoet:matrix.org> Other people also questioned how much the lead organiser (if that was the term) should be paid

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> does the conference generate 100k?

<midipoet:matrix.org> ofrnr, as I said, maybe instead of asking questions that nobody here at the moment has answers for, just wait until the meeting

<midipoet:matrix.org> I don't think that's unreasonable and ask

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> has an ajs lead monerkon ever touched even 50k from sponsors?

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> becasue, if youre asking for 40k, im sure there must be some way that you plan to raise that money, without sayind generalfund donating to ccs

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> iirc, msvb made like 20k at one of the kons for merch that we purchased off of him using ccs money

<ct:xmr.mx> Not the idea by itself, but the specific proposal. People found details that didn't add up, and considering the document requires a 75% majority for amendments we kinda want to get it right on first try > <@ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> the governance idea was nack'd by those involved with monerkon

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> meanwhile all of the time, effort, and money that went into TE is just being discarded now

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> (incontext to getting it right the first try)

<midipoet:matrix.org> @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: I don't think so. I think the community should repurpose TE for other community related things if MK is no longer its focus. The legal entity should be repurposed, not the 150XMR, just to be clear.

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> Why is monerokon no loner its focus, midi?

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> Longer*

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> (btw, im just kicking the can now. I dont really have much more to say on the matter. incredible waste of everyones time)

<midipoet:matrix.org> I said "if". Did you miss that?

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> No. As i said, im just kicking the can

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> Ive lost interest

[CCS Proposals] PANAGIOTIS POLLIS opened merge request #686: Add new fileMonero LWS Observatory — Public LWS Health Monitoring repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-proposals/-/merge_requests/686

<plowsof:matrix.org> i read "Parelni Polis"

<midipoet:matrix.org> I wish I had more Paralelni Polis stickers.

are there pics of MK6 available anywhere?

I don't see what's stopping anyone from putting together a CCS for organizing a monerokon with whatever fee they deem necessary

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> geonic: Orange organized MK6 without any CCS. So it's not really an issue. While the use of MoneroKon as a term is creative-commons / public domain; the only real issue at hand, is control of the existing domain/socials for MoneroKon.

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> The framing of "profit vs non," is a red herring. ajs wanted to be programmatically paid $40k for organizing (aka, personal profit), whereas Orange accepted a small loss this year, and didnt ask anything from the community.

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> Thus, the only question we should be focused on, is stewardship/control of the existing domain/socials.

is there a doc with a breakdown of expenses ins/outs for MK6?

<comradeblin:matrix.org> plowsof: MK6 was done under OF's LLC

<comradeblin:matrix.org> But @orangefren:matrix.org might be able to help you.

"small loss" without citation ok

<comradeblin:matrix.org> Pretty sure the small loss was on BFF's side.

<orangefren:matrix.org> @bawdyanarchist:matrix.org: I'd like to clarify. We did not make a loss. As @comradeblin:matrix.org wrote the BFF side made a small loss (1.6k). MK6 was profitable

(:

BawdyAnarchist ^

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> Sorry for that. That was my mistake

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> I will edit my comment above

more or less than 40k profit?

😆

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> plowsof: zero profit taken from the CCS.

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> That's the point. That's the difference. Someone willing to take on the risk of entrepreneurship, or someone demanding a payout from the community, regardless.

<comradeblin:matrix.org> plowsof: It was less than the 43k ajs proposed. This is OF's words.

<ct:xmr.mx> > <@bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> The framing of "profit vs non," is a red herring. ajs wanted to be programmatically paid $40k for organizing (aka, personal profit), whereas Orange accepted a small loss this year, and didnt ask anything from the community.

<ct:xmr.mx> exactly. Ajs wants a higher cut then OF, yet takes on much less risk. """technically""" it's a non profit if you spend the money on your own wage. Ajs' proposal is not morally superior

<ofrnxmr> @comradeblin:matrix.org: And was entirely earned.

