Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core maintainers and communication on merge decisions

[alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail.com>]

Hi Michael,

I was initially sad about the politics in Vasil's pull request, written about it and also tried to document the process. Still think he deserves to be a maintainer. Although I have some counter arguments:

> Maintainers merge a pull request and provide no commentary on why they’ve merged it.

I don't think commentary is required for each pull request that gets merged with enough reviews, ACKs and no controversy.

> Maintainers leave a pull request with many ACKs and few (if any) NACKs for months and provide no commentary on why they haven't merged it

This could be considered normal in pull requests that involve code changes.

> The difference between say previous maintainers like Wladimir and some of the current maintainers is that previous maintainers were extremely responsive on IRC.

Unfair to expect every human to behave the same or work similarly. Sometimes the unresponsiveness could be to avoid controversies and heated debates that go off-topic.

> One farcical recent example [0] was the pull request to add Vasil Dimov as a maintainer where despite many ACKs from other maintainers and other long term contributors two maintainers (fanquake and Gloria) refused to discuss it on the pull request or on IRC. It took almost 5 months for Gloria to comment on the pull request despite many requests from me on the PR and on IRC. I even requested that they attend the weekly Core Dev IRC meeting to discuss it which they didn’t attend.

- Maintainers should be free to avoid involvement in a pull request. As long as a subset of maintainers have an opinion on the pull request, things should be fine. 
- I agree with Gloria's [comment][0]: "I had not NACKed this either because my opinion could change over time, NACKs are sometimes needlessly interpreted as personal attacks, and Brink has been antagonized on Twitter each time multiple grantees have similar opinions about this. So I'll add that if you wish to have more decentralization in Bitcoin Core funding, you can start by creating a nonprofit, gathering donations, and funding somebody who works on Bitcoin Core." Last part of this comment also solves the problem shared in other thread related to new bitcoin implementation. Brink needs some competition and bitcoin core needs more reviewers. 
- I also agree with Andrew's [comment][1]: "frankly, I think opinions aren't being shared because of potential backlash from aggressive users such as yourself and bytes1440000"

> Maintainers and long term contributors (if they commented at all) were gently enthusiastic (Concept ACKing etc) without ACKing that it was ready to merge. A long term observer of the Core repo would have known that it wasn’t ready to merge or ready to attempt to activate (especially given it was a consensus change) but a casual observer would have only seen Concept ACKs and ACKs with 3 stray NACKs. Many of these casual observers inflated the numbers on the utxos.org site [4] signalling support for a soft fork activation attempt.

- I don't see anything wrong with sharing honest opinion if someone agrees with the concept. It does not make a pull request ready to get merged.
- utxos.org is an external site maintained by Jeremy with opinions on BIP 119. Everyone is free to maintain such lists and I think you had also created one as GitHub gist.

>  I will probably write about bitcoin-inquisition/default signet in a future email as I do think the perception that it is “the one and only” staging ground for consensus changes is dangerous [6] if the maintainer(s) on that project have the same inclinations as a subset of the Core maintainers.

This perception (if exists) can be killed by creating a custom signet, maintaining it differently, get more reviews, testing and share details with community regularly.

/dev/fd0
floppy disk guy

[0]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25871#issuecomment-1381654564
[1]: https://bitcoin-irc.chaincode.com/bitcoin-core-dev/2023-01-12#883748


Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, April 18th, 2023 at 6:10 PM, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:


