RE: Open Letter to Ned/Steemit

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Open Letter to Ned/Steemit

in open-letter •  6 years ago 

Yep, I pretty much agree with the particulars of what you just wrote. Either two parallel teams (hard) or one team basically replacing another (less hard). Or something even more clever.

In fact, what you outlined above is not a bad set of criteria for the kinds of goals and opportunities I hope can be explored, moving forward. They're not all insurmountable obstacles, after all.

Something other than, "Hire people when we get in trouble."

On the other hand, if the entire plan is "Phase 1: Stop powering down and selling 800k STEEM per month," that amounts to, "Phase 1: Collect Underpants."

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

if the entire plan is "Phase 1: Stop powering down and selling 800k STEEM per month,"

Please read carefully. I did not say that was the entire plan. I said that plan alone would be a significant improvement to the status quo.

For the umpteenth time there have been numerous plans which involve various forms of community governance and that, in turn, clearly involves more than "hire people when we get into trouble" although that too could be part of what happens under such a model. In particular, it involves attracting, building, and supporting a team (how tightly or loosly coupled that team might be is TBD, though both can certainly work) as quickly as possible which, unlike the current one, will actually be accountable to stakeholders (or, indeed, to anyone at all).

One can not entirely rule out an "orderly" path from here to there via radical reform of the processes and policies if the incumbent team, but experience gives reason only to be hopeful, not optimistic. Failing that, the precondition to building a replacement team is ejecting the current one, which has been both obstructionist and ineffective. Yes, that may involve disruption, as an unavoidable cost. I do not seek such disruption but I also do not seek to avoid the unavoidable.

Please read carefully. I did not say that was the entire plan.

(emphasis yours)

Well then I misunderstood the part where you said:

That alone should be a significant improvement to the status quo.

(emphasis mine)

  ·  6 years ago (edited)

"That alone" implies a portion of a larger whole.

Example:

In renovating the property, first we will replace the missing roof. That alone should improve its value significantly. Then we will paint it, fix the windows, and perform interior upgrades.

Note that in this example, as with Steem, one could stop with the initial item and accomplish something of value. That does not imply that one must or would do so.