<ofrnxmr> monerokon was never supposed to be a slavejob (hence the 43k), and you can look to the profits msvb had pulled in (all?) years prior to TE

<ofrnxmr> People have a short term memory, ?ut accounting prior to TE was essentially "truat me bro, food cost $50 per day and my plane ticket was the max 2k"

<ofrnxmr> when TE ran conf and ajs didnt want to be included, iirc, it was the first time monerokon came out profitable

<comradeblin:matrix.org> @ofrnxmr: iirc

<ofrnxmr> And the msvb issue was never that he made money, it was that 50% of the CCS funds was used to pay high markups on his merch

<ofrnxmr> Also the double standard is strange. If orangefren loat money on the conference, was he going to pull funds out of TE? If i recall correctly, the answer was always no.

<ofrnxmr> When TE funds the conference, TE keeps the profits

<ofrnxmr> Like bawdy said, the question of privatization and profit vs non is a red herring

<ofrnxmr> If TE makes a profit, TE keeps the funds. It ajs makes a profit.. who are we kidding, ajs would make sure to spend it all

<ofrnxmr> Intentionally limiting sponsorships, inflating costs, and whatever other waste he can thing of

<ofrnxmr> Rentinf water coolers

<ofrnxmr> Flying to the venue 9 times a year, eating $50 per day in food

<ofrnxmr> (thats not a fat joke, thats a real number from an invoice he gave years ago for a week long stay in prague)

<ofrnxmr> Idk if food out there is that expensive but thats 1500/month in food

<ofrnxmr> Can feed a family of 9 with that

<ofrnxmr> if orangefren billed the same way, im sure he'd be in the red too

<wvrld:matrix.org> if you eat at restaurants only in prague especially in the Second Culture area you can easily come to around 30-50$ per day for food, not trying to justify it but yeah does make sense

we don't know anything about orangefren's transactions

<ofrnxmr> @wvrld:matrix.org: Thats irresponsible use of conference ccs money

<ofrnxmr> ..imo

i dont know if the profit number is after personal wage

<wvrld:matrix.org> @ofrnxmr: yeah ofc it is, i am not saying it isnt, he should have probable ate some ramen only, ofc, but like i am saying that this number probably isnt inflated. it is irresponsible, thats true

it only matters what people who attend the event and contribute think, and they have voted

<ofrnxmr> plowsof: I believe the speakers and spinsors of mk6 were pleased with mk6

<wvrld:matrix.org> but this one is probably the worst thing of all the things you mentioned here, its concerning > <@ofrnxmr> And the msvb issue was never that he made money, it was that 50% of the CCS funds was used to pay high markups on his merch

<ofrnxmr> I know that @crz:matrix.org dr kap and @no_2:matrix.org went, and they enjoyed it

iirc Majesticbank had complaints about a previous monerokon , so theres that

<ofrnxmr> @wvrld:matrix.org: This was pre-TE

damn I have run out of popcorn :(

<ofrnxmr> Before TE, accounting was largely "trust me bro", and everyone (exaggeration) except for monerobull was billing at the max

<ofrnxmr> Changes were made, such as the max you can have covered for flights depends on where you are flying from

yes, everything is a process

only good will come out of this

<ofrnxmr> I agree.

<ofrnxmr> orangefren had access to the monrokon twitter for mk6, but his access was revokes and ajs used the account to spread fud

<orangefren:matrix.org> plowsof: The people voted and their vote was intentionally ignored

<ofrnxmr> If you look on the githuh issue, fuzzstone shows that many people had their access revoked to various sociaks

<ofrnxmr> PERSONALLY i think this behavior in itself, is reason for ajs to remove himself as custodian of monerokon assets

<ofrnxmr> This doesnt mean that orangefren should own them. Far from it. It just means that ajs isnt fit for such a position

vote was 7 for OF, 0 for ajs and 5 abstain

and others attending did not vote

<ofrnxmr> did they actively abstain, or they juat didnt vote?

abstains actively voted

was one of the choices

<ofrnxmr> Ok

<ct:xmr.mx> Words are cheap, I much prefer observing how people behave to judge there character. I abstained on Saturday, but now I for sure know who I'd vote for if we do it again

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> monero-project/meta #1417#issuecomment-4906957624 << i think bF is being fed bad info

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> He seems to think that orangefren, the swap service, is taking over monerokon

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> > A handful of individuals deciding to take all the corresponding assets for themselves and run with it is quite insulting to every other Monero contributors past and present

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> Cc @binaryfate

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> Orangefren, the person and community member, is organizing a conference. Not taking ownership of the assets, conference, name, etc.

