Hyung, thanks for further feedback!
- The GWG is the name of the community, which should not be limited to the Telegram channel that I’ve created.
My plan is:
a) to encourage high quality discussions to happen here, on All in Bits’ Cosmos Discourse forum (which is currently a somewhat centralized option), and I’d love to encourage other, more decentralized platforms. For now I’m trusting the employees at All in Bits to safeguard our discussions.
b) to use the Telegram group for real-time chat (and alerts to nee forum replies). I’m making a published list of participants so that everyone involved can reorganize in another channel that I don’t control if needed.
I will update the proposal to reflect this plan clearly, since I overemphasized the Telegram group. Thank you for pointing this out.
I think the GWG community component of this proposal is one of the most valuable parts, so i’m not prepared to remove it from the proposal. Please feel free to openly engage with me further about this, though.
-
Is the only reason that you’re asking us to reduce the amount of our community spend proposal is prevent future community spending in excess? My prior understanding was that you agreed that this was a reasonable amount. Would be grateful for a more detailed explanation.
-
I can see a need for a committee to make value-judgment-based recommendations about proposals, but I think it’s too soon for this. My initial position is that the basic framework for governance should be developed first. I would love to explore this further with you and others, and I could see it as a potential deliverable for Q2. Thoughts?
Thanks again, I always value our discussions.