From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FF65C0032 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2023 09:13:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E91A74169E for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2023 09:13:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org E91A74169E X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.29 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.29 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_RP_RNBL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL=1.31, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E27gXZVenH2O for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2023 09:13:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mslow1.mail.gandi.net (mslow1.mail.gandi.net [217.70.178.240]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0768F4169B for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2023 09:13:28 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 0768F4169B Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc4:8::224]) by mslow1.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3CBBCABD2 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2023 09:05:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A97FBE000D; Wed, 8 Nov 2023 09:05:34 +0000 (UTC) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2023 10:05:34 +0100 From: email@yancy.lol To: Andrew Chow , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0648792e3ed99ce9504b4227eb60ae89@yancy.lol> X-Sender: email@yancy.lol Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_976d33f014f84f1ae6f7af940d498a55" X-GND-Sasl: email@yancy.lol X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 09 Nov 2023 00:14:08 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Future of the bitcoin-dev mailing list X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2023 09:13:32 -0000 --=_976d33f014f84f1ae6f7af940d498a55 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On 2023-11-07 17:12, Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I would prefer that we continue to have a mailing list where email is a > functional and first class user interface. So that would be to migrate > to groups.io or Google Groups. I think Google Groups is probably the > better choice of the two. +1 to migrating to a different email service. That seems like the most straightforward solution. On 2023-11-08 04:56, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote: > delvingbitcoin.org is something I setup Cool, thanks! It's great to have more channels of discussion. Same with IRC etc. Cheers, -Yancy > Andrew Chow > > On 11/07/2023 10:37 AM, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> We would like to request community feedback and proposals on the >> future >> of the mailing list. >> >> Our current mailing list host, Linux Foundation, has indicated for >> years >> that they have wanted to stop hosting mailing lists, which would mean >> the bitcoin-dev mailing list would need to move somewhere else. We >> temporarily avoided that, but recently LF has informed a moderator >> that >> they will cease hosting any mailing lists later this year. >> >> In this email, we will go over some of the history, options, and >> invite >> discussion ahead of the cutoff. We have some ideas but want to solicit >> feedback and proposals. >> >> Background >> ========== >> >> The bitcoin-dev mailing list was originally hosted on Sourceforge.net. >> The bitcoin development mailing list has been a source of proposals, >> analysis, and developer discussion for many years in the bitcoin >> community, with many thousands of participants. Later, the mailing >> list >> was migrated to the Linux Foundation, and after that OSUOSL began to >> help. >> >> Linux Foundation first asked us to move the mailing list in 2017. They >> internally attempted to migrate all LF mailing lists from mailman2 to >> mailman3, but ultimately gave up. There were reports of scalability >> issues with mailman3 for large email communities. Ours definitely >> qualifies as.. large. >> >> 2019 migration plan: LF was to turn off mailman and all lists would >> migrate to the paid service provider groups.io . >> Back >> then we were given accounts to try the groups.io >> interface and administration features. Apparently we were not the only >> dev community who resisted change. To our surprise LF gave us several >> years of reprieve by instead handing the subdomain and server-side >> data >> to the non-profit OSUOSL lab who instead operated mailman2 for the >> past >> ~4 years. >> >> OSUOSL has for decades been well known for providing server >> infrastructure for Linux and Open Source development so they were a >> good >> fit. This however became an added maintenance burden for the small >> non-profit with limited resources. Several members of the Bitcoin dev >> community contributed funding to the lab in support of their Open >> Source >> development infrastructure goals. But throwing money at the problem >> isn't going to fix the ongoing maintenance burden created by >> antiquated >> limitations of mailman2. >> >> Permalinks >> ========== >> >> Linux Foundation has either offered or agreed to maintain archive >> permalinks so that content of historic importance is not lost. >> Fortunately for us while lists.linuxfoundation.org >> mailman will go down, they have >> agreed the read-only pipermail archives will remain online. So all old >> URLs will continue to remain valid. However, the moderators strongly >> advise that the community supplements with public-inbox instances to >> have canonical archive urls that are separate from