From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z5eFi-0002em-KH for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 18:09:26 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.215.52 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.52; envelope-from=melvincarvalho@gmail.com; helo=mail-la0-f52.google.com; Received: from mail-la0-f52.google.com ([209.85.215.52]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z5eFh-0000Ar-8I for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 18:09:26 +0000 Received: by labbc20 with SMTP id bc20so59588676lab.1 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:09:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.126.42 with SMTP id mv10mr14370078lbb.58.1434650958814; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:09:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.137.99 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:09:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <55828737.6000007@riseup.net> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 20:09:18 +0200 Message-ID: From: Melvin Carvalho To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c36bc6c6e61f0518ceb4af X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (melvincarvalho[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1Z5eFh-0000Ar-8I Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 18:09:26 -0000 --001a11c36bc6c6e61f0518ceb4af Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 18 June 2015 at 12:00, Mike Hearn wrote: > Dude, calm down. I don't have commit access to Bitcoin Core and Gavin > already said long ago he wouldn't just commit something, even though he has > the ability to do so. > > So why did I say it? Because it's consistent with what I've always said: > you cannot run a codebase like Wikipedia. Maintainers have to take part in > debates, and then make a decision, and anyone else who was delegated commit > access for robustness or convenience must then respect that decision. It's > the only way to keep a project making progress at a reasonable pace. > > This is not a radical position. That's how nearly all coding projects > work. I have been involved with open source for 15 years and the 'single > maintainer who makes decisions' model is normal, even if in some large > codebases subsystems have delegated submaintainers. > > This is also how all my own projects are run. Bitcoinj has multiple people > with commit access. Regardless, if there were to be some design dispute or > whatever, I wouldn't tolerate the others with commit access starting some > kind of Wiki-style edit war in the code if they disagreed. Nor would I ever > expect to get my own way in other people's projects by threatening to > revert the maintainers changes. > > Core is in the weird position where there's no decision making ability at > all, because anyone who shows up and shouts enough can generate > 'controversy', then Wladimir sees there is disagreement and won't touch the > issue in question. So it just runs and runs and *anyone* with commit > access can then block any change. > > I realise some people think this anti-process leads to better decision > making. I disagree. It leads to no decision making, which is not the same > thing at all. > Bicoin is not like other projects. There are large financial stakes involved. I was at a standards convention once and the head of standards at a large company joked to me: "We know there are 6 people in the standards world that we can never buy. So we just buy everyone else". You have to luck out in a huge way to get a person like that running your project. Linux has done. Id say bitcoin has been lucky there too. But have a look at other projects, have a look at the alts, the *last* thing you want is a dictator in may cases. Ultimately bitcoin is a ledger based on consensus. There are 3 branches, the miners, the protocol and the market. They all play a role in regulating bitcoin and generally on the conservative side (which I think is a good thing). Whatever your view on the 20MB change, it's not a *conservative* approach, which is the approach that has served bitcoin very well so far. So bitcoin is not like other open source projects, and that's probably quite a good thing. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > --001a11c36bc6c6e61f0518ceb4af Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On 18 June 2015 at 12:00, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wro= te:
Dude, calm down. I d= on't have commit access to Bitcoin Core and Gavin already said long ago= he wouldn't just commit something, even though he has the ability to d= o so.

So why did I say it? Because it's consistent w= ith what I've always said: =C2=A0you cannot run a codebase like Wikiped= ia. Maintainers have to take part in debates, and then make a decision, and= anyone else who was delegated commit access for robustness or convenience = must then respect that decision. It's the only way to keep a project ma= king progress at a reasonable pace.

This is not a = radical position. That's how nearly all coding projects work. I have be= en involved with open source for 15 years and the 'single maintainer wh= o makes decisions' model is normal, even if in some large codebases =C2= =A0subsystems have delegated submaintainers.

This = is also how all my own projects are run. Bitcoinj has multiple people with = commit access. Regardless, if there were to be some design dispute or whate= ver, I wouldn't tolerate the others with commit access starting some ki= nd of Wiki-style edit war in the code if they disagreed. Nor would I ever e= xpect to get my own way in other people's projects by threatening to re= vert the maintainers changes.

Core is in the weird= position where there's no decision making ability at all, because anyo= ne who shows up and shouts enough can generate 'controversy', then = Wladimir sees there is disagreement and won't touch the issue in questi= on. So it just runs and runs and anyone=C2=A0with commit access can = then block any change.

I realise some people think= this anti-process leads to better decision making. I disagree. It leads to= no decision making, which is not the same thing at all.

Bicoin is not like other projects.=C2=A0 There ar= e large financial stakes involved.=C2=A0 I was at a standards convention on= ce and the head of standards at a large company joked to me:

"W= e know there are 6 people in the standards world that we can never buy.=C2= =A0 So we just buy everyone else".

You have to luck = out in a huge way to get a person like that running your project.=C2=A0 Lin= ux has done.=C2=A0 Id say bitcoin has been lucky there too.=C2=A0 But have = a look at other projects, have a look at the alts, the *last* thing you wan= t is a dictator in may cases.

Ultimately bitcoin is a led= ger based on consensus.=C2=A0 There are 3 branches, the miners, the protoco= l and the market.=C2=A0 They all play a role in regulating bitcoin and gene= rally on the conservative side (which I think is a good thing).=C2=A0 Whate= ver your view on the 20MB change, it's not a *conservative* approach, w= hich is the approach that has served bitcoin very well so far.=C2=A0
So bitcoin is not like other open source projects, and that= 9;s probably quite a good thing.
=C2=A0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------

_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/= listinfo/bitcoin-development


--001a11c36bc6c6e61f0518ceb4af--