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> For those that aren't part of the discussion happening in the MoneroKon room, I think we're slowly converging on a reasonable compromise.

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> 1. A for-profit venture shouldnt have control over the creative-commons MoneroKon domain, socials, and infra.

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> 2. A trusted custodian should handle access to those resources, for those organizing MK event(s). They would be bound by good faith to follow the will of the community.

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> 3. Legal forcing (as in a non-profit corporation) acting as the custodian does not protect the resources, because litigation turnaround is too long, and a pivot would be required if the custodian turns malicious[... more lines follow, see mrelay.p2pool.observer/e/6NvFu5QLeWJreDJv ]

are there pictures available of this conference everyone is talking about :)

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> geonic: Orange organized MK6 without any CCS. So it's not really an issue <—- it seems that one of the issues being discussed is the fee ajs quoted for his services. if he wants to organize a MoneroKon and have the community fund/back it, nothing is stopping him from opening a CCS. we don’t need to vote on who can

organize a conference. the social/web access is a separate issue

<orangefren:matrix.org> geonic: The most important content we have is of course the talks: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsSYUeVwrHBmzJAlb0yyCS7CgaHC1ut4j

<ct:xmr.mx> You guys had a no photo policy like previous editions of Monerokon, correct?

<siren:kernal.eu> Yes

what was the venue like? can someone who attended Prague as well as this one give us a comparison?

<siren:kernal.eu> It was just as good if not better due to its very central location. Stages were good. Venue had several bars, great sitting/sponsor area.

<siren:kernal.eu> If you are an architecture nerd (i'm not) or appreciate soviet brutalist architecture for some reason, the building itself is historic and really fancy lol

how was the attendance compared to Prague?

<siren:kernal.eu> Seemed busy at all times but I don't have the numbers

I would expect it to be lower since it’s the first time it was held there, but sounds like a fun time

<@TheFuzzStone:matrix.org> geonic: Yes, it was smaller maybe, because MK6 was canceled (publicly), since the non-profit model had failed for MK6, and half as much time was spent organizing MK6 as a for-profit model. The event was well organized, considering everything I've said so far.

cool. gj orangefren and team in pulling it off

<321bob321> So basically ajs wants to be paid to host it like orangefren did ?

<321bob321> That's the tldr ?

btw, if someone who wasn’t part of organizing it can give us a review that’d be great too ;)

<siren:kernal.eu> I wasn't an organizer

<midipoet:matrix.org> @321bob321: Yes. Orangefren wanted the profit for himself/his company (if he is able to make one), whereas ajs proposed to make it non-profit, but wanted a wage for the management of the event, and also seemed to agree to wages for all staff.

<midipoet:matrix.org> For ajs all net profit would have been rolled into the next MK. I assume orangefren would have done similar, but am not sure.

<orangefren:matrix.org> ajs wanted a for profit model also. Identical to our proposal, except done by him. The vote on this exact thing is the now famous 7-0

<ct:xmr.mx> Yes.

<ct:xmr.mx> Your description is not correct. Ajs wants guaranteed payment, which seems to be higher then the profit OF made with MK6.

<ct:xmr.mx> Given all things being equal, this would mean Mk runs at a loss, OR the difference has to be brought in with CCS or smth

<ct:xmr.mx> I hate matrix formatting

<ct:xmr.mx> @midipoet:matrix.org: It was supposed to say: "Yes. /< proceeds by explaining the opposite of what was said/>"

<321bob321> Maybe trump can override the vote

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> It does seem mildly hypocritical for ajs to demand a guaranteed $40k salary while denouncing the "for profit" model where Orange took on actual risk to make MK6 happen.

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> And then to inspire a contentious debate by falsely framing the debate about "profit," rather than responsible custody of the creative-commons assets.

<me:afk.pm> geonic: The talks were hosted excellently, great visibility/audibility, great host, great seating, and the recordings are also top notch (but maybe audience voice obfuscation next time :)).