any particular >> email >> software host. >> >> Public-Inbox >> ============ >> >> https://public-inbox.org/README.html >> >> >> "Public Inbox" decentralized archiving - no matter what mailing list >> server solution is used, anyone can use git to maintain their own >> mailing list archive and make it available to read on the web. >> >> Public Inbox is a tool that you can run yourself. You can transform >> your >> mbox file and it makes it browsable and viewable online. It commits >> every post to a git repository. It's kind of like a decentralized mail >> archiving tool. Anyone can publish the mail archive to any web server >> they wish. >> >> We should try to have one or more canonical archives that are served >> using public-inbox. But it doesn't matter if these are lost because >> anyone else can archive the mailing list in the same way and >> re-publish >> the archives. >> >> These git commits can also be stamped using opentimestamps, inserting >> their hashes into the bitcoin blockchain. >> >> LKML mailing list readers often use public-inbox's web interface, and >> they use the reply-to headers to populate their mail client and reply >> to >> threads of interest. This allows their reply to be properly threaded >> even if they were not a previous subscriber to that mailing list to >> receive the headers. >> >> public-inbox makes it so that it doesn't really matter where the list >> is >> hosted, as pertaining to reading the mailing list. There is still a >> disruption if the mailing list goes away, but the archives live on and >> then people can post elsewhere. The archive gets disconnected from the >> mailing list host in terms of posting. We could have a few canonical >> URLs for the hosts, separate from the mailing list server. >> >> mailman problems >> ================ >> >> Over the years we have identified a number of problems with mailman2 >> especially as it pertains to content moderation. There are presently a >> handful of different moderators, but mailman2 only has a single >> password >> for logging into the email management interface. There are no >> moderator >> audit logs to see which user (there is no concept of different users) >> acted on an email. There is no way to mark an email as being >> investigated by one or more of the moderators. Sometimes, while >> investigating the veracity of an email, another moderator would come >> in >> and approve a suspect email by accident. >> >> Anti spam has been an issue for the moderators. It's relentless. >> Without >> access to the underlying server, it has been difficult to fight spam. >> There is some support for filters in mailman2 but it's not great. >> >> 100% active moderation and approval of every email is unsustainable >> for >> volunteer moderators. A system that requires moderation is a heavy >> burden on the moderators and it slows down overall communication and >> productivity. There's lots of problems with this. Also, moderators can >> be blamed when they are merely slow while they are not actually >> censoring. >> >> Rejection emails can optionally be sent to >> bitcoin-dev-moderation@lists.ozlabs.org >> but this is an option >> that a moderator has to remember to type in each time. >> >> Not to mention numerous bugs and vulnerabilities that have accumulated >> over the years for relatively unmaintained software. (Not disclosed >> here) >> >> Requirements and considerations >> =============================== >> >> Looking towards the future, there are a number of properties that seem >> to be important for the bitcoin-dev mailing list community. First, it >> is >> important that backups of the entire archive should be easy for the >> public to copy or verify so that the system can be brought up >> elsewhere >> if necessary. >> >> Second, there seems to be demand for both an email threading interface >> (using mailing list software) as well as web-accessible interfaces >> (such >> as forum software). There seems to be very few options that cater to >> both email and web. Often, in forum software, email support is limited >> to email notifications and there is limited if any support for email >> user participation. >> >> Third, there should be better support for moderator tools and >> management >> of the mailing list. See above for complaints about problems with the >> mailman2 system. >> >> Burdens of running your own mailing list and email server >> ========================================================= >> >> If you have never operated your own MTA you have no idea how difficult >> it is to keep secure and functional in the face of numerous challenges >> to deliverability. Anti-spam filtering is essential to prevent >> forwarding spam. The moment you forward even a single spam message you >> run the risk of the server IP address being added to blacklists. >> >> The problem of spam filtering is so bad that most IP addresses are >> presumed guilty even if they have no prior spam history, such as if >> their network or subnetwork had spam issues in the past. >> >> Even if you put unlimited time into managing your own email server, >> other people may not accept your email. Or you make one mistake, and >> then you get into permanent blacklists and it's hard to remove. The >> spam >> problem is so bad that most IPs are automatically on a >> guilty-until-proven-innocent blacklist. >> >> Often there is nothing you can do to get server IP addresses removed >> from spam blacklists or from "bad reputation" lists. >> >> Ironically, hashcash-style proof-of-work stamps to prevent spam are an >> appealing solution but not widely used in this community. Or anywhere. >> >> Infinite rejection or