witnesses and developers had a discussion
I see this and I think. Aren't we all stakeholders? Shouldn't a discussion have at least been considered over all stakeholders and not just a subset. There are many ways to do this now.
Shouldn't all stakeholders have an input earlier in the cycle to avoid costly decisions having to be made?
A proposal could have been made to all stakeholders. A for and against. But there wasn't. Do the views of non developer, non witness stakeholders not count. Or do they count at a later stage when the code has been written and as I said before it becomes far more expensive to change.
You are free to view this as unfair self-enrichment or some such, which seems to be the undercurrent of what you are implying even if you don't come out and say it
For the record then, I imply nothing. I view it as unfair and maintain it my right to do so.
the hassles involved, including debates like this one
Is this discussion onerous to you, a hassle? Then let us agree to disagree. I am happy to move on. I have stated what I think which I believe I am free to do. You have stated what you think which is indeed also your right.
Yes and yes, and that has been the case, starting several months ago when the SPS was proposed and discussed, and in numerous ongoing discussions since. So, if you are asking whether input from non-witnesses and developers is a part of this process and is directly considered, then I would say yes. If you are suggesting that all stakeholders and platform users are directly and personally involved with the development and collaborative discussions supporting development on a day to day basis, I would say no, that is not practical (and indeed is the very reason why Steem, and most current DPoS blockchains, was designed with a modestly-sized witness set: there is a limit to the number of people who can constructively have personal involvement in such a process without everything becoming too unwieldy; at a technical level it would work to have not a top 20 but a top 200 or even more, but from a practical standpoint when the network is seen as something evolving, that is impractical).
It isn't extreme, but it is still a meaningful added time commitment for those witnesses who choose to engage personally in these discussions with the community (this particular one only being an example, I'm not calling it out as a specific concern). Those that don't are criticized for being out of touch and not engaging. I can understand and see the merits of both approaches, particularly when witnesses are being paid about as much as a fast food worker (or maybe, given that the Steem price has recovered a bit recently, a fast food manager), before expenses, and then are accused of using their position to do "unfair" things to in order to protect their pay check.
That is exactly what is being done. The process of on-chain governance allows all stakeholders to have a say for or against approval/activation of forks.
Disagree, as stated above. A wide range of views from non-developers and non-witnesses have absolutely been heard and taken into account earlier in the process starting months ago, including on the matter of how and how much (and if) SPS should be funded. Ultimately witnesses and developers make a practical call to distill that down to what concrete implementation they think is best for Steem. They/we may well get some things wrong but we consider all sorts of input and do our best.
Ah, I see now.
You think I am accusing the witnesses, ergo yourself.
I am not going to retread everything I have said but...
I will say that yes, I believe it is unfair. I do not believe that adequate input from non-witnesses and developers has been sought.
I believe that in this case, there is too much bias, conscious or unconscious on the parties involved to make the decision to not include themselves fair.
I am not alone as you have stated.
I am happy to end it here.
I honestly appreciate the feedback and input
I have appreciated the discussion!
Yes, and it was never a case. I would really appreciate a system in which we have a fixed maximum percentage for any budget line minus the part outvoted by all the stakeholders.
Like for example max 2% for witnesses, but if 50% of all stakeholders have voted for "minus" it would be 1% only.
A huge amount of computing power is spent to decide that this particular meme will get a few cents more that another meme. Some part of this computing power surely could be reallocated to allow all the stakeholders have a say on the global parameters too.