[bitcoin-dev] Separated bitcoin-consensus mailing list (was Re: Bitcoin XT Fork)

[bitcoin-dev] Separated bitcoin-consensus mailing list (was Re: Bitcoin XT Fork)

[Jorge Timón]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I see no problem with Satoshi returning to participate in peer review.
> Bitcoin development has long since migrated from a single authority figure
> to a system of technical peer review consensus. What is more of a problem is
> this list has degenerated to a generalised discussion forum where any
> academic or technical debate is drowned out by noise.
>
> I joined this list so I keep be abreast of bitcoin's technical development
> and proposals. I am sure many ecosystem stakeholders and participants also
> once used this list to keep abreast of technical developments and academic
> research. It would be splendid indeed if we could return to some semblance
> of decorum that once existed.
>
> Do you think we could have a "bitcoin-discuss" list where specifically
> non-technical discussion can happen leaving this list for more academic and
> technical debate together with setting a clear mandate about what is on
> topic for this list?

Apparently that existed already: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/
But technical people run away from noise while non-technical people
chase them wherever their voices sounds more loud.

One thing that I would like though, is separating Bitcoin
Core-specific development from general bips and consensus discussions.
I know, the bitcoin-consensus mailing list will probably still be
noisy, but at least we will have a non-noisy one and the ability to
say things like "Bitcoin Core's default policy is off-topic in
bitcoin-consensus" in the noisy one...
Also developers of alternative implementations may not be interested
in Bitcoin Core-specific things, so they may want to subscribe to
bitcoin-consensus and unsubscribe from bitcoin-dev.

I already told this to some people and everybody seemed to be positive
about this change, at most sometimes skeptics about the potential
benefits.

Thoughts?

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Separated bitcoin-consensus mailing list (was Re: Bitcoin XT Fork)

[Btc Drak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1607 bytes --]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:

> Apparently that existed already: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/
> But technical people run away from noise while non-technical people
> chase them wherever their voices sounds more loud.
>

Regarding disruptors, if there are clear rules about what is acceptable on
-dev, one can simply moderate out offenders. It's absolutely necessary we
have a forum where we can share and discuss purely academic and technical
matters. No-one can accuse censorship because all moderation would say
would be to "take it to the other list". It's essential for all people who
are developing and maintaining Bitcoin protocol software, or services that
rely on it. The mailing list used to be very low volume.

While we are at it, we should also think about a bitcoin-announce read only
list which consumers of Bitcoin Core can subscribe for announcements about
new versions of Bitcoin Core, and any critical warnings. Miners and service
providers would particularly benefit from this. The list is moderated so
only say Bitcoin Core commit engineers are allowed to post.


> One thing that I would like though, is separating Bitcoin
> Core-specific development from general bips and consensus discussions.
>

The potential downside is too much separation becomes confusing although I
would not oppose such a change. My own suggestion would be try just a -dev
and -discuss list and see how that goes first. It used to work well.
Whatever the case I am very confident we need a general discussion mailing
list.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2216 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Separated bitcoin-consensus mailing list (was Re: Bitcoin XT Fork)

[Jorge Timón]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:
>>
>> Apparently that existed already: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/
>> But technical people run away from noise while non-technical people
>> chase them wherever their voices sounds more loud.
>
>
> Regarding disruptors, if there are clear rules about what is acceptable on
> -dev, one can simply moderate out offenders. It's absolutely necessary we
> have a forum where we can share and discuss purely academic and technical
> matters. No-one can accuse censorship because all moderation would say would
> be to "take it to the other list". It's essential for all people who are
> developing and maintaining Bitcoin protocol software, or services that rely
> on it. The mailing list used to be very low volume.

I don't disagree with anything you have said. But I think that having
a list specific to Bitcoin Core development will make defining the
"clear rules" easier.

> While we are at it, we should also think about a bitcoin-announce read only
> list which consumers of Bitcoin Core can subscribe for announcements about
> new versions of Bitcoin Core, and any critical warnings. Miners and service
> providers would particularly benefit from this. The list is moderated so
> only say Bitcoin Core commit engineers are allowed to post.

Not sure if necessary but not opposed to this either.

>> One thing that I would like though, is separating Bitcoin
>> Core-specific development from general bips and consensus discussions.
>
>
> The potential downside is too much separation becomes confusing although I
> would not oppose such a change. My own suggestion would be try just a -dev
> and -discuss list and see how that goes first. It used to work well.
> Whatever the case I am very confident we need a general discussion mailing
> list.

As said, that list already exists, it's just that nobody uses it:
http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/bitcoin-list/

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Separated bitcoin-consensus mailing list (was Re: Bitcoin XT Fork)

[Jeff Garzik]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2150 bytes --]

bitcoin-dev for protocol discussion and bitcoin-core for Bitcoin Core
discussion?

As Jorge notes, a general discussion list has existed for a long time with
little use.


