Comment from anonymous user:
Identification: There are a couple of considerations around identification which I think is handled in an uncomfortable way. We should have a self-sovereign identity solution that allows us to be identified, and some kind of dApp on top of that so we can understand people’s contributions and competencies. Right now it’s very random. Two results that I have noticed is that people do not have “status” in the organization. You called people “activists” which is a kind of a generic label. The membranes for membership/participation are unclear and nobody really knows how you become a different type of member/fellow/activist. There’s no procedure or reputation or number of points. For a healthy organization, there should be clarity around these things. If someone has good rankings as a speaker, for example, that should be something that is known and it’s not an opaque political invisible process who does and doesn’t get a lightning talk, for example.
The second problem is around identity and privacy. I feel that as a participant I have no privacy and my data is used wherever dGov wants to use my data. For example, if someone makes a mindmap of the participation of people in different organization, my full real name appears there and nobody asks me or even informs me that my data is being used.
It is ironic that dGov, which claims to be against privacy violations, centralized power structure, and opaque decision-making, has chosen to implement these procedures internally. Oh, look, I’m not allowed to use an anonymous posting here. LOL