<me:afk.pm> The overall venue was pleasant for hanging out, perhaps wasn't as cypherpunk as Paralelni Polis but I hear that's dead now. I think I would have liked the no camera policy to be communicated more proactively, but that's a nitpick, I didn't see any violations.The party locations were also nice. :)

<me:afk.pm> There seemed to be less sponsor/community stands but as @siren:kernal.eu mentioned this was quite short notice, so it was fantastic for what it was.[... more lines follow, see mrelay.p2pool.observer/e/0NH_vpQLRnhlVnhU ]

<midipoet:matrix.org> @ct:xmr.mx: It's not the opposite though? ajs' model was based on the governance framework, and that proposed ensuring the lead organiser was paid a wage, but that all surplus was rolled into the next event (as opposed to any other endeavour). It also proposed transparent accounting and oversight to the community.

<midipoet:matrix.org> orangefrens model doesn't promise any of those things.

<ct:xmr.mx> @me:afk.pm: Thank you for the in depth review. Really a shame I could not participate

@siren & @me:afk.pm thank you

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> @midipoet:matrix.org: There are tradeoffs. A non-profit needs to be audited and reviewed, to ensure that funds are being spent appropriately. You also guarantee the organizer a personal profit, regardless of their performance. But yes, theoretically you could gain some transparency.

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> A for-profit organizer takes upon themselves the full risk of entreprenuerial effort. If they fail, they lose money. If they take advantage of attendees/participants, they risk losing support for the next year. You have less transparency, but better motivation for quality performance.

<me:afk.pm> Thanks for speaking our minds @bawdyanarchist:matrix.org ;)

why does it have to be either/or? if orangefren wants to keep doing Warsaw what stops ajs or anyone else from doing one elsewhere, be it as a nonprofit or for-profit

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> Nothing, actually. Just a matter of branding. Anyone can call themselves MoneroKon.

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> There is a question of whether or not the unofficially-official website/socials will recognize it. Which is why it seems many of us are moving in the direction of an explicit separation of the custodian of those resources, from organizers of events.

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> The idea being that, the custodian can grant access for organizers that the community wants to see recognized.

that would certainly make sense if there are multiple MoneroKons

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> I'm just glad that we had at least one this year.

agreed. the more the merrier

bawdy did you go?

<siren:kernal.eu> He presented

<siren:kernal.eu> Selfish Mining Simulator (youtube.com/watch?v=7XbfqJZsy9s)

<midipoet:matrix.org> @orangefren:matrix.org: He didn't.

<midipoet:matrix.org> There was a governance framework, which he created as I understand it, which very clearly outlined a model that was very different to anything you had proposed.

<midipoet:matrix.org> There were issues with the framework, as people pointed out, but the general gist of it was very distinct to your model.

<joel:kernal.eu> @midipoet:matrix.org: He made a proposal to do it for profit with his llc I believe it was "4lice llc" or something similar

<orangefren:matrix.org> His proposal to run it under his LLC was separate from his proposal regarding the framework

siren: tx, I’ll take a look

<midipoet:matrix.org> @orangefren:matrix.org: So why was there only A, O, and abstain as the choices?

<midipoet:matrix.org> Or was the Governance Framework part of another vote?

<joel:kernal.eu> @joel:kernal.eu: monero-project/meta #1406

<orangefren:matrix.org> @midipoet:matrix.org: another vote

<midipoet:matrix.org> @orangefren:matrix.org: Ok. Thanks for clarifying and apologies (I wasn't present)

<orangefren:matrix.org> there was also a vote a week prior regarding Budapest vs Tbilisi vs Krakow vs Prague. The first option was pitched by ajs to be organised by his LLC. Again, no framework there

<orangefren:matrix.org> The framework is just a smokescreen

<midipoet:matrix.org> @orangefren:matrix.org: Ah I don't think that's fair. There was some good in the framework. It wasn't perfect, but it was definitely better than nothing.

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> @midipoet:matrix.org: What would you say were the best, specific aspects of the framework? What aspects were the most leveraged for real world decision making over prior MoneroKons?

<midipoet:matrix.org> @bawdyanarchist:matrix.org: I think just having a formal description of the decision making processes was a positive. Even the formal description of the entities involved, the processes for adding, removing members, etc, and the processes for changing the framework were helpful.