On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:58 AM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:
>
>> Apparently that existed already:
>> http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/
>> But technical people run away from noise while non-technical people
>> chase them wherever their voices sounds more loud.
>>
>
> Regarding disruptors, if there are clear rules about what is acceptable on
> -dev, one can simply moderate out offenders. It's absolutely necessary we
> have a forum where we can share and discuss purely academic and technical
> matters. No-one can accuse censorship because all moderation would say
> would be to "take it to the other list". It's essential for all people who
> are developing and maintaining Bitcoin protocol software, or services that
> rely on it. The mailing list used to be very low volume.
>
> While we are at it, we should also think about a bitcoin-announce read
> only list which consumers of Bitcoin Core can subscribe for announcements
> about new versions of Bitcoin Core, and any critical warnings. Miners and
> service providers would particularly benefit from this. The list is
> moderated so only say Bitcoin Core commit engineers are allowed to post.
>
>
>> One thing that I would like though, is separating Bitcoin
>> Core-specific development from general bips and consensus discussions.
>>
>
> The potential downside is too much separation becomes confusing although I
> would not oppose such a change. My own suggestion would be try just a -dev
> and -discuss list and see how that goes first. It used to work well.
> Whatever the case I am very confident we need a general discussion mailing
> list.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3259 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Separated bitcoin-consensus mailing list (was Re: Bitcoin XT Fork)

[Btc Drak]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com> wrote:
> bitcoin-dev for protocol discussion and bitcoin-core for Bitcoin Core
> discussion?

Well -dev or both, I dont particularly see a difference at the moment,
and establishing two lists isnt really going to make a difference so
long as Bitcoin Core is the reference client, which it is by defacto.
The risk of having too many lists is interested stakeholders will miss
a discussions. Normal protocol and core discussions are usually pretty
low volume in any case.

> As Jorge notes, a general discussion list has existed for a long time with
> little use.

I would suggest it's only because there havent been any rules for -dev
that would force general discussion over to the bitcoin list. On IRC
we regularly tell people in #bitcoin-dev they are OT and ask them to
move to #bitcoin and as a result, -dev remains quite clear of chit
chat, #bitcoin has a steady stream of general chatter.

We could reduce the OT/noise of bitcoin-dev list considerably by
offloading the non-technical/academic debate to the bitcoin list. It
just needs a bit of shepherding. I am more than happy to help out.
Especially if the list already exists, we should consider making a
decision now.

Who are the moderators for that list? Do we really want to use
sourceforge or are there alternatives, like another list on
linuxfoundation?

ping @Warren.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Separated bitcoin-consensus mailing list (was Re: Bitcoin XT Fork)

[Warren Togami Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2423 bytes --]

FYI, a few developers including Wladimir, Greg, Peter Todd, Pieter, and
Alex Morcos have been discussing what to do about improving the signal
noise ratio on bitcoin-dev list.  One proposal similar to this discussion
was to split it into multiple mailing lists.  It was pointed out that the
less technical Bitcoin discussion list already existed in the past and
nobody used it.  Generally the discussion went away from creating yet
another mailing list and toward instituting an on-topic guidelines for
bitcoin-dev.  Gavin, Wladimir, and a few of the others agreed to a simple
few paragraphs written by Alex Morcos.  IIRC Wladimir agreed to post it.
Has it been posted yet?

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com> wrote:
> > bitcoin-dev for protocol discussion and bitcoin-core for Bitcoin Core
> > discussion?
>
> Well -dev or both, I dont particularly see a difference at the moment,
> and establishing two lists isnt really going to make a difference so
> long as Bitcoin Core is the reference client, which it is by defacto.
> The risk of having too many lists is interested stakeholders will miss
> a discussions. Normal protocol and core discussions are usually pretty
> low volume in any case.
>
> > As Jorge notes, a general discussion list has existed for a long time
> with
> > little use.
>
> I would suggest it's only because there havent been any rules for -dev
> that would force general discussion over to the bitcoin list. On IRC
> we regularly tell people in #bitcoin-dev they are OT and ask them to
> move to #bitcoin and as a result, -dev remains quite clear of chit
> chat, #bitcoin has a steady stream of general chatter.
>
> We could reduce the OT/noise of bitcoin-dev list considerably by
> offloading the non-technical/academic debate to the bitcoin list. It
> just needs a bit of shepherding. I am more than happy to help out.
> Especially if the list already exists, we should consider making a
> decision now.
>
> Who are the moderators for that list? Do we really want to use
> sourceforge or are there alternatives, like another list on
> linuxfoundation?
>
> ping @Warren.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3158 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Separated bitcoin-consensus mailing list (was Re: Bitcoin XT Fork)

[Dave Scotese]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3793 bytes --]

I guess every mailing list should have its own internal SNR discussions.