forwarding loops happen. They often need to be >> detected through vigilance and require manual sysadmin intervention to >> solve. >> >> Bitcoin's dev lists being hosted alongside other Open Source projects >> was previously protective. If that mailing list server became >> blacklisted there were a lot of other people who would notice and >> complain. If we run a Bitcoin-specific mail server we are on our own. >> 100% of the administrative burden falls upon our own people. There is >> also nothing we can do if some unknown admin decides they don't like >> us. >> >> Options >> ======= >> >> Web forums are an interesting option, but often don't have good email >> user integration. At most you can usually hope for email notifications >> and an ability to reply by email. It changes the model of the >> community >> from push (email) to pull (logging into a forum to read). RSS feeds >> can >> help a little bit. >> >> Many other projects have moved from mailing lists to forums (eg >> https://discuss.python.org/ - see >> https://lwn.net/Articles/901744/ ; >> or >> https://ethresear.ch/ ), which seem easier to >> maintain and moderate, and can have lots of advanced features beyond >> plaintext, maybe-threading and maybe-HTML-markup. >> >> Who would host the forum? Would there be agreement around which forum >> software to use or which forum host? What about bitcointalk.org >> or delvingbitcoin.org >> ? There are many options available. Maybe >> what we actually want isn't so much a discussion forum, as an 'arxiv >> of >> our own' where anons can post BIP drafts and the like? >> >> Given the problems with mailman2, and the decline of email communities >> in general, it seems that moving to mailman3 would not be a viable >> long-term option. This leaves us with Google Groups or groups.io >> as two remaining options. >> >> groups.io is an interesting option: they are a paid >> service that implements email communities along with online web forum >> support. However, their public changelog indicates it has been a few >> years since their last public change. They might be a smaller company >> and it is unclear how long they will be around or if this would be the >> right fit for hosting sometimes contentious bitcoin development >> discussions... >> >> Google Groups is another interesting option, and comes with different >> tradeoffs. It's the lowest effort to maintain option, and has both an >> email interface and web forum interface. Users can choose which mode >> they want to interact with. >> >> For the Google Groups web interface, you can use it with a non-gmail >> account, but you must create a Google Account which is free to do. it >> does not require any personal information to do so. This also allows >> you >> to add 2FA. Non-gmail non-google users are able to subscribe and post >> email from their non-gmail non-google email accounts. Tor seems to >> work >> for the web interface. >> >> Will Google shut it down, will they cut us off, will they shut down >> non-google users? The same problem exists with other third-party >> hosts. >> >> The moderation capabilities for Google Groups and groups.io >> seem to be comparable. It seems more likely that >> Google Groups will be able to handle email delivery issues far better >> than a small resource-constrained operation like groups.io >> . ((During feedback for this draft, luke-jr >> indicates >> that Google Workspaces has been known to use blacklisted IPs for >> business email!)) >> >> On the other hand, groups.io is a paid service and >> you get what you pay for... hopefully? >> >> Finally, another option is to do literally nothing. It's less work >> overall. Users can switch to forums or other websites, or private >> one-on-one communication. It would remove a point of >> semi-centralization >> from the bitcoin ecosystem. It would hasten ossification, but on the >> other hand it would hasten ossification and this could be a negative >> too. Moderators would be less of a target. >> >> Unfortunately, by doing nothing, there would be no more widely used >> group email communication system between bitcoin developers. >> Developers >> become less coordinated, mayhem and chaos as people go to different >> communication platforms, a divided community is more vulnerable, etc. >> BIP1 and BIP2 would need to be revised for other venues. >> >> The main categories of what to move to are: web forums, mailing lists, >> and hybrids of those two options. Most everything is either >> self-hosted >> or you pay someone else to host it. It's kind of the same problem >> though. It largely depends on how good is the software and >> unfortunately >> running your own MTA that forwards mail is not a good option. >> >> Going forward >> =========== >> >> We'd like to invite feedback and proposals from the community, and see >> what options are available. One potential option is a migration to >> Google Groups, but we're open to ideas at this point. We apologize for >> any inconvenience this disruption has caused. >> >> Bitcoin-dev mailing list moderation team >> >> Bryan Bishop >> Ruben Somsen >> Warren Togami >> various others. >> >> -- >> - Bryan >> https://twitter.com/kanzure > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --=_976d33f014f84f1ae6f7af940d498a55 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
= On 2023-11-07 17:12, Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev wrote:
I would prefer that we continue to have a mailing list= where email is a
functional and first class user interface. So that = would be to migrate
to groups.io or Google Groups. I think Google Gro= ups is probably the
better choice of the two.

