Why are you so defensive towards NVK's position on the Board? If something is only 89% as good as it could be and we both can understand the community's concerns, why would improving it be so contentious? Additionally NVK doesn't need to vote to have a chilling effect. He can make his false accusations against project's merits before abstaining as he's done numerous times in public. This chilling effect is not needed and could be improved with a less troll candidate. Before naming names, is there a way I can look at voting records or secretary recorded discussions from subcommittees? As you've stated I don't have insider knowledge of how OpenSats is being operated but I can certainly see how others are perceiving their operations and thus my concerns. If I can research that then I'd be happy to include names.

Looking at what is posted in public meeting notes gives me concern without having to look into subcommittee records. This is from the 2024 Q2 Minutes: 18:55 — NVK briefly proposes that we add artificial intelligence (AI) as a category of projects that we fund. He has domain expert in AI who can set up a subcommittee for applications related to AI. Since this is currently a very trendy area that might overwhelm our processing if it gets attention, he suggests that we make it low-key. Janine points out that we are probably required to publicly announce this, otherwise the fairness of the offering could be challenged. Why does @Janine (J9) have to remind NVK to keep applications for funds fair?

You confuse simping with disagreeing. To be clear, NVK is a douchebag for suing an open source dev. However, that doesn't mean he's a bad board member for OpenSats (which is an unpaid position). Please address the following or fuck off. I'm tired of repeating myself. View quoted note →

It's majority voting.