<midipoet:matrix.org> I think it was an improvement on the association document and gave more formal decision making responsibility to the community as a whole (as I understood it). This is all positive.

<midipoet:matrix.org> It hadn't been done formally before, and certainly helped in describing both the responsibilities and lines of recourse for all.[... more lines follow, see mrelay.p2pool.observer/e/xJzkwJQLWWZOSXV6 ]

<@TheFuzzStone:matrix.org> > Don't forget, trying to decentralise things IS a goal of this community.

<@TheFuzzStone:matrix.org> I thought that this community's goal was to organize an event that would meet the conditions that guests, speakers, and sponsors would appreciate.

<midipoet:matrix.org> @TheFuzzStone:matrix.org: This is the community workgroup, and we are discussing a matter that impacts the community. Not just a small subset of the community that were involved in MK organisation

<midipoet:matrix.org> ^ which is also one of the complaints about the vote

<@TheFuzzStone:matrix.org> You can decentralize things so that they are more useful (optimized). Or you can decentralize things just for the sake of decentralization itself (for show, for bureaucratic reasons).

<midipoet:matrix.org> @TheFuzzStone:matrix.org: So basically everything decentralised except the things that suits us to have centralised?

<plowsof:matrix.org> monerokon.org/policies/sponsorship_policy.html

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> > <@midipoet:matrix.org> I think just having a formal description of the decision making processes was a positive. Even the formal description of the entities involved, the processes for adding, removing members, etc, and the processes for changing the framework were helpful.

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> I hate to point this out, but I asked for real, tangible effects that manifested with real positive effects for previous MoneroKons. Not vague, bureaucratic nicety.

<plowsof:matrix.org> the policies have not been updated to reflect reality yet

<midipoet:matrix.org> @bawdyanarchist:matrix.org: What do you mean? How can I describe real tangible effects when the governance framework was a draft and that hasn't been enacted?

<siren:kernal.eu> @plowsof:matrix.org: All policies on the current website were applied btw

<midipoet:matrix.org> @plowsof:matrix.org: It's probably on the to do list

<plowsof:matrix.org> indeed

<midipoet:matrix.org> @siren:kernal.eu: The selection process is definitely not followed?!

<midipoet:matrix.org> Sure people have been throwing out ideas for sponsors and orangefren has been approaching them.

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> So a framework was unnecessary for successful organization of MK thus far. > <@midipoet:matrix.org> What do you mean? How can I describe real tangible effects when the governance framework was a draft and that hasn't been enacted?

<midipoet:matrix.org> @bawdyanarchist:matrix.org: Well MK failed as a community endeavour, so maybe a framework would have helped it not fail?

<midipoet:matrix.org> I mean having formal paid roles would have helped people commit to it's organisation

<midipoet:matrix.org> Even having formal decision making rules might have sped up the decision making process.

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> You heard it here boys and girls. MoneroKon failed as a community endeavor.

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> The sponsors, attendees, speakers, volunteers, etc. These apparently do not constitute "community."

<midipoet:matrix.org> Even having roles and responsibilities delimited explicitly may have allowed decisions to be "centralised" more so they could have been more efficient

<midipoet:matrix.org> @bawdyanarchist:matrix.org: I am only repeating what many others have insinuated

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> My understanding from past organizers of earlier MKs that were actually governed by committee and rules, was that it is in fact much harder to organize, when mired in rules, bureaucracy, and committee approvals

<midipoet:matrix.org> @bawdyanarchist:matrix.org: That's not an argument to discount decentralisation. Of course it's more difficult. We all know that, it's not a reason to throw it out as a governance model

<midipoet:matrix.org> Unless, as some people have stated, that there is no reason to have MoneroKon as a community run endeavour.

<midipoet:matrix.org> If it's not necessary, than so be it.

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> Decentralized consensus is the governance model of a blockchain, and of major protocol changes. There's no reason that it has to be the model of putting on a conference.

<midipoet:matrix.org> @bawdyanarchist:matrix.org: That's completely fair.

