From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD71CDCE for ; Sat, 23 Jan 2016 05:34:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from smtprelay02.ispgateway.de (smtprelay02.ispgateway.de [80.67.31.29]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97F1D129 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 2016 05:34:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [77.176.196.139] (helo=anonymous) by smtprelay02.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aMqpl-0003X5-CB for bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org; Sat, 23 Jan 2016 06:34:01 +0100 From: xor@freenetproject.org To: Bitcoin Dev Reply-To: xor@freenetproject.org Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 06:33:56 +0100 Message-ID: <1736759.DT0dcscznj@1337h4x0r> Organization: Freenet Project User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.13.0-76-generic; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <87powvy20w.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> References: <87si1rycux.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <2998879.R5sQRbxZRv@1337h4x0r> <87powvy20w.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart3030187.C3199VDnKe"; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Df-Sender: eG9yQGZyZWVtYWlsLmJvZ2VydC5kZQ== X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 15:00:55 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Three Month bitcoin-dev Moderation Review X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 05:34:04 -0000 --nextPart3030187.C3199VDnKe Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Thursday, January 21, 2016 03:14:47 PM Rusty Russell wrote: > +1s here means simpling say "+1" or "me too" that carries no additional > information. ie. if you like an idea, that's great, but it's not worth > interruping the entire list for. > > If you say "I prefer proposal X over Y because " that's > different. As is "I dislike X because " or "I need X because > ". So "+1"ing is OK as long as I provide a technical explanation of why I agree? While I still think that this is too much of a restriction because it prevents peer-review, I would say that I could live with it as a last resort if you don't plan to abolish this rule altogether. So in that case, to foster peer review, I would recommend you amend the rules to clarify this. Example: "+1s are not allowed unless you provide an explanation of why you agree with something". --nextPart3030187.C3199VDnKe Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAABCAAGBQJWoxDHAAoJEMtmZ+8tjWt5skMP/jq9jV4nusZoSZRgwRBQNtsi AQZW25+zQYzTOAbu1otkBNISHltOvU4FaWURKVR5eNKtcAtvG4Y8JOtxrOA28HIG H8bZ0yI+mMAaYwSxOrfpc2cWMd3si+6InC70QWJf56YwxTkCo7Ge3mclzgrWrogx GjQtK6bp9HKi5ciAAz4r4znfX4jXXh1IupO6CoRpSTGc2PSp1fQzVJWNK3rtqdqN SVmgZ3HwmyakfEC1u91R7Q4wnKSTBDweesakzMi3piMNwTxeH2eTU1x543YhfxUk k9UuqDObif935LjkjjQ6Okpw0TaFKG7vn2+KzGyaDV2YYY5jBiZMUwrGvVj1LaYW tSUnjnQN8JYsCT57hj13iOacvTRCBxjNPq8OKAMV7KLfyT3OFRxgKfpdAssEi3kA hYdIxp47kcSpaEwllJLFgYVf3LBZ0gPp5UVDkauu2/leORB6SD+5rODo86NpcXnQ 5GT1H5ZReo4hDgXzPXQyY1XDeWnExTY5ndYLAZS3r2C5zW7+1jw7d7DovF0me5ph Pf2FWzJcqDXSh0N91cP3NlWSGIdxcahvhyYcw+QxtLFigz/YBG08S1MmrD+yq0/G smu5GHepWfexyuj3fmmp8YgAKq5V1hFAuKA/hEzhI04dDymWqw6jTf1fDX3a6JpD 98gBqo98E/oYS/MP9zr4 =VbYX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart3030187.C3199VDnKe--