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 E06682C; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 07:59:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:20:42 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from smtp.uni-ulm.de (smtp.uni-ulm.de [134.60.1.26]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 937E2DF; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 07:59:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at uni-ulm.de Received: from banane.informatik.uni-ulm.de (banane.informatik.uni-ulm.de [134.60.77.114]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.uni-ulm.de (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id u9A7c6eJ015983 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 10 Oct 2016 09:38:13 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 09:38:06 +0200 From: Henning Kopp To: Jeremy , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Message-ID: <20161010073806.GA2172@banane.informatik.uni-ulm.de> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.0 (2016-08-17) X-DCC-INFN-TO-Metrics: poseidon 1233; Body=3 Fuz1=3 Fuz2=3 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: bitcoin-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] 1 Year bitcoin-dev Moderation Review X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 07:59:03 -0000 Hi all, I totally agree with the assessment of the situation. Previously I learned a lot about bitcoin on this list. There were a lot of great ideas regarding the protocol and the surrounding ecosystem. Now there is mainly talk about code and BIPs, which is the main purpose of a developer list. I do not feel that we should clog bitcoin-dev again with non-development talk but rather find a way to get bitcoin-discuss going. My impression is that bitcoin-discuss has not reached a critical mass of contributors. The question is how we can change that. All the best Henning On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 12:26:07PM +0200, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Hi bitcoin-dev, > > I'm well aware that discussion of moderation on bitcoin-dev is > discouraged*. However, I think that we should, as a year of moderation > approaches, discuss openly as a community what the impact of such policy > has been. Making such a post now is timely given that people will have the > opportunity to discuss in-person as well as online as Scaling Bitcoin is > currently underway. On the suggestion of others, I've also CC'd > bitcoin-discuss on this message. > > Below, I'll share some of my own personal thoughts as a starter, but would > love to hear others feelings as well. > > For me, the bitcoin-dev mailing list was a place where I started > frequenting to learn a lot about bitcoin and the development process and > interact with the community. Since moderation has begun, it seems that the > messages/day has dropped drastically. This may be a nice outcome overall > for our sanity, but I think that it has on the whole made the community > less accessible. I've heard from people (a > 1 number, myself included) > that they now self-censor because they think they will put a lot of work > into their email only for it to get moderated away as trolling/spam. Thus, > while we may not observe a high rate of moderated posts, it does mean the > "chilling effect" of moderation still manifests -- I think that people not > writing emails because they think it may be moderated reduces the rate of > people writing emails which is a generally valuable thing as it offers > people a vehicle through which they try to think through and communicate > their ideas in detail. > > Overall, I think that at the time that moderation was added to the list, it > was probably the right thing to do. We're in a different place as a > community now, so I feel we should attempt to open up this valuable > communication channel once again. My sentiment is that we enacted > moderation to protect a resource that we all felt was valuable, but in the > process, the value of the list was damaged, but not irreparably so. > > Best, > > Jeremy > > > * From the email introducing the bitcoin-dev moderation policy, "Generally > discouraged: shower thoughts, wild speculation, jokes, +1s, non-technical > bitcoin issues, rehashing settled topics without new data, moderation > concerns." > > > -- > @JeremyRubin > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev -- Henning Kopp Institute of Distributed Systems Ulm University, Germany Office: O27 - 3402 Phone: +49 731 50-24138 Web: http://www.uni-ulm.de/in/vs/~kopp