<midipoet:matrix.org> But someone should have said this for all the other MKs. Glad you are only deciding it now

<midipoet:matrix.org> My impression was that people appreciated the community input and the distributed decision making

<midipoet:matrix.org> You seem to be implying its not really necessary

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> I believe that our best vector, the best balance of decentralized consensus vs centralized efficiency; is a trustworthy custodian of the MoneroKon resources, who grants access to community-decided organizers of konferenc(s)

<sgp_> My 2c gist.github.com/SamsungGalaxyPlayer/b114bc9e9dfbe863c03f8c32d86d556e

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> @bawdyanarchist:matrix.org: So for example, if @orangefren:matrix.org emerges as the clear favorite for MK7, then the custodian grants/continues access to the domain/socials

<@TheFuzzStone:matrix.org> Actually, that’s pretty much how it works, which is why we don’t use “blockchain-based messengers” or other unnecessary nonsense. Optimization where it’s needed. > <@midipoet:matrix.org> So basically everything decentralised except the things that suits us to have centralised?

<@TheFuzzStone:matrix.org> It’s the same with MK — there’s a community of guests, speakers, and sponsors, and what unites them all is the desire to have a high-quality event, which ideally should be organized calmly so that… we can ensure high quality, so that all three groups of people (guests, speakers, and sponsors) are satisfied and come back next year.

<@TheFuzzStone:matrix.org> I understand that some people find it difficult to grasp how human activity and the free market work. I also understand that, having read this far, some people would gladly draft some document in bureaucratic language, create 4 committees, and hope that someone would pay for it.

<321bob321> Due to inflation its more then 2c

<midipoet:matrix.org> @sgp_: we have a non-profit.

<midipoet:matrix.org> TE was there to fulfill the role.

<midipoet:matrix.org> ajs attempted to formalise aspects of the role of TE, through a Governance Framework.[... more lines follow, see mrelay.p2pool.observer/e/87XGwZQLOHo4YlI2 ]

<midipoet:matrix.org> @bawdyanarchist:matrix.org: Yeah, I don't see why this wouldn't happen.

<midipoet:matrix.org> If we can establish who has control of what!

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> @midipoet:matrix.org: Where exactly did he attempt to do this? All I saw was access revocation and an emergency meeting called after he lost a vote.

<sgp_> I reject that TE was ever properly set up for this active premise. It was set up and designed to basically do nothing. The non-profit should be active in collecting feedback, but the actual decisions need to be made by the nonprofit. The fact that there is even confusion at all whether TE owns the domains is clear evidence that it's not set up for this

<midipoet:matrix.org> @bawdyanarchist:matrix.org: Yeah. I tried to find it, but it's gone (or I can't find it)

<midipoet:matrix.org> It was definitely there, and it was pretty robust. It needed refining, but it was a good first draft (imo)

<orangefren:matrix.org> Although the framework failed mostly because of its internal contradictions I believe the other BIG issue was the idea of paying an organiser a wage while not having them accept any liability. If it was a framework on licensing the MK brand to willing LLCs, selected by the community, that take on full liability and only get pa [... too long, see mrelay.p2pool.observer/e/0_vSwZQLcnhLYlM5 ]

<midipoet:matrix.org> @sgp_: It was set up for that premise, whether it was executed properly is another matter.

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> I think it's a mistake of understanding of how things actually work in the real world, to rely on corporate governance structures for these resources. By the time you can litigate the "fair," or "correct" decision, it's too late. People have already forked and moved on.

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> Thus, it only mires us in expenses and bureaucratic rulesets, and creates systematic arguments, and political maneuvering. Better if we use a trusted custodian that controls the domains, with an economic incentive to basically do one simple task --> Listen to the community and grant access to organizers of MoneroKon(s).

<sgp_> this is what the nonprofit is for though. To be liable/responsible for the actions of their decisions. "The community" is not held liable for bad decisions

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> By the time you "hold them liable," it's too late.

<sgp_> I can propose a terrible idea here and waste people's time, for 0 consequences

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> Our best option here is to find a trusted party, and operate in good faith. Potentially with a 3 or 5 party multisig over some funds to economically incentivize the custodian to make a good decision.

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> This is relying on ourselves, not the government, to have a robust community.