+1 to migrating to a different email service.  That seems like t= he most straightforward solution.

On 2023-11-08 04:56, Anthony T= owns via bitcoin-dev wrote:
= delvingbitcoin.org is something I setup
=  
= Cool, thanks!  It's great to have more channels of discussion.  S= ame with IRC etc.
=  
= Cheers,
= -Yancy



Andrew Chow

On 11/07/2023 10:37= AM, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Hello,

We would like to request community&n= bsp;feedback and proposals on the future
of the mailing list.
Our current mailing list host, Linux Foundation, has indicated for years=
that they have wanted to stop hosting mailing lists, which would mean=
the bitcoin-dev mailing list would need to move somewhere else. Wetemporarily avoided that, but recently LF has informed a moderator that<= br />they will cease hosting any mailing lists later this year.

= In this email, we will go over some of the history, options, and invite
discussion ahead of the cutoff. We have some ideas but want to solicitfeedback and proposals.

Background
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D

The bitcoin-dev mailing list was originally hosted on = Sourceforge.net.
The bitcoin development mailing list has been a sourc= e of proposals,
analysis, and developer discussion for many years in t= he bitcoin
community, with many thousands of participants. Later, the = mailing list
was migrated to the Linux Foundation, and after that OSUO= SL began to help.

Linux Foundation first asked us to move the ma= iling list in 2017. They
internally attempted to migrate all LF mailin= g lists from mailman2 to
mailman3, but ultimately gave up. There were = reports of scalability
issues with mailman3 for large email communitie= s. Ours definitely
qualifies as.. large.

2019 migration pla= n: LF was to turn off mailman and all lists would
migrate to the paid = service provider groups.io <http://groups.io>. Back
then we = were given accounts to try the groups.io <http://groups.io>
= interface and administration features. Apparently we were not the only
dev community who resisted change. To our surprise LF gave us several
years of reprieve by instead handing the subdomain and server-side datato the non-profit OSUOSL lab who instead operated mailman2 for the past<= br />~4 years.

OSUOSL has for decades been well known for provid= ing server
infrastructure for Linux and Open Source development so the= y were a good
fit. This however became an added maintenance burden for= the small
non-profit with limited resources. Several members of the B= itcoin dev
community contributed funding to the lab in support of thei= r Open Source
development infrastructure goals. But throwing money at = the problem
isn’t going to fix the ongoing maintenance burden cr= eated by antiquated
limitations of mailman2.

Permalinks
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Linux Foundation has either off= ered or agreed to maintain archive
permalinks so that content of histo= ric importance is not lost.
Fortunately for us while lists.linuxfounda= tion.org
<http://lists.linuxfoundation.org> = mailman will go down, they have
agreed the read-only pipermail archive= s will remain online. So all old
URLs will continue to remain valid. H= owever, the moderators strongly
advise that the community supplements = with public-inbox instances to
have canonical archive urls that are se= parate from any particular email
software host.

Public-Inbo= x
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

= https://public-inbox.org/README.html <https://pu= blic-inbox.org/README.html>

“Public Inbox” de= centralized archiving - no matter what mailing list
server solution is= used, anyone can use git to maintain their own
mailing list archive a= nd make it available to read on the web.

Public Inbox is a tool = that you can run yourself. You can transform your
mbox file and it mak= es it browsable and viewable online. It commits
every post to a git re= pository. It's kind of like a decentralized mail
archiving tool. Anyon= e can publish the mail archive to any web server
they wish.

We should try to have one or more canonical archives that are served
= using public-inbox. But it doesn't matter if these are lost because
an= yone else can archive the mailing list in the same way and re-publish
= the archives.

