I wasn’t the one who brought it up here or posted the screenshots here. San Shi Wu did. I responded to clarify, and since then have answered questions and responded to posts directly at or about me while offering to be as transparent as the community wants, nothing more or less.
Leave off the dressing and nefarious assumptions and you’re close enough, there.
Take responsibility for posting them at the DAO, in the first place. The place is trying to recover, You always had more discete options. One would have been to walk away as soon as they gave you grief in their messages.
I have and do take responsibility for that. (Start with my first post on the matter in this thread and work your way down)
The community deserved to know. Your preference for silence and unity isn’t a reason to not share relevant information with the community. I know it’s relevant because San_Shi_Wu brought it up, which you said “did not derail the thread” because:
It’s “a key governance issue” that’s relevant to the community’s governance discussions, including this one. Your words.
You can blame me for speaking up about a problem (as always) which is a waste of energy IMHO, or you can deal with the problem, or you can sit with the problem.
I think anything else is both of us wasting our time, and we should really let the thread get back on topic.
Agree because I don’t and never would expose a private chat. Unless the content was illegal.
Trying to get the thread going again / back on the main topic:
About the GTU candidates,I would like to recommend Martin Köppelmann. He is a holder of the Justice token and has been a long-time supporter of Assange.just not sure if he would be willing to join and dedicate time to our community.
I don’t know much about Martin Köppelmann, but what I do know (mostly having seen his posts shared on social media) suggests he’d be a good advocate.
I was able to convert the HTML exports to PDF, and uploaded them here. Original archive was posted to Telegram here.
BZ 01.pdf (3.8 MB)
BZ 02.pdf (805.1 KB)
Attachments:
PA summary with bail.pdf (57.2 KB)
AssangeDAO-Governance notes March 5, 2022.html.pdf (45.0 KB)
Assange-Audios.zip (58.2 MB)
forum.assangedao.org-simple.zip (39.1 MB)
The PA summary with bail is about E, the former multisig. E originally posted the video, as well, which is a screen recording of one of the Telegram chats used by AssangeDAO’s organizers.
The March 5, 2022 Governance notes come from A Collective Notion instance.
The audio files from Assange’s hearing were originally posted by Cryptome as released by the court, as PDFs with the MP3s attached. Because that’s confusing and weird, I extracted the MP3s and sent those raw. For completeness, all of them are included here.
The archive of the old forum was taken from the Wayback Machine. It’s an attempt to make a snapshot of the forums using the most recently archived version of each page before the forum went down, using the Wayback Machine Downloader. I’ve also uploaded this and a more complete archive here, and by clicking “View Contents” on this page you can browse either version without downloading it.
If anyone notices any missing attachments, please let me know and I’ll try to add them. Likewise for any questions about the attachments, or their origins.
Mr. Assange is free, but the Assangedao community of tens of thousands of people is still not free. The community needs to develop, not just stand still because of one person’s manipulation. It’s been almost three years, and Assangedao has not been recognized or developed. It’s terrible! What are you waiting for? Either give the community independent power and let them vote to decide on development, or reorganize the administrators and develop the dao together. Please take action as soon as possible, and don’t be incompetent and do nothing.
At the time E was pretending to be doing work here - there were many great suggestions and draft proposals from Andrew Teh, Zylo and PMA - the workhorses of this place in the early days. In particular, Andrew Teh wrote extensively about Governance. Why their work was not formulated into Proposals for voting by the management team (those with proposal rights) is unknown. They did not seem to be controversial and they were concise.
If the DAO could revise those ideas via a paid administrator or operations manager expert and incorporate into a Governance structure (by also granting them with Proposer status), I think most problems could be resolved.
Running on volunteers IMO, is haphazard. Successful DAOs hire consultants and experts.
We need confirmation of who out of the current mult-sig team are active.
The current list of official Proposers.
We need a statement about the current liaison between the multi sig, Harry Halpin and Gabriel with Wau Holland re whether there will be any fund reimbursement to the DAO either directly or indirectly via another foundation.
Let’s put a date on this. Feedback from management and those who hold multi sig keys is required by next Friday, 22 November 2024. I think it is reasonable, participants have been waiting for weeks without useful insight into what is happening behind the scenes.
Individuals could then decide what to do with their participation, based on facts, henceforth.
In the meantime - we can all be positive - by adding our future project ideas to a thread here.
This might be Snapshot under the Members tab
Some of the addresses are named at The First Step Toward AssangeDAO Governance - AssangeDAO
But I agree it would be good to get official confirmation of that and the rest.
加密世界正在蓬勃发展，现在最关键的是首先要有一个合法的投票平台，一些紧迫优先可行的想法，可以先形成一个决议，而不是一直卡在这里，什么事情都做不了。
AIP-12 updated so GTU works with consensus unit rather than replacing it.
Thanks Gabriel. Discord isn’t loading this. Can’t view it there.
Query - just to confirm
Are Silke Noa, Stella R Magnet and BZ available to be members of the GTU?
I thought Stellar Magnet was not available to be on the GTU? Haven’t heard anything lately on the forum from BZ?
I think it needs Gabriel to reach out to these core members to bring them on board for fixing the governance . Without their participation, we cannot accomplish anything.
Tagging @Gabriel @SilkeNoa and @bz404 to make sure they saw PT’s post. (I’m not aware of any other organizers, multisigs, or consensus unit members on the forums)
I don’t think any of these were answered or acknowledged, though Gabriel did post in the thread.
I did receive a response from Wau Holland Stiftung to one of my questions last night. They wrote that the final transparency report “will be ready by the end of November. And the general gist of it will not be much different from the preliminary report.”
As to other questions - apparently we should go to Germany in April and ask in person at an event.
Hello all
Stellarmagnet here. Just wanted to say that when AIP-12 was drafted, I was just trying to be helpful, I wasn’t trying to write out the Consensus Unit from this transition process as an adversarial move. It was more neutral and conversational, like me trying to read the room, and maybe come up with some left-field ideas.
Unfortunately, a lot of life things came up this summer, and I was unable to continue participating and deliberating. I apologize for leaving everyone hanging like that.
I just want to express that I personally have no problems with what @Gabriel is requiring as far as what would make AIP-12 valid.
I honestly just wish for this DAO to come to a state of peace and resolution. Sometimes I can read the room incorrectly for what that looks like.
Additionally, I can volunteer about 10 hours/month helping review proposals, and do my part in helping with the transition, if you need me, but I won’t have that much capacity for emotional labor.
Let me know.
Regards,
Stella R. Magnet
For what it’s worth, I think that’ll be vitally helpful. I’m sure I’m not the only one breathing a sigh of relief on reading your post.