My answer is to respond when something is off-topic and offer a different
place for the topic.  I haven't been doing that, partly because no one else
has, but mostly because I figured I don't have a strong handle on what is
off-topic and what isn't.  Let's all start doing that.  Of course, someone
can object to the claim, "No, I don't think this is off-topic... blah blah
blah," and people can respond.  The norms will develop.  It just requires
some relative humility, courage, and honesty.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Warren Togami Jr. via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> FYI, a few developers including Wladimir, Greg, Peter Todd, Pieter, and
> Alex Morcos have been discussing what to do about improving the signal
> noise ratio on bitcoin-dev list.  One proposal similar to this discussion
> was to split it into multiple mailing lists.  It was pointed out that the
> less technical Bitcoin discussion list already existed in the past and
> nobody used it.  Generally the discussion went away from creating yet
> another mailing list and toward instituting an on-topic guidelines for
> bitcoin-dev.  Gavin, Wladimir, and a few of the others agreed to a simple
> few paragraphs written by Alex Morcos.  IIRC Wladimir agreed to post it.
> Has it been posted yet?
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > bitcoin-dev for protocol discussion and bitcoin-core for Bitcoin Core
>> > discussion?
>>
>> Well -dev or both, I dont particularly see a difference at the moment,
>> and establishing two lists isnt really going to make a difference so
>> long as Bitcoin Core is the reference client, which it is by defacto.
>> The risk of having too many lists is interested stakeholders will miss
>> a discussions. Normal protocol and core discussions are usually pretty
>> low volume in any case.
>>
>> > As Jorge notes, a general discussion list has existed for a long time
>> with
>> > little use.
>>
>> I would suggest it's only because there havent been any rules for -dev
>> that would force general discussion over to the bitcoin list. On IRC
>> we regularly tell people in #bitcoin-dev they are OT and ask them to
>> move to #bitcoin and as a result, -dev remains quite clear of chit
>> chat, #bitcoin has a steady stream of general chatter.
>>
>> We could reduce the OT/noise of bitcoin-dev list considerably by
>> offloading the non-technical/academic debate to the bitcoin list. It
>> just needs a bit of shepherding. I am more than happy to help out.
>> Especially if the list already exists, we should consider making a
>> decision now.
>>
>> Who are the moderators for that list? Do we really want to use
>> sourceforge or are there alternatives, like another list on
>> linuxfoundation?
>>
>> ping @Warren.
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>


-- 
I like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do you need a
techie?
I own Litmocracy <http://www.litmocracy.com> and Meme Racing
<http://www.memeracing.net> (in alpha).
I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist <http://www.voluntaryist.com> which
now accepts Bitcoin.
I also code for The Dollar Vigilante <http://dollarvigilante.com/>.
"He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" - Satoshi
Nakamoto

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5266 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Separated bitcoin-consensus mailing list (was Re: Bitcoin XT Fork)

[NxtChg]

>I guess every mailing list should have its own internal SNR discussions.

Number of posts, August:

72,	Jorge Timón
36,	Hector Chu
32,	Thomas Zander
27,	Pieter Wuille
24,	Eric Lombrozo
23,	Mark Friedenbach
18,	Adam Back
18,	Btc Drak
18,	Peter Todd
17,	jl2012 
16,	odinn
15,	Gavin Andresen
12,	Venzen Khaosan
12,	Michael Naber
11,	Anthony Towns
10,	Tom Harding
10,	Gregory Maxwell

Everybody else less than 10.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Separated bitcoin-consensus mailing list (was Re: Bitcoin XT Fork)

[Jorge Timón]

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:44 AM, NxtChg via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Number of posts, August:
>
> 72,     Jorge Timón

Certainly I have talked to much this month, my apologies.
I believe most of my posts (if not all) were on-topic but I could
still had repeated myself much less.
I've been trying to concentrate my usual points in documents or
threads that I can link to so that my comments can be shorter.
But, yes, most of my posts have been related to general consensus
topics and not specific to Bitcoin Core development (that's part of
why I think the bitcoin-consensus and bitcoin-dev lists would be a
good separation).
In any case, my apologies for this unplanned record.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Separated bitcoin-consensus mailing list (was Re: Bitcoin XT Fork)

[Bryan Bishop]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1901 bytes --]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Jorge Timón <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Apparently that existed already: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/
> But technical people run away from noise while non-technical people
> chase them wherever their voices sounds more loud.
>

FWIW, and I mentioned this opinion in #bitcoin-dev on IRC, but I am
perfectly fine with receiving everything through a single mailing list. I
used to read the Wikipedia firehose of recent edits because I thought
that's how you were supposed to use the site. Edits per second eventually
reached beyond any reasonable estimate of human capacity and then I
realized what was going on. Any sort of "glorious future" for bitcoin with
hundreds of millions of users will also see this problem for future
developers, even if only 0.1% of that population are money-interested
programmers then that's 100,000 programmers to work with. I would never
want to turn off this raw feed. Having said that, I am somewhat surprise
that nobody has taken to weekly summaries of research and development
activity. Summarizing recent work is a valuable task that others can engage
in just by reading the mailing list and aggregating multiple thoughts
together, similar to release notes. I was also expecting to see something
like "individual developer's summaries of things they have found
interesting over the past 30-90 days or past year" digging up arcane
details from the mailing list archives, or more infrequent summaries of the
other smaller batched review emails. Digest mode mailing list consumption
is often recommended to those who are uninterested in dealing with low
signal-to-noise, but I suspect that summarizing activity would be more
valuable for this community, especially for the different cognitive niches
that have developed.

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2468 bytes --]