<sgp_> I don't see how that conflicts

<midipoet:matrix.org> Here is the GF

<midipoet:matrix.org> MoneroKon/meta #48/files

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> Governance rulsets like these encourage endless arguments over whether or not some violation has happened. These things tend to divide, rather than unite.

<sgp_> eh, you need at least some rules lol

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> Sure. Then it should be 1 sentence or 1 paragraph.

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> Something like: "As custodian of MoneroKon resources, I will act in good faith to honor the will of the community, by providing access to organizers of MoneroKon events."

<midipoet:matrix.org> I think rules for process rather than principles are more helpful

<@TheFuzzStone:matrix.org> @bawdyanarchist:matrix.org: and a gpg signature

<midipoet:matrix.org> A process you can enforce, a principle is much more difficult

<sgp_> @midipoet:matrix.org: fwiw I don't fully hate that, and I like the desire to address some of the prior "wishy-washy" shortcomings. I think the bigger issue is that it tries to tackle a difficult scope. A document for how to steward the brand (e.g. licensing, collecting feedback) will be different than event operating

<midipoet:matrix.org> @sgp_: As I said, it was a good first draft. That's it.

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> @midipoet:matrix.org: Again, by the time we're at the severe step of "enforcement," we've already lost. Time value is real, and enforcement is typically very slow.

<midipoet:matrix.org> @bawdyanarchist:matrix.org: I don't agree. A process is prescriptive. Principles are descriptive.

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> I'm honestly not even looking at it as process vs principles. I'm looking at it from trust, and practicality.

<midipoet:matrix.org> It's like the difference between

<midipoet:matrix.org> 1. Decision will be made within 10 minutes.

<midipoet:matrix.org> And[... more lines follow, see mrelay.p2pool.observer/e/-eP4wZQLY2QyRlZf ]

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> No matter what, we are dependent on trust. No matter the process, no matter the principle

<sgp_> @bawdyanarchist:matrix.org: I think you're imaging more bureaucracy than would exist in practice, at least compared to my vision. I imagine a relatively consolidated group that handles stewardship of the name/branding. No separate finance committees, custodians, or whatever. I also would want to keep things as more recommendat [... too long, see mrelay.p2pool.observer/e/mb39wZQLZDY5ZkJZ ]

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> Someone, a real person, has control over the resources. They make decisions based on either process or principle. Our recourse if they make the wrong decision, go rouge, or malicious ... our recourse is of practically low value, because of the time component of enforcement

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> @sgp_: I think a group that handles these matter is a great idea. It's the corporate non-profit that I think runs into more issues than its worht.

<sgp_> I really love the idea of separating stewardship from the actual operation of the event. Applying all the ideas to operation can unfortunately be really unrealistic, and this helps keep the costs on stewardship way lower which seems to be a priority

<sgp_> @bawdyanarchist:matrix.org: how does "the group" own the domain?

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> They cant.

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> A single person, ultimately has control. I guess you could give login credentials to multiple people, and any one of them could make changes. But that runs into more problems. I propose one, maybe two people with login credentials (backup in case the first person goes missing).

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> But the "group" would be a multisig, that pays funds to the individual, for a job well done, over stewardship of the resources.

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> If the group decides that the individual has done poorly, they can decide to not pay.

<sgp_> I don't see how doing a group with no legal protections whatsoever is preferable to a basic group with legal protections. If I own the domain in my personal account and do something dumb, why have no enforcement mechanism instead of one that in your opinion is slow? Ineffective > none

<sgp_> The group, even if not formally registered, is a partnership

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> "Legal protection" vastly overstates what a corporate entity could do here. Again, the time component of enforcement, makes that "protection" vastly less valuable than it might seem at face value.

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> By the time that's all sorted, MoneroKon will have pivoted branding, domains, etc. Because I think we all want to see an annual Kon.

<sgp_> I still don't understand how this is an argument against, rather than you saying "it doesn't solve every potential issue"

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> I'm saying it practically solves no issue, at a significant expense of generating new ones

<sgp_> ugh, $50 for the first year and $25 in subsequent years, like for MAGIC Grants in Colorado?