These git commits can also be stamped using openti= mestamps, inserting
their hashes into the bitcoin blockchain.
LKML mailing list readers often use public-inbox's web interface, andthey use the reply-to headers to populate their mail client and reply to=
threads of interest. This allows their reply to be properly threaded<= br />even if they were not a previous subscriber to that mailing list toreceive the headers.

public-inbox makes it so that it doesn't= really matter where the list is
hosted, as pertaining to reading the = mailing list. There is still a
disruption if the mailing list goes awa= y, but the archives live on and
then people can post elsewhere. The ar= chive gets disconnected from the
mailing list host in terms of posting= =2E We could have a few canonical
URLs for the hosts, separate from th= e mailing list server.

mailman problems
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Over the years we have identified= a number of problems with mailman2
especially as it pertains to conte= nt moderation. There are presently a
handful of different moderators, = but mailman2 only has a single password
for logging into the email man= agement interface. There are no moderator
audit logs to see which user= (there is no concept of different users)
acted on an email. There is = no way to mark an email as being
investigated by one or more of the mo= derators. Sometimes, while
investigating the veracity of an email, ano= ther moderator would come in
and approve a suspect email by accident.<= br />
Anti spam has been an issue for the moderators. It's relentless.= Without
access to the underlying server, it has been difficult to fig= ht spam.
There is some support for filters in mailman2 but it's not gr= eat.

100% active moderation and approval of every email is unsus= tainable for
volunteer moderators. A system that requires moderation i= s a heavy
burden on the moderators and it slows down overall communica= tion and
productivity. There's lots of problems with this. Also, moder= ators can
be blamed when they are merely slow while they are not actua= lly censoring.

Rejection emails can optionally be sent to
<= a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev-moderation@lists.ozlabs.org">bitcoin-dev-moder= ation@lists.ozlabs.org
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-moderation@lists.ozlabs.org> = but this is an option
that a moderator has to remember to type in each= time.

Not to mention numerous bugs and vulnerabilities that hav= e accumulated
over the years for relatively unmaintained software. (No= t disclosed here)

Requirements and considerations
=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D

Looking towards the future, there are a number of prop= erties that seem
to be important for the bitcoin-dev mailing list comm= unity. First, it is
important that backups of the entire archive shoul= d be easy for the
public to copy or verify so that the system can be b= rought up elsewhere
if necessary.

Second, there seems to be= demand for both an email threading interface
(using mailing list soft= ware) as well as web-accessible interfaces (such
as forum software). T= here seems to be very few options that cater to
both email and web. Of= ten, in forum software, email support is limited
to email notification= s and there is limited if any support for email
user participation.
Third, there should be better support for moderator tools and mana= gement
of the mailing list. See above for complaints about problems wi= th the
mailman2 system.

Burdens of running your own mailing= list and email server
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

If you have = never operated your own MTA you have no idea how difficult
it is to ke= ep secure and functional in the face of numerous challenges
to deliver= ability. Anti-spam filtering is essential to prevent
forwarding spam. = The moment you forward even a single spam message you
run the risk of = the server IP address being added to blacklists.

The problem of = spam filtering is so bad that most IP addresses are
presumed guilty ev= en if they have no prior spam history, such as if
their network or sub= network had spam issues in the past.

Even if you put unlimited t= ime into managing your own email server,
other people may not accept y= our email. Or you make one mistake, and
then you get into permanent bl= acklists and it's hard to remove. The spam
problem is so bad that most= IPs are automatically on a
guilty-until-proven-innocent blacklist.
Often there is nothing you can do to get server IP addresses remov= ed
from spam blacklists or from "bad reputation" lists.

Iro= nically, hashcash-style proof-of-work stamps to prevent spam are an
ap= pealing solution but not widely used in this community. Or anywhere.
<= br />Infinite rejection or forwarding loops happen. They often need to bedetected through vigilance and require manual sysadmin intervention to<= br />solve.

Bitcoin's dev lists being hosted alongside other Ope= n Source projects
was previously protective. If that mailing list serv= er became
blacklisted there were a lot of other people who would notic= e and
complain. If we run a Bitcoin-specific mail server we are on our= own.
100% of the administrative burden falls upon our own people. The= re is
also nothing we can do if some unknown admin decides they don't = like us.

