Yes, and in the Fellowship the higher ranks choose the lower ranks. What is it that you think is different from the Fellowship?
Yeah I agree. But the initial seeding wasn’t done like this? As far as I remember, it was based on the contributions to the protocol and work done according to manifesto.
So I was expecting something similar for the initial seeding for Ambassadors. Or its like that only? Sorry I didn’t follow the recent developments.
But yeah now makes sense, thank you for clarifying.
1 Like
Ah I see. Well, IIRC the Technical Committee (Parity and W3F) set the initial Fellowship members on-chain. In this case, the token holders set the initial Ambassador Program members on-chain. IMO this is much better.
Yes, the initial member set that the Technical Committee set was the result of an evaluation of each person’s contributions. If the network elects good Head Ambassadors, I would expect them to also apply rigor and transparency in their selection process so as not to promote/induct only their “friends”. If they do not, then the token holders should probably fire those HAs.
1 Like
What exactly is expected of HAs?
1 Like