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 850A4273 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 08:38:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx1.riseup.net (mx1.riseup.net [198.252.153.129]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CE2F31 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 08:38:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from piha.riseup.net (unknown [10.0.1.162]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.riseup.net", Issuer "COMODO RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BF19C2448; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 01:38:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak; t=1444898321; bh=AyNh/UFP6kzzmzo9dpNOOVWJn8192lx/1I0sIZBVjDc=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=qJEV78HzPklWrGidTnanWdmOtenUotkc1bsVvydZCC9YmTij0PpBfRcSoklh/CRhZ 4SdOYxbiPfdblu4V05KUI4OYQPfgrsGzPe5gT6gWLShICVwc4HTMgdgMqPv44u/p8O VygIEP8O9mvbMxR3KH1wP5P/NLj67ieE98TEZLus= Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: odinn.cyberguerrilla) with ESMTPSA id 8690A140E36 To: Justus Ranvier , bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <561F04BD.6000203@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org> From: odinn X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <561F660B.3070901@riseup.net> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 08:38:35 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <561F04BD.6000203@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.7 at mx1.riseup.net X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed list moderation policy and conduct 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: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 08:38:42 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Another point building on Justus's remarks that I'll make.... (below) Justus Ranvier via bitcoin-dev: > On 14/10/15 19:02, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> *Disclose potential conflicts* >> >> 1. List discussions often involve interested parties. We expect >> participants to be aware when they are conflicted due to >> employment or other projects they are involved in, and disclose >> those interests to other project members. 2. When in doubt, >> over-disclose. Perceived conflicts of interest are important to >> address, so that the lists’ decisions are credible even when >> unpopular, difficult or favorable to the interests of one group >> over another. > > Even if we assume everybody will try to approach that topic in > good faith, I don't think it's that simple. > > A term that's become popular recently is "Bitcoin maximalist", and > it's frequently used as a slur or insult. > > I honestly find that to be incomprehensible. If somebody at a Ford > board meeting started talking about how Ford needed to make sure > Toyota was able to sell enough cars, they wouldn't get very far by > labelling their critics as "Ford maximalists". > > Anyone who works at Ford and who isn't a Ford maximalist is in the > wrong job. > > And yet in Bitcoin, a much development is funded by companies who > offer products which compete with Bitcoin, or at least would be in > competition if Bitcoin were to achieve unlimited success. One example that came to mind as I was reading this was, when I presented an idea that I thought would be good for integration into Bitcoin Core, explaining in various ways why I felt it would be worthwhile to explore, I eventually had someone tell me I should go and develop the idea first as either some sort of independent wallet, or to demonstrate it would work via an alt. (This has now occurred, as a successful implementation of my micro-donations idea has been demonstrated in an alt.) I have to wonder, however, when I eventually bring the micro-donation ideas back in such a form that they could again be considered in bitcoin-dev, whether or not they would seriously be considered, in part due to this effect which Justus Ranvier has described in part ~ that is to say, the effect of people engaging in the use of "maximalist" or some other label (or labels) as limiting the extent of discourse which people can engage in. (I realize that wasn't exactly where you were going with this Justus, but I'm just expanding upon the notion of how some labels and categories can be used to suppress real discussion.) Or, for example, if people see me as "conflicted," and someone else doesn't, and I'm confused about why someone would see me as "conflicted," where does that leave one? Quite possibly, stuck in a morass of unproductive commentary (or maybe just being ignored by moderators who might see quite a few people as "conflicted"). > > I expect this is a minority view on this list, but my position is > that anyone who is not a Bitcoin maximalists has a potential > conflict of interest if they're also involved in Bitcoin > development. > > I also suspect this issue is a cause of much user dissatisfaction > with Bitcoin development. If Bitcoin users and investors don't > trust that the developers are working toward the unlimited success > case, they can and will revolt. > Another thing to consider, although the person(s) proposing the list moderation policy and conduct document will certainly not want to hear it, is that the list might be better off without a policy document that is enforced by moderators. (An "about" section for what the list is about, its purpose, and how people are supposed to treat each other, is probably good... but the enforcement angle that I'm seeing is probably a bad idea.) What we stand for here is more than making people comfortable while technical issues are discussed on a list. The idea of keeping a protocol free of financial censorship, in concept, extends to language as well, and thus people should be able to be free in how they write and speak, even when their peers on the list don't like what they see in others' expressions. I recommend removal of the enforcement and moderator sections. (Technically, there are mods for it already... I suppose... the question is how you disclose in a "Purpose" or "About" section that refers to this list who the mods are, or rather, what the roles are of each person involved in a way that is minimally invasive and lets the list flow.) > > > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing > list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > - -- http://abis.io ~ "a protocol concept to enable decentralization and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good" https://keybase.io/odinn -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJWH2YLAAoJEGxwq/inSG8C0aAH/AqYWgZEyRM5d1rAwjt6jNrf Vqkd+kBCu0+0CQRXHUwJpK07IzFm5CwzSGIwri/VWT+1t/27Lk1Kt9iV4+zxOZhO RFyo4gmJ6GApZ7N6wlIWD9R2hFdg9Q+taZHgRXiMDMqi8MOJjf5tMAXnYjbMQrSr ntLY3ESFF0yF3ZGIIptNI4atv6UdhL2po7p+F5GMa7VZp7/e3zw96Uxmd2wkZN0R 3G5VHR2gscn3PooykpH/nhpH4mk0eFsWomuwWXAxfo2JjMhuyIXU0KnUs7ibpfPT qtOmBW/7DI//IeRJpstAnbc22g6YOqCKrMDgNe0HgVjnmugNpY1/wRh29m+WCpA= =felI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----