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 nostr:nprofile1qqsxc5dz95sneuapjws3av4dpw3dym0ng8ehzks7989zwaaj9ug37vgpzdmhxue69uhhqatjwpkx2urpvuhx2ue0hapfrd have to remind NVK to keep applications for funds fair?  

 Great example of how a 9 person board can keep one person in check to maintain the integrity of the org. Thank you for proving my point.  

 Why would you want someone like that on the board in the first place? 

 Clearly you have not listened to Bitcoin.Review  

 Is there a particular episode in reference or just flat hero worship? 

 Now we're entering ad hominem area. Go fuck yourself and do better.  

 I'll assume by the response it was the latter 

 You're winning so hard. Keep it up.  

 We're all losing if the mission is compromised by those who seek to empower themselves over the mission. 

 Who is "we"? 

 I'm winning.  

 I'm also muting you now.  

 Fortunately you can't hide my comments from others to see and make judgements for themselves. I wish you all the best. 

 "I can't justify my position so I'll just assume it's hero worship"
Circle back to the original argument and make the case for it. You assert NVK on the board is bad but could only find one instance of potential malfeasance that was put in check by another board member. Highlighting how robust a 9 person board is at keep things clean.  Then you ignore a very clear track record of technical understanding (probably good for a board member to have) and call it hero worship.

So again. Go fuck yourself. 

 As I asked before can you point me to where I can read additional minutes of subcommittee and decision votes? How would I attempt to provide clear examples if I don't have the documents to prove such things. I can only point to what I have access to.

I take away a differing opinion on this one instance of public minutes showing that NVK attempts to do things that subvert fairness. If someone only does one bad thing do they not deserve reprocussions? Besides I smell lots of smoke and all know where there's smoke, theres fire.

Again NVK may be technical but there are many other technical people that can provide guideance without compromising principles.