Let me point out the obvious:
Yes, technically and legally speaking you are right.
This however mens that the previous directors, and sorry to state that honestly and very clearly, did not do their jobs as technically and legally intended. this because they kept the access keys for themselves and subsequently things stalled for two years or so, while they were busy with something else.
This to me means that there need to be a shared ownership of such keys, they should be in the hands of directors, but directors need either to share them making things happen, OR share them with someone who can act as a backup. That is why I am also suggesting that it be clear who pays for what, that way directors CAN’T say “we pay for everything so it’s basically ours” - that is a translation of what was happening with the non willingness to share keys.
Yes, we can go the donation way, i myself am NOT WILLING to donate if what happens is that directors keep everything in their own hands stalling the project, and surelly… there are new directors… do I need to trust blindly given what happened in the past?
When the discussions about monetization for the project arose in the past it was made VERY clear from directors that the only thing accepted was basically donations, no to companies willing to donate… no to a swg store that we only recently opened, no to a platform meant to offer professional services by community members to fund the no profit. And donations are NEVER enough to fund a project of the dimension of WP basically, because CP might not have many users but it’s complexity is the same as WP.
So directors failed to engage the community in a monetization activity, they used their own money to fund the project and felt in a way that the project was theirs to manage, and de facto excluded the possibility of contributions by community members not sharing access.
Now what you are basically saying is: community is in charge (in the past two years it NEVER WAS) and directors are the owners of accesses.
oh, why on earth should people contribute AND maybe donate if all goes in the hands of directors and we risk repeating history?
I will wait for your plan, things need to change. I am not trusting that they will change. That is why i involve you in the roadmap discussion, because to me IF you want a little piece of trust… you have to earn it by interacting with the whole community on important topics, then facilitating the process of doing by either acting OR sharing the keys with people who do act.
I think this is NOT too much to ask. That people SHOW UP if they want to be called directors.
Talking in legalese won’t change the fact that many people do not trust things are going to change, and that this is really what harms the project.
And, where do you think I could take all that list? I am constantly reading and staying updated on what happens, i listen in in every core meeting. I am not skilled enough to talk at a core meeting, but by listening I know what is that people are trying to accomplish. And I am sick of listening in to things that are ready to be scheduled for released or worked on and stall because of no accesses. I am just one, but I think I am not alone in feeling that level of distrust. Yet I am here, even with that feeling TAKING THE TIME TO ROLL UP MY SLEEVES TO PUT A LIST TOGETHER so that community feels that someone at least paid attention, so that everyone understands that now to change things we really need to put the work in even if we are short on trust. So do not talk legalese, read the list… add to it if there is something I forgot. and start talking to people about how they want to make things happen. Since you point out your job is being a facilitator.
I don’t need to see the july 1st plan, I need to see directors are engaged to trust them. You know, the previous ones were not and decided to remain on even if they could not manage any more.