RE: I made the mistake of voicing my concerns about the upcoming hardfork.
Here's the problem. You were apparently put up there largely by the team which is a sort of centrally-managed meddling. Therefore it was easy for a small shift in the winds to occur and have that centrally-managed meddling bump you out. I personally believe that you would sooner or later been voted in without the team votes, as many people recognize and support your work with @cheetah, @seraph, etc., And indeed will likely be voted in again in due time. However, it comes down to a live by the sword die by the sword sort of thing, when the team that put you removes (some) of their votes.
Personally I prefer to see the team voluntarily take a hands-off approach on the witness list and let the community run it, as a way to promote broad, healthy consensus. (The team still has an enormous role and great influence as the developer of the software, as well as being respected individuals whose opinions have great weight. It doesn't need to also pick the witness list, outside of extraordinary circumstances.) If that had been done generally, you would likely still be in due to broad community support, because the Dan votes on all the others above you wouldn't be there (as well as a few remaining Ned votes).
Please take a longer term view and wait to see how this works out before making any final decisions.
Upvoted for relevance.
I really hope the community brings you back in. Until then, if you need any support to keep the bots up, you know you can always contact me. It's an absolute necessary service. Should you at any point decide to stop working on them, please pass them on (or back)!
I do not think the community has the power to put me in the witness list, due to the largest stakeholders, Steemit Inc and Dan, are still voting for witnesses. The majority of people who would vote for me, already have.
I appreciate the support you offer, although I am not the type of person to want to take too many handouts -- I personally feel more valued if I earn something rather than am donated to. I am currently not convinced it is a necessary service, as the developers at Steemit have made their positions clear to me so far.
You seem to be mixing up different things here.
First, that decision to remove votes was solely because of their preference about the planned updates. What we work on is secondary in a situation like this.
Second, while they have a certain influence over the list, they do not have total control. There's more whales in the pool.
And finally, it's not about donating to you but keeping up a valuable service. I am willing to take over the cost in whichever way if you decide to stop, and ask you to preserve the code and the data for those that financed it until now - the whole community.
I might be mixing the intent, but I have felt this way for a long time. And considering that the vast majority of witnesses also did not support changing the comment pools at this time, and I am the one who gets kicked out, I can't help but take this personally. I'm the weakest link and am not necessary, is the message I get.
I understand and appreciate the intention, but I don't quite see it the same way. It seems like the idea is to kick me out of a place where my voice is heard, but keep the work I have done. It feels like a Tesla & Edison situation.
We are provisionally removing votes from all witnesses regardless of their opinions of HF17, pending publication of public transparency policy on Steemit witness voting.
Please don't take it personally. We sincerely appreciate all that you do.
@sneak, It's a bit too little too late to not take it personally. The actions have happened, and the reaction has caused my response.
Not to mention Ned flagging my post to zero just further pushes it personally.
@anyx, I assume that @ned flagged your post for being inaccurate.
In particular:
...is not a true statement.
I encourage you to reconsider.
Thanks for the thoughts smooth. You are correct, the sort of "power creep" that has happened with dan, ned, and steemit inc. placing witnesses in, that they approve of, has effectively given them a lot of influence over the list.
I unfortunately do not think dan will voluntarily stop voting for witnesses, however, as despite suggesting that he will no longer post/vote on steemit, he has already broken this promise. I think it was you who said the community should ratify the development proposals, and you couldn't be more correct. I hope this situation improves in the future.
I will indeed take your advice, and try to take a longer term view, I won't make a rash decision. Yet.