Options
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Web forum= s are an interesting option, but often don't have good email
user inte= gration. At most you can usually hope for email notifications
and an a= bility to reply by email. It changes the model of the community
from p= ush (email) to pull (logging into a forum to read). RSS feeds can
help= a little bit.

Many other projects have moved from mailing lists= to forums (eg
https://discuss.python.org/ <https://discuss.python.org/> – see
ht= tps://lwn.net/Articles/901744/ <https://lwn.net/Arti= cles/901744/> ; or
https://ethresear.ch/ <ht= tps://ethresear.ch/>), which seem easier to
maintain and modera= te, and can have lots of advanced features beyond
plaintext, maybe-thr= eading and maybe-HTML-markup.

Who would host the forum? Would th= ere be agreement around which forum
software to use or which forum hos= t? What about bitcointalk.org
<http://bitcointalk.org>= or delvingbitcoin.org
<http://delvingbitcoin.org>?= There are many options available. Maybe
what we actually want isn&rsq= uo;t so much a discussion forum, as an 'arxiv of
our own' where anons = can post BIP drafts and the like?

Given the problems with mailma= n2, and the decline of email communities
in general, it seems that mov= ing to mailman3 would not be a viable
long-term option. This leaves us= with Google Groups or groups.io
<http://groups.io> as two r= emaining options.

groups.io <http://groups.io> is an i= nteresting option: they are a paid
service that implements email commu= nities along with online web forum
support. However, their public chan= gelog indicates it has been a few
years since their last public change= =2E They might be a smaller company
and it is unclear how long they wi= ll be around or if this would be the
right fit for hosting sometimes c= ontentious bitcoin development
discussions...

Google Groups= is another interesting option, and comes with different
tradeoffs. It= 's the lowest effort to maintain option, and has both an
email interfa= ce and web forum interface. Users can choose which mode
they want to i= nteract with.

For the Google Groups web interface, you can use i= t with a non-gmail
account, but you must create a Google Account which= is free to do. it
does not require any personal information to do so.= This also allows you
to add 2FA. Non-gmail non-google users are able = to subscribe and post
email from their non-gmail non-google email acco= unts. Tor seems to work
for the web interface.

Will Google = shut it down, will they cut us off, will they shut down
non-google use= rs? The same problem exists with other third-party hosts.

The mo= deration capabilities for Google Groups and groups.io
<http://group= s.io> seem to be comparable. It seems more likely that
Google G= roups will be able to handle email delivery issues far better
than a s= mall resource-constrained operation like groups.io
<http://groups.i= o>. ((During feedback for this draft, luke-jr indicates
that Go= ogle Workspaces has been known to use blacklisted IPs for
business ema= il!))

On the other hand, groups.io <http://groups.io> = is a paid service and
you get what you pay for... hopefully?

Finally, another option is to do literally nothing. It's less work
o= verall. Users can switch to forums or other websites, or private
one-o= n-one communication. It would remove a point of semi-centralization
fr= om the bitcoin ecosystem. It would hasten ossification, but on the
oth= er hand it would hasten ossification and this could be a negative
too.= Moderators would be less of a target.

Unfortunately, by doing n= othing, there would be no more widely used
group email communication s= ystem between bitcoin developers. Developers
become less coordinated, = mayhem and chaos as people go to different
communication platforms, a = divided community is more vulnerable, etc.
BIP1 and BIP2 would need to= be revised for other venues.

The main categories of what to mov= e to are: web forums, mailing lists,
and hybrids of those two options.= Most everything is either self-hosted
or you pay someone else to host= it. It's kind of the same problem
though. It largely depends on how g= ood is the software and unfortunately
running your own MTA that forwar= ds mail is not a good option.

Going forward
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

We'd like to invite feedback and proposals fr= om the community, and see
what options are available. One potential op= tion is a migration to
Google Groups, but we're open to ideas at this = point. We apologize for
any inconvenience this disruption has caused.<= br />

Bitcoin-dev mailing list moderation team

Bryan = Bishop
Ruben Somsen
Warren Togami
various others.

--
- Bryan
https://twitter.com/kanzure <https://twitter.com/kanzure>

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mail= ing list
bitc= oin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-de= v
--=_976d33f014f84f1ae6f7af940d498a55--