I doubt the issue will be resolved easily because it is a hard fork in the press strategy. I doubt many, including you, think Saviann should be the one deciding the entire press strategy and I doubt he wants that role anyway. Based on his performance to date I do think he would do an adequate job being just, even though he lacks the training, in applying the strategy.

By analogy the press strategy is like a Statute and the role of applying the strategy is like that of a judge. It is very unfair to Saviann to throw him into the role of legislator or judge when he clearly lacks the authority and is not provided any standards or tests by which to craft legislation or judge based on that legislation; particularly when he does not really possess the jurisdiction to do so anyway.

Theymos has stated where the authority, both subject matter with regards to the strategy that is to be pursued and personal over the actual domain itself, is vested and that is with the Bitcoin-QT development team and Sirius. In my opinion, that authority should be used to clearly and concisely provide guidance on the strategy to be pursued. After the strategy is agreed upon then I think Saviann and the rest of us working on the Press Center can pretty easily develop the standards for inclusion. It is not that hard.

When it comes to strategy, what is at issue in this discussion is whether bitcoin.org should be used as a persuasive resource to convey a particular veneer for the Bitcoin developers who maintain the site OR an objective resource to assist journalists in finding competent and professional sources?

I think there is wide consensus that adequate standards for inclusion should include competency, professionalism and a generally good reputation in the Bitcoin community.

When it comes to a political ideology test then for a persuasive resource it would be essential but for an objective resource it would be irrelevant.

As for why one or the other should be chosen as a strategy; well, I think plenty of those arguments have been made earlier. This is merely an objective analysis of the situation.

Well then let's settle this theymos. Gavin have you been approached by the Foundation and do you feel like they value your input? I'm actually curious about the relationship between both orgs.

Bad logic. Just because Gavin is a member of the Foundation's board doesn't mean that he's obligated to execute its orders in relation to Bitcoin development. (He's not.)

The more I read this, the more I believe Satoshi was smart to stay anonymous and vanish early and stay away from all of this, lest he will get all kinds of pleads like "Please, Satoshi, we need someone to make a decision for us, you should stand out..."blahblahblah

Many of the posts in this thread appear to be designed to be inflammatory. What difference does it really make whether or not someone's name is listed on some website? If the people on the website want calmness and neutrality, and they have control of said website, then so what?

The gnashing of teeth, the wailing, the gesticulation. All these things are irrelevant; when it comes down to it, think closely as to how many people in this thread, and elsewhere, will be keeping their heads up when actual attention is inevitably paid us by the authorities? The moderates. The rest are either socks, or people whose convictions almost always melt under scrutiny. Think about it: out of all the revolutionaries, who else but cosy armchair variety can even afford to participate meaningfully in Bitcoin right now?

Shouting into the seeming wind is a waste of time. Exit the discussion. There doesn't need to be one. You are granting these people the power to object just by engaging them. You are legitimizing their vitriolic attacks.

And for those people whose attacks may actually matter in the press-attention, public forum sense? Well now, they don't really have control of the website, now do they? And, we can safely assume that the people talking about replacing or removing the developers are part of a well-known, unfortunately well-funded echo-chamber. Keep that in mind.

As I new member of the Bitcoin Foundation, I will fight against censorship in any way, shape or form

(checks page count)  This is 14 pages of "silenced debate" and counting?  That excludes further silenced debate on reddit and github.

Matonis has a Forbes column.  Silenced and censored?  Posh.

Further, you will also note that I retweet @jonmatonis material, and happily review Ver-owned BitcoinStore purchases.  The world is not as simple as the critics would paint.

But bitcoin is growing up.  The number of non-anarchists in this world vastly outnumbers the anarchists, and a truly global, inclusive currency needs to appeal to all.

The fundamental nature of bitcoin is. It is what it is today, and nobody is trying to the change the engineering.  You want true monetary freedom?  Get bitcoin into as many peoples' hands on this planet as possible.

Yes, you can, because they are.

Frankly, I do not think bitcoin would work, or be useful to anybody, if it was "controlled" by the Bitcoin Foundation.

At that point, even if the code is available for download, I would not really call it open source.

Moving on to terminology.

"core developer" tends to be strictly defined as anybody with push privs to github/bitcoin/bitcoin.git -- but we must admit that that term becomes less relevant over time, as other implementations and other non-bitcoind developers start contributing BIPs and other major, impactful changes.

i.e. should we consider the Armory dev a core developer?  etothepi has written BIPs and certainly contributes to the wallet side of things.  Mike Hearn (TD) and Matt C worked on the bloom filter feature, which revolutionizes the network-sync time for lightweight bitcoin clients.

The bloom filter feature alone is huge.  An embedded, low resource bitcoin client that is truly decentralized and P2P may be built -- as we see from the current Bitcoin Wallet on the Android market.  Is that not a far better solution than more centralized, hackable, DDoS-able websites?

So are they "core developers"?  In the less strict sense, I'd answer "yes"  Their changes are certainly trusted by the community at large, in addition to the yahoos on the bitcoin/bitcoin.git commit list.

I wish people would stop implying that Bitcoin, rather than its "standard" client or "standard" daemon, has a core development team.

Because it it has, there goes decentralisation.