Lingham, Perklin and Pouliot named to Bitcoin Foundation Board -- new Mission Statement published for comment

[brucefenton]

http://bitcoinfoundation.org/previous-c ... r-comment/

[LiteCoinGuy]

thx for the info Bruce.

why did the foundation kick out 2 of the elected board members?

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/678626881399218177

[brucefenton]

thx for the info Bruce.

why did the foundation kick out 2 of the elected board members?

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/678626881399218177

One resigned.

The other was voted off. After many, many months of attempting to get along and not getting much of anything accomplished, the Chair called for a vote by those who wanted the foundation to exist and those who didn't. Two board members voted to shut it down, (Jim & Olivier) and 4 voted to keep it open.

Bobby asked that those who wanted it shut down please resign. Jim did. Olivier did not and after more discussion and his belief that it was both impossible to work together and that the duty of a board is to not harm the organization they represent, Bobby motioned to vote Olivier off the board, this carried 4/1. All 4 of those board members were also elected in a public election,

I disagree with Andrea's comment. Is he saying that any board ever who removes a member for any reason always loses legitimacy?

There wasn't any way the board members could see to reconcile this and they felt that if not voted off, keeping Olivier would have destroyed the organization by default and given the minority opinion its position.

The new three board members were the next three runners up in the last two elections (other than me, I recused myself).

The new board represents the #1, 2 and 3 candidates from 2 elections ago, the #1 and #1 candidates from the elections before that and the #3 & #5 from the last election (#4 was me, I declined the seat).

This board of seven voted unanimously to keep the foundation open and feels they did not have a mandate from the people who voted for them to go with the minority opinion.

[brucefenton]

Also ironic that Andreas talks about democracy but calls for disbanding it. This was a minority opinion, not the majority of members or the board members voted for by them in the last 4 elections.

The board have a democratic majority mandate to keep it open, certainly not close it based on two board members and a handful of constant critics who are not even members.

[bitkilo]

I would like Olivier to have his say here on this decision, always better to get both sides of the story.

[oj-]

Dear Bruce,

I've made it clear that I was ready to let this whole thing go, but if you insist on using my name in an attempt to make up for your and the Foundation's misfortunes, I have no choice to come back from the grave and deal with this once and for all.

One resigned.

The other was voted off. After many, many months of attempting to get along and not getting much of anything accomplished, the Chair called for a vote by those who wanted the foundation to exist and those who didn't. Two board members voted to shut it down, (Jim & Olivier) and 4 voted to keep it open.

Olivier did not and after more discussion and his belief that it was both impossible to work together and that the duty of a board is to not harm the organization they represent, Bobby motioned to vote Olivier off the board, this carried 4/1.

There wasn't any way the board members could see to reconcile this and they felt that if not voted off, keeping Olivier would have destroyed the organization by default and given the minority opinion its position.

- You received a mandate to pretty much do whatever you want aka CEO, back around April
- You are trying to put the blame on me for not making your mandate a success
- There is no reason to blame me for that, as you are solely responsible for what you have done with the Foundation. I also was not the person who proposed you to the board, and neither did I have much say in who was going to become the CEO anyway.
- I've gone out of your way to let you do your thing. Anyone can read the minutes of the last 6-9 months. My remarks were mainly about transparency, releasing financials in a timely manner, etc
- When Jim and myself started asking for a plan in the last months, because we were almost out of money, we were always promised something but nothing was ever delivered. And that not only goes for you, but for the other board members too.
- Jim and myself had ideas, and brought them forward during the very first meetings in March & April, where we were completely shut down (you were not there yet)
- When Jim motioned to close the Foundation, it was out of desperation, cause he didn't see any plan nor any change that would indicate the Foundation would ever improve. I seconded that thought, and added that without a decent plan, I have no choice but to follow Jim in voting to shut it.
- At that point, Brock & Co proposed to come up with a plan within the next 6 months. That time period included testing out if the plan would work.
- They asked my if I was willing to help raise money IMMEDIATELY, without even discussing what the plan was (aside from the plan to MAKE a plan.. lol)
- When I said I'm not ready to raise money until I actually see the plan (and not a plan to make a plan), I was removed from the board.

End of story.

There wasn't any way the board members could see to reconcile this and they felt that if not voted off, keeping Olivier would have destroyed the organization by default and given the minority opinion its position.

Uhu. It's sad to see you resort to tactics like this. Like I said before, didn't expect this from you. But you are clearly not the person I thought you were. You fit in with the rest of the board perfectly.

The new three board members were the next three runners up in the last two elections (other than me, I recused myself).

The new board represents the #1, 2 and 3 candidates from 2 elections ago, the #1 and #1 candidates from the elections before that and the #3 & #5 from the last election (#4 was me, I declined the seat).

Don't make me laugh. Those are the candidates everyone on the "old boys club" board wanted to have join / win the elections. it's convenient they are next in line. I'm sure you wouldnt have picked Cody, for example

This board of seven voted unanimously to keep the foundation open and feels they did not have a mandate from the people who voted for them to go with the minority opinion.

Mandate? I'm pretty sure if you hold elections now, the remaining board members will be at the bottom of the list. Your "mandate" either resigned or got removed.

Like I said before, the Foundation has suffered too many negative blows, and the community at large no longer wants the Foundation to exist. When I was elected, I thought we had a shot, but clearly history has proven otherwise. The foundation is rotten to the core (literally), and I can confirm that now. Suspending elections, and firing me for no reason (a fate that even Mark Karpeles did not suffer, after he performed the biggest heist in Bitcoin's history), pretty much solidified your fate.