<siren:kernal.eu> it costed us >15k euros to have that non-profit in CZ if i remember correctly

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> Are you proposing to wrap this in the current TE non profit? Coz a new non-profit costs alot more than $50

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> But perhaps more imporantly, the "costs" I'm talking about are much more than monetary

<sgp_> and realistically who would agree to serve on the board of an unregistered partnership, where all the finances would impact their personal taxes

<siren:kernal.eu> @siren:kernal.eu: more including lawyer fees since we all had to sign PoA. Czechia is backwards and don't support qualified signatures like the rest of EU.

<sgp_> the assets don't need to be held in Czechia going forward, but I get why that was done since it was expected to stay there

<siren:kernal.eu> yeah I learned to never register anything in CZ

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> @sgp_: "Unregistered partnership" is inaccurate framing. This isnt an enterprise. The key holders of the multisig wouldnt be operating a profit business. They're merely custodying funds to dispense to the controller of the resources.

<sgp_> I won't join you but it sounds like you're volunteering 👀

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> The organizer? Sure they might be operating for profit (or maybe not in some cases). The custodian? Yes, but that's their own personal tax situation.

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> But it's not an unregistered partnership

<midipoet:matrix.org> @bawdyanarchist:matrix.org: We already have this group. They control the multisig wallets with the funds. They are seperate from TE

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> @midipoet:matrix.org: Uh oh. Sounds like an unregistered partnership ya got there. /j

<sgp_> taking a step back... WHY is this even separate lol

<midipoet:matrix.org> @bawdyanarchist:matrix.org: It is exactly an unregistered partnership

<midipoet:matrix.org> @sgp_: Because it was thought better than some people have control of funds other than TE board.

<midipoet:matrix.org> That's how I understood it. Plus the multisig is 5 of 7 (or some other high number) as opposed to 2 or 3 (the board)

<sgp_> the community and the community feedback should be focused on making sure the event is a success and follows Monero values, not focused on how to form the company(ies) :p

<midipoet:matrix.org> I don't think we know what Monero values are anymore

<sgp_> my preferred monero value is bickering :) something we can all agree on!

<midipoet:matrix.org> @sgp_: I disagree!

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> @midipoet:matrix.org: Then we can only go by what the community voices/votes when the time comes to make decisions over access to the existing MoneroKon domain/socials.

<midipoet:matrix.org> And you're a ^¥=|÷ for saying that.

<sgp_> careful or you'll be kicked

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> I think we all agree that separating the organizer from control of the infra, is a good idea. I think that's progress.

<sgp_> anyway, I like the idea of one nonprofit in charge of, essentially, licensing terms for the organizer. I think that is something people would agree to be a part of, it can be relatively light in what it actually does (and save $$$ in costs), and can streamline some things

<sgp_> and technically you don't even need a new organization for this, MAGIC Grants maybe could be used with a committee, but I hope something else is worked out!

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> If there is a nonprofit in control, my only ask would be that it is bound to honor the will of the community, with no possibility of "veto powers" over the clear will of the community due to some "governance framework."

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> No one wants to see a system like that gamed.

<sgp_> except for legal matters, I largely agree. Common sense should prevail

<midipoet:matrix.org> @bawdyanarchist:matrix.org: Personally, I have no effective control of any of the infra. I don't know what other board members have control of. It was never clear to me (or anyone it seems). All board members were trusted when it was set up.

<midipoet:matrix.org> I don't think that infra will be withheld, if the will of the community is to transfer it elsewhere.

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> Hello dark.vegas

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> Hello @darkvegas:xmr.se

<bawdyanarchist:matrix.org> @midipoet:matrix.org: Well right now it seems that ajs has control of it. His behavior the past 2 days makes it clear he's not a trustworthy custodian of the infra. So transfer of that control needs to happen to someone. A real physical person.

<siren:kernal.eu> @darkvegas:xmr.se: you're too sus ngl

<siren:kernal.eu> care to explain yourself? who are you?

<midipoet:matrix.org> @siren:kernal.eu: they are dark.vegas!

<wvrld:matrix.org> maybe someone from sweden ?

<siren:kernal.eu> I sure hope he's 24/25 because I miss that guy