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 31405EAD for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 04:35:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-oi0-f43.google.com (mail-oi0-f43.google.com [209.85.218.43]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94DEE117 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 04:35:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-f43.google.com with SMTP id k206so19724763oia.1 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 20:35:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=lnx255wP//I9xGCKnTxbKiImzNbOB5Su5G9xHMS3BtA=; b=AHwUyZ/nXo/ip3eC0glwe9TbJmEg40Xm9DC22i/q7CjAHOL5umVaW2lHNGj926kALh KuYe3HVFs/PMRfbq9s/2f8Zg60Wu4F/saUzou9/Apv6LMHWLEtnP3Aq77NecSida+7Ti pMEKwUU+FFlQEt33qqVjUvkbeZh1u3eRtG05yDkqeHGgZK7WekWTg08rWtth5uxsrsNs t9i9T7/wHQe/BXoa0fPWero2H8cUN9AlnyyEYrHR/27I4utJybyFfsa8z1c53k/oSmUR IqXX34yim3Yhs6M+oUHSjRH7FRFW7lOsg3BC0EXKPt6RrnxIPV20Ufdei+rLMJG2NCk2 C7Iw== 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:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=lnx255wP//I9xGCKnTxbKiImzNbOB5Su5G9xHMS3BtA=; b=WOMpp0RZSjLIVNifiAZfsMpFCqmCNOWn+cGY3lZMw9KA/uKAvzadsZ26KgBFDCb+RL abXuqQ2mbQkGy+Ca8FWT/rOIHuX5RpWYhodKm0pFV1KRMKqzsYHRawhSOil73CE1n9uX lNrvDCK+WGLEF1WbD8NE8+W3zrC3PLDMkm1p9Nq9014TAWOggUquEsGZ2pRYdp9/nD45 6QifICBDILcLBLYmZ7X5X2fK/6Q+tqkCDMsDdti3MEq02flpEgWS9sR5gDi9DQR3mVEI y4JE/mQM8P8Nfv4aPzHLJVY8ri95JNczKm66FjNPD4Zv0t/hONNy3Fsg09deABZvWwLY 9UFQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORaH2IQ77HphMECSAe/K3YoJgkqpaIIv6gu5gDCE6iCDoPx2vJ5G7sXonqx8NpnCN1gHPMNQSlEjfsrmQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.90.134 with SMTP id o128mr14683595oib.15.1453350939631; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 20:35:39 -0800 (PST) Sender: dscotese@gmail.com Received: by 10.60.55.71 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 20:35:39 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <2998879.R5sQRbxZRv@1337h4x0r> References: <87si1rycux.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <2998879.R5sQRbxZRv@1337h4x0r> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 20:35:39 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: ixV_8NgrWUIl0ujvwfY1sCh1nds Message-ID: From: Dave Scotese To: xor@freenetproject.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d426e7da8840529d0a22c X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 04:37:45 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Three Month bitcoin-dev Moderation Review 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, 21 Jan 2016 04:35:43 -0000 --001a113d426e7da8840529d0a22c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I agree with the prohibition of +1s. The core competency of those who provide this list are moderation and technology, not managing a process through which "involved people [indicate] whether they're for or against it." That is certainly an excellent function, but it can be offered by anyone who wants to run a system for collecting and displaying those indications. The email list itself is intended to be information rich, and such "approval voting" is not information-rich enough in my view. It is a shame that the moderated messages require so many steps to retrieve. Is it possible to have the "downloadable version" from https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev-moderation/ for each month contain the text of the moderated emails? They do contain the subjects, so that helps. On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:25 PM, xor--- via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Thursday, January 21, 2016 11:20:46 AM Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > So, what should moderation look like from now on? > > The original mail which announced moderation contains this rule: > > - Generally discouraged: [...], +1s, [...] > > I assume "+1s" means statements such as "I agree with doing X". > > Any sane procedure of deciding something includes asking the involved > people > whether they're for or against it. > If there are dozens of proposals on how to solve a particular technical > problem, how else do you want to decide it than having a vote? > It's very strange that this is not allowed - especially if we consider that > the Bitcoin community is in a state of constant dissent currently. > The effect is likely that you push the actual decision-making to IRC, which > less people have access to (since it's difficult to bear the high traffic), > and thus form some kind of "inner circle" - which makes decisions seem even > more as if they're being dictated. > > So please consider allowing people to say whether they agree with something > something or don't. > > > Other than that, thanks for the good latency of moderation, I guess you're > doing hard work there :) > _______________________________________________ > 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 --001a113d426e7da8840529d0a22c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I agree with the prohibition of +1s.=C2=A0 The c= ore competency of those who provide this list are moderation and technology= , not managing a process through which "involved people [indicate] whe= ther they're for or against it."

That is certainly an= excellent function, but it can be offered by anyone who wants to run a sys= tem for collecting and displaying those indications.=C2=A0 The email list i= tself is intended to be information rich, and such "approval voting&qu= ot; is not information-rich enough in my view.

It is a shame t= hat the moderated messages require so many steps to retrieve.=C2=A0 Is it p= ossible to have the "downloadable version" from https://lists.ozlabs.= org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev-moderation/ for each month contain the text o= f the moderated emails?=C2=A0 They do contain the subjects, so that helps.<= br>

On Wed, = Jan 20, 2016 at 6:25 PM, xor--- via bitcoin-dev <bitco= in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Thursday, January 21, 2016 11:20:46 AM Ru= sty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> So, what should moderation look like from now on?

The original mail which announced moderation contains this rule:
> - Generally discouraged: [...], +1s, [...]

I assume "+1s" means statements such as "I agree with doing = X".

Any sane procedure of deciding something includes asking the involved peopl= e
whether they're for or against it.
If there are dozens of proposals on how to solve a particular technical
problem, how else do you want to decide it than having a vote?
It's very strange that this is not allowed - especially if we consider = that
the Bitcoin community is in a state of constant dissent currently.
The effect is likely that you push the actual decision-making to IRC, which=
less people have access to (since it's difficult to bear the high traff= ic),
and thus form some kind of "inner circle" - which makes decisions= seem even
more as if they're being dictated.

So please consider allowing people to say whether they agree with something=
something or don't.


Other than that, thanks for the good latency of moderation, I guess you'= ;re
doing hard work there :)
_______________________________________________=
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev




--
I like to provide some work at no charge to pr= ove my value. Do you need a techie?=C2=A0
I own Litmocracy and Meme Racing (in alpha).
I'm th= e webmaster for T= he 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
--001a113d426e7da8840529d0a22c--