And yes, it is definitely censorship not the spam trap.  Or "moderation" if you prefer.  But there is a big difference between preventing the kiddies from finding out Santa doesn't exist or whatever and erasing things to prevent others from seeing that sort of viewpoint being expressed.   Whether you maintain that you have the "right" to or not, the latter still reflects very poorly on whoever is doing it.

It also raises questions about what else is being concealed from view.  Ironically, I would probably emailed whoever was responsible for moderating the blog to talk to them first, but there is not enough transparency for me to find out who that is.

Here are the comments:

Most recent, left on the Jul 19 post:
"I should emphasize that all of us at Factor e Farm are full-time volunteers."
You mean on-site, I hope.  The non-profit director is being paid 10% commission on the donations she brings in to a limit of $65K/y - more than twice the median American salary.

And it says on the "scaling strategy" page on the wiki that the plan is to hire consultants at $15k per prototype for $45k per tool.  There is no problem with hiring people in itself and it does not IMO need to be glossed over, and doing so does you no credit.

  After being interested in this project for what, 5 months now, a post like this, while meant to be informative also highlights the widespread lack of meaningful transparency.  "We" and "us" clearly means the inner circle, or some fraction of it here, because I can pretty much guarantee that people outside it did not even know 90% of these things, even though they are not new, and it's not because they don't want to.  If you don't have time to be transparent that is fine and a legitimate way to run a project - but you are or are not transparent.   If you are not you should not be telling people you are, period, especially people who donate their time or money, who like myself will find out anyway the hard way.

Of less fundamental importance, it is clear that unless something major is changed in the management style, hiring people and therefore large amounts of money will in fact be badly needed to succeed by 2013.  A look at the recent changes page shows 36 people modified the wiki in the past week, only  17 or so contributing directly to significant product development or organizational things (includes It, translation, etc.)   And then it is clear that the time spend was very small in most cases.  The total input from remote contributors aside from on IT which is visible on the wiki may well be less than 80 person-hours per week by all appearances, hard to tell though.  Would be nice to have real statistics, but from what I have seen, which is a lot, that is certainly roughly right.
 
And no, it is not due to a lack of qualified people.  There are far too many projects like dancing rabbit ecovillage and Akamai village, and far too many such people that have joined or offered to help on OSE in the past only to be turned away by either apparent mismanagement or by the management (like Dawg), and the project has been blessed with far too much publicity to say it is due to a lack of such people in the world.  It's definitely a leadership problem I'm afraid.

Lastly, your post is unrealistic to a degree that is not really fair to the readers.  Bringing in 4 mil in the next 1.5 years? What examples are there of that ever being done in a comparable situation?  Sounds pretty far fetched.  

_______
I don't see to have kept a copy of the post I left on the Organizational Development, May 18 post but I remember it fairly well I think so here it is from memory:

This is both a relief and a concern to me.  A relief because with regards to transparency, there isn't any right now. Poor translucency at best.  And the  page epitomizes the attitude that has been taken so far, which is to say everything is transparent, and anyone who disagrees is by definition [not] "intelligent" enough to understand.  So hopefully the demands of getting 501c3 status will help clear that up.

A concern because the whole nonprofit organization is also a way the government has developed to put a leash on this sort of enthusiasm.  Just look at greenpeace.  In Canada, I have heard for a long time they were not allowed to be a non-profit, and then they were allowed and IIRC the government threatened them with revocation of the status again - why? Because they were too.... political, effective, essentially.   The direct action campaigns, the strong speech and support for particular parties, none of that is allowed for a non-profit.  Greenpeace does what works, and it happens to be those things, which is why they are not allowed.  Political change necessitates upsetting the status quo and of course they will use whatever tools are at their disposal to fight back.

It's a so-called moral hazard too.  The mere threat of loosing donations if you don't steer a wide berth around the sort of behavior the government - the status quo, basically - doesn't like, may have a major chilling effect on progress.

(Note that was not part of the comment:
the http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Transparency page includes this: "As money is spent, it will be reported in our budget reports. Anyone who questions our accountability will be pointed to the Transparency page. If they still question our accounting practices, they are questioning our integrity, and they cannot be convinced readily to be our friends. They are probably not worth pursuing as supporters because they lack the intelligence required to understand the scope of this work. "

The budget reports, I would point out, were never even produced except once in Nov. (searched "budget report" and other terms).  Even your own inadequate definition of transparency was not met.