@everyone. I apologize for overreacting yesterday. As we figured out with
@teodorix the whole thing was a misunderstanding. Allow me to put this in context so you can be the judge. Perhaps this will also serve to structure further discussions and avoid us having to go around in circles.
1. A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away TON Community Foundation was started as a means to oppose what the blatantly stupid SEC expert did by claiming that there is “no consensus code in TON”.
2. Thanks to
@futurizt, who was able to write 26-page Amicus Brief in only a few days (
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16325310/192/1/securities-and-exchange-commission-v-telegram-group-inc/), other members were able to read it and agree to it, and thus the goal was achieved successfully.
3. We did well. The court accepted it despite the SEC’s wild-eyed opposition (
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16325310/202/securities-and-exchange-commission-v-telegram-group-inc/). Thanks to this, a sort of PR campaign emerged, establishing TCF’s takeoff.
4. Concurrently, and in haste, TCF prepared documentation to serve as a constitution. At the time it became apparent that the two main questions that would need to be answered were a) member acceptance, and b) voting/governance principles.
5. Due to a strict deadline and long debates about wording on the website, etc., it was not finalized; however, the SPIRIT of TCF’s constitution as I perceived it was agreed to by
@teodorix insomuch that this would be an open community where everyone who brings value to the TON ecosystem will have a vote.
6. In the “first draft” it was agreed to with
@teodorix that new Full Members would be accepted only if they had at least 2 recommendations.
7. For a month nothing happened.
8. AFTER that we discussed and agreed that this okay for the time being and that moving forward new members could be accepted even if they had only 1 recommendation.
9. And still not much changed. Maybe something like 20 new members (+/-) were accepted, while the queue was growing.
10. For 2 months I spoke regularly to
@teodorix, and we agreed that it was abnormal to see very influential people who bring so much to the table didn’t even receive so much as an email after having filled out the application on the website, which by the way last time been updated February 20th!
11. Finally, 2 days ago I agreed with
@teodorix that we will accept
@marina0733 as a Full Member and ask her to help this process along. She took it very seriously and spent a day reading everything and asked a whole bunch of good questions, including how to effectively evaluate candidates who applied/apply to become members of the community.
12. It worked!!! After a few members were accepted by Marina,
@emile got to work doing the same thing.
13. Then all-of-a-sudden, yesterday, I learned that a few of the group members decided to create what they called “Testnet #2” with the purpose of becoming a secondary testnet after Telegram. Sorry guys, but are you aware that since Novermber 2019 there already was and is a testnet 2 that was launched by TON Labs?
https://net.gramscan.io/. In other words, yours would be testnet 3, which by the way is a fantastic idea!
14. Out of curiosity I called
@flugdreka to ask about the reasons behind this move and figured out that the group would like to prepare scripts, whereby anyone would be able to start their own TON. I agreed that this was a great idea, but that it would be far simpler to just ask TON Labs to open those scripts. And again, it is absolutely fine to have different solutions for this piece of infrastructure.
15.
@Futurizt promised that scripts would be open sourced once devops returns from vacation and prepares a repo for it (should be next week).
16. On the same call
@flugdreka mentioned that he was preparing a proposal for new member acceptance. I said we should add a proper description for voting procedures and
@flugdreka promised (!) to send me a draft so we could work on it together.
