Recently in the private “Core Support” telegram channel a statement emerged that gave me pause.
Firstly (just to get this out of the way): Validators are independent individuals that may or may not know one another. Whilst this is my personal opinion, I feel confident that both past practice as well as formal statements made elsewhere (not by me) bears to the validity and truthfulness of my prior sentence (search is your friend).
I’m not here to unpack this, rather I wish to address the following:
Validators that came onboard at a different time within the history of the project are therefore subject to different rules (not requirements - I understand that these can, have and should change as the project matures. These changes being made by the set of current validators and what they believe to be in the best interest of the project may require adjustments from time to time.) I am talking about: is Validator A exempt from rule(s) that Validator B is not?
Allow me to explain my personal lens around the matter.
After successfully defending my doctoral work, members of my committee individually stood up, shook my hand, looked me in the eye and said “…welcome Dr. Flowers”. It was at that moment that I was a part of/and a formal peer of these individuals. They did so only after making sure that I was truly a peer and not someone that would diminish their personal efforts at attainment. I was a peer of the larger community.
I personally loath the idea that some validators are somehow different than others (better or better off - not needing to worry about following some rules they don’t like). Again for me - once acknowledged as a peer within this project, you are a peer.
Again. Validators are full to disagree, and I think we ought to welcome critical comments as to avoid group think. As a scientist, I believe in being critical (yet not being a jerk) in analyzing ideas with others.
I am specifically targeting the notion that validators that have on-boarded at different points along the history of the project can excuse themselves from rules they may not like. One must be completely informed of the role and responsibilities, making the personal decision as to whether or not this position is a great fit or not. That is why it is so critically important that one reads through these public forums and of equal critical importance for us validators to express ourselves publicly.
What do you think about this?