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 09498256; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 15:34:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f46.google.com (mail-vk0-f46.google.com [209.85.213.46]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1643311D; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 15:34:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f46.google.com with SMTP id 192so89501085vkl.2; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 08:34:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=a9ooqVqBb+rHO5d0Pw6JKQ25GeLgxKz2eWb6oqiCv+E=; b=Qk9he/IlzC8gqwPTQRQrS/Kj90NKGC/uZ1K7hsj2uKPYa0Yb1f2oTzYjNqaH41XqCM SmHPajT4ITcRQXe5tAGbmrHWjT7YgRgUMY3XUakVV/KA5ex0NxVL59VqGQoeV+PBMLHS 1kPMFCe52f9+Xb4Rc2OJbjYl04AmJyfK5kp3GeV6bCRsUBxqZTaXDZ+eQdj4JYpfOtI5 mHWmaAdAs3tkicFasDCYohCvrCD9kq1wM6AeDQLnfKsWbNibOxnN9U5tyPCmKm1bRt9d ZwA8Bq9NyrhCSG7MhnbRALuCvwWdAkQKKygyqNTFBIsCglCiM+okh65593qUzJvm+rnB gwLg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=a9ooqVqBb+rHO5d0Pw6JKQ25GeLgxKz2eWb6oqiCv+E=; b=jlh7OA4oiUnI3KyYmTtqX/uQCXd7cEbB0HWNnWosZkN3BFXHBNRwvka5sUeOu7uO91 x0GRwiIrIrineHw2vgdz2v5cMypBks7M+volVQBWZvjicDGhJufjwlPlMl5CEGuDc0i6 85uWwKovEhecFHJolYGZ/qJZk5D/6nynrq6qGp8NOAAmoIkrqMOV19kOGykDMpLpDqY9 uJdPL0Y/zkpsmS9koT9V8AL0avLqX3N8cWdJxJoyMsOoHcfy7iiqAUSLuemEawU5b/7g V/4yxsEKe1uyakVF98d7hzUAicxQ8pZ0PRDOG6+1SBdkSKKBV4+1BBuKowMfgwsGuP40 GDwQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RmqJ9IReatPwojAZP8vVAhKm4yyS7Al/B7MBW6LIoYdlBtJUh4QgFTYiMa5k08KU7+7A0E0AxJ8uIYzGg== X-Received: by 10.31.178.198 with SMTP id b189mr9524895vkf.70.1476113657796; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 08:34:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: dscotese@gmail.com Received: by 10.176.69.226 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 08:34:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20161010073806.GA2172@banane.informatik.uni-ulm.de> References: <20161010073806.GA2172@banane.informatik.uni-ulm.de> From: Dave Scotese Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 08:34:17 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8j9poTClm0mObtJUjzGWDgbM8PU Message-ID: To: Henning Kopp , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143f082389ecb053e847e9c X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Discuss 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 15:34:20 -0000 --001a1143f082389ecb053e847e9c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I sent my previous email ONLY to bitcoin-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org and it waited in the moderation queue. I don't know when moderation was added to this list, but it seems to me that it's a misstep. On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Henning Kopp via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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 and Meme Racing (in alpha). I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist which now accepts Bitcoin. I also code for The Dollar Vigilante . "He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" - Satoshi Nakamoto --001a1143f082389ecb053e847e9c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I sent my previous email ONLY to = bitcoin-= discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org and it waited in the moderation queue= .=C2=A0 I don't know when moderation was added to this list, but it see= ms to me that it's a misstep.

On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 12:38 AM, H= enning Kopp via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfo= undation.org> wrote:
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 poli= cy
> 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, b= ut 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 a= nd
> interact with the community. Since moderation has begun, it seems that= the
> messages/day has dropped drastically. This may be a nice outcome overa= ll
> for our sanity, but I think that it has on the whole made the communit= y
> less accessible. I've heard from people (a > 1 number, myself i= ncluded)
> that they now self-censor because they think they will put a lot of wo= rk
> into their email only for it to get moderated away as trolling/spam. T= hus,
> while we may not observe a high rate of moderated posts, it does mean = the
> "chilling effect" of moderation still manifests -- I think t= hat 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 communica= te
> their ideas in detail.
>
> Overall, I think that at the time that moderation was added to the lis= t, 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-techni= cal
> bitcoin issues, rehashing settled topics without new data, moderation<= br> >=C2=A0 concerns."
>
>
> --
> @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubi= n>
> <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>

> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@l= ists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--
Henning Kopp
Institute of Distributed Systems
Ulm University, Germany

Office: O27 - 3402
Phone: +49 7= 31 50-24138
Web: http://www.uni-ulm.de/in/vs/~kopp
______________________________= _________________
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 tec= hie?=C2=A0
I own Litmocracy and Meme Racing (in alpha).
I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist which now a= ccepts Bitcoin.
I also code for The Dollar Vigilante.
"He ought to find it mo= re profitable to play by the rules" - Satoshi Nakamoto
--001a1143f082389ecb053e847e9c--