Hi @whatsup, thanks for taking time to read my comment and reply.
Tone and context often get lost in text, so just to clarify, I am here to provide support and I want to see this initiative succeed and appreciate the work you are doing.
We do need to be mindful of the past and how we ended up here. As you can imagine, for many users, who often get information 2nd, 3rd or 4th hand, the optics of a group that appears within 24hrs with nominees that they have had no input in selecting doesn't look good. We then have another selection process that happens this sunday which doesn't seem to take into account that many users may be unable to be online at that time to provide their input. We are global community that live across many different time zones.
I feel that a more open process that includes a diverse range of people at this stage may lead to better results and outcomes in the future. As they say, "start as you mean to go on".
With the history we have on this blockchain, I do think every task does need to be transparent to regain the confidence of the community. This may slow things down, but I would much rather a slow process than one that rushes to the wrong ends.
There is nothing happening besides a group to pick the group who will organize the decision making communication, foundation, a request for proposals.
While I hear your concerns, it sounds like...
A group to elect a group to elect a group to elect a group. At some point someone just needs to pick a team to facilitate starting the process. That is all we are doing. The job will last about 2 weeks.
Keep in mind, the idea as I understand it is a private fund will be set up to be managed in the future by a public group in some manner.
The public selection and input on the process begins with the actual working group. We are making no decisions on what that will look like, how it will be funded etc. Literally doing some tasks.