> Communication has been a challenge on Bitcoin Core for what I can tell the entire history of the project. Maintainers merge a pull request and provide no commentary on why they’ve merged it. Maintainers leave a pull request with many ACKs and few (if any) NACKs for months and provide no commentary on why they haven't merged it. I can only speculate on why and it probably depends on the individual maintainer. Sometimes it will be poor communication skills, sometimes it will be a desire to avoid accountability, sometimes it will be fear of unreasonable and spiteful legal action if they mistakenly merge a pull request that ends up containing a bug. But search through the pull requests on Bitcoin Core and you will rarely see a rationale for a merge decision. The difference between say previous maintainers like Wladimir and some of the current maintainers is that previous maintainers were extremely responsive on IRC. If you disagreed with a merge decision or thought it had been merged prematurely they would be happy to discuss it on IRC. In present times at least a subset of the current maintainers are not responsive on IRC and will refuse to discuss a merge decision. One farcical recent example [0] was the pull request to add Vasil Dimov as a maintainer where despite many ACKs from other maintainers and other long term contributors two maintainers (fanquake and Gloria) refused to discuss it on the pull request or on IRC. It took almost 5 months for Gloria to comment on the pull request despite many requests from me on the PR and on IRC. I even requested that they attend the weekly Core Dev IRC meeting to discuss it which they didn’t attend.
> 
> 
> 
> A pull request to add a maintainer isn’t a normal pull request. Generally pull requests contain a lot more lines of code than a single line adding a trusted key. Not merging a pull request for a long period of time can be extremely frustrating for a pull request author especially when maintainers and long term contributors don’t comment on the pull request and the pull request is stuck in “rebase hell”. Clearly it is the lesser evil when compared to merging a harmful or bug ridden pull request but poor non-existent communication is not the only way to prevent this. Indeed it creates as many problems as it solves.
> 
> 
> 
> Another farcical recent(ish) example was the CTV pull request [1] that ultimately led to a contentious soft fork activation attempt that was called off at the last minute. If you look at the comments on the pull request there were 3 individuals (including myself) who NACKed the pull request and I think it is fair to say that none of us would be considered long term contributors to Bitcoin Core. I have criticised Jeremy Rubin multiple times for continuing to pursue a soft fork activation attempt when it was clear it was contentious [3] but if you look at the pull request comments it certainly isn’t clear it was. Maintainers and long term contributors (if they commented at all) were gently enthusiastic (Concept ACKing etc) without ACKing that it was ready to merge. A long term observer of the Core repo would have known that it wasn’t ready to merge or ready to attempt to activate (especially given it was a consensus change) but a casual observer would have only seen Concept ACKs and ACKs with 3 stray NACKs. Many of these casual observers inflated the numbers on the utxos.org site [4] signalling support for a soft fork activation attempt.
> 
> 
> 
> I set out originally to write about the controls and processes around merges on the default signet (bitcoin-inquisition [5]) but it quickly became obvious to me that if communication around Core merges/non-merges is this weak you can hardly expect it to be any better on bitcoin-inquisition/default signet where there is no real monetary value at stake. I will probably write about bitcoin-inquisition/default signet in a future email as I do think the perception that it is “the one and only” staging ground for consensus changes is dangerous [6] if the maintainer(s) on that project have the same inclinations as a subset of the Core maintainers. 
> 
> 
> 
> As I stated at the beginning there is an element to this which is not individual(s) specific and an adverse reaction to outright malicious actors external to any of these projects. I do not think any of the current maintainers on Core or bitcoin-inquisition are outright malicious even if a subset of them consistently frustrate me with their lack of transparency and accountability. But this issue isn't going away and I'm sure we'll hear more on this from others in the coming months. To me it is a straight choice of taking transparency and accountability much more seriously or failing that investing more heavily (time and resources) in consensus compatible forks of Core and treating Core like it is a proprietary "open source" project where merge decisions are not explained or justified in the open.
> 
> 
> 
> [0]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25871
> 
> [1]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21702
> 
> [2]: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020386.html
> 
> [3]: https://gist.github.com/michaelfolkson/352a503f4f9fc5de89af528d86a1b718
> 
> [4]: https://utxos.org/signals/
> 
> [5]: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-September/020921.html
> 
> [6]: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-September/020948.html
> 
> --
> Michael Folkson
> Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com
> Keybase: michaelfolkson
> PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3