I believe that ButtaTRiBot’s proposal that TimBeiko be removed from EIP-1559 is wrong. I oppose EIP-1559 just as much as any other miner, but if an EIP has a manager that supports it, then that isn’t wrong. What I do believe is wrong is putting someone who has allowed exclusionary statements from the people that he is supposed to be managing and moderating have a position where those biases can do much greater harm to miners. He might not be a bad guy, but he let himself get wrapped up in controversy that should be disqualifying.
The actual problem that needs to be solved is governance.
If someone would offer me a job like that, I would simply pass on this, because it is impossible to coordinate having the lack of formalized governance.
If is a classic example of a role where you cant change anything, but people put all the blame on you.
The role in the current shape and form is meaningless since there is no conflict resolution process.
A coordinator is someone who helps to coordinate a compromise based on formal conflict resolution rules.
The current position is an engineering manager that executes what is communicated from the top.
The root of the problem is a lack of formal governance. People are good, governance is bad.
If exclusionary statements are to be banned then I insist that inclusive statements are banned as well, due to the long history of evils done in the name of collectivism.
I would like to ask that Tim, Abdelhamid and any other Consensys employee expressly disclose their employment and roles when making posts or proposals. The outsized role that this company plays in 1559 is ethically troubling, and the fact that no disclosure has been made, particularly in the whitepapers and, what I would call “opinion pieces” authored by Tim, is equally disturbing.
If you start off a paper by saying, I work for X company, and the technology I am proposing will benefit my employer financially/via efficiency/whatever, and…here’s why I think this technology is a good idea - it gives the reader appropriate context to decide how credible the clams are, if there is (or is not) an inherent bias and which topics or sections to view critically.
Many of the claimed benefits of 1559 have been subject to very objective criticisms which have been responded to with articles mostly by Tim, again with no employment affiliation/possible conflict disclosure. This is, in my opinion, unethical. The fact that Consensys makes metamask and 1559 is very closely tied to that technology makes it even more so. I don’t fully understand how Consensys makes its money, and if it will obtain any advantage for metamask with 1559, but frank and honest disclosures by the Consensys team are warranted given that they have played central and critical (almost exclusive) roles in proposing and advancing 1559.
Maybe absolutely nothing is going on. Maybe there’s no nefarious connection at all. However, the fact that an employee of a private company basically runs the entire development effort of Ethereum and continues to push an agenda with no disclosure of any potential conflicts just really looks bad.