OK, a few other people are dissenting too. The allegation seems to be that @rismanrachman only upvotes his friends (unless I have misunderstood). The guidance for Steem Ambassadors is clear, and their curating needs to be on an equal and fair basis.
That said, I think there would need to be some evidence that this takes place. Ultimately rismanrachman has been free to upvote whatever he wanted. As a Steem Ambassador he would be expected to curate approximately 35 promo-steem posts per week. Past behaviour is not necessarily what will happen going forward.
I think it may be worthwhile looking at the data from the blockchain, and letting the community look it over. There are a lot of positive comments here, but it is important that dissenters are given the chance to question it, and reject an application.
I will personally stay neutral on this one, and neither support nor reject. As part of the approval, @rismanrachman has the right to reply to this.
I also do not impose my will but to collect other evidence I have seen all the writings of rismanrachman and many abuses and negative comments in his post.
Yes please provide evidence. You have until the 7 days is up on this post to provide the evidence for the community who can then decide.
Here are the facts on @rismanrachman's account, as compiled over the last 31 days.
I've run reports on outgoing vote diversity, incoming flags, and network voting diagram. The results are below:
There are of course other ways to analyse the data, but I thought vote diversity would be a good measure. It suggests that there is a very fair amount of vote diversity from this user. Later on I will see if I can run a report on #promo-steem posts made by @rismanrachman.