Though some have left, many of us stayed because we hope something will change.
I remember having a discussion with you, Luke, about my witness around a year ago. It was on Steem.chat and I didn't save it - so I think it might be lost - but you were basically saying that I am not trustable enough as a witness, because of an article I wrote in which I was exposing my disagreements with a certain type of activity on the Steem blockchain. I never actually left Steemit, although I did take a break of about one month and a half after that article. After I reactivated my witness, I actively supported all the processes I could, as a backup witness, for more than a year, continuously. And yet, somehow I was never worth of a vote from you, while you were actively climbing, becoming a consensus witness. Don't get me wrong, I was, and I still am, very happy for you and I admire your journey. And I consider it well deserved, you were actively contributing and doing a good job on this platform.
But what I want to say is that if you would really be in favor of decentralization, you should, probably, be less "selective" with who you deem worthy enough to be part of this system. The same centralization that you see manifesting in Ned may be manifesting in some of your actions too.
Just my two cents.
Peace!
// edit
Looking at how this came out, I can see it may be confusing. The thing that you were referring in that conversation was that I was "defecting" the team, and we need trust and loyalty and, because I decided to take a break and disable my witness, I wasn't trustable anymore. For me, that conclusion was exaggerated. I didn't do anything other than expressing my opinion, period. And yet, that was enough for you to take me out from the "circle of trust".
Your attitude from back then looks very similar with the distrust that is manifested by @ned now, with the scared power down and all.
Peace again :)
I think you may be reading a little too much into my decision processes for who I select and who I don't select as witnesses.
This sounds like entitlement. I'm not a fan of that. There are many who ask me for a vote and don't receive it and they don't come talk to me a year later about it. They understand my choices for witness are mine to make.
For me, it's not just about what someone does but also (ALSO) how they do it and how they represent themselves. Me not voting for you is not at all, in any way, similar to Ned's actions. If you view things that way, then I don't really understand your thinking which is probably closer to the reason why I didn't vote for you then.
That doesn't mean your thinking is wrong or bad or whatever. I just don't understand it and it doesn't click well with me. That's okay. Some people are different have trouble understanding each other and that's just how things go. Peace involves working together anyway and treating everything as a gift with no expectations.
Mine? Or yours?
Whatever. Moving on.