From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C627C002D for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 16:03:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21A4E60E87 for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 16:03:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 21A4E60E87 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U-FAhNyq3D0Q for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 16:03:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 14FB460E71 Received: from mail-vs1-f51.google.com (mail-vs1-f51.google.com [209.85.217.51]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14FB460E71 for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 16:03:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vs1-f51.google.com with SMTP id 67so12935436vsv.2 for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 09:03:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=Izp6t3WmeCvvKKYEtGiVVubRN/hPReIRb1FuobUDV2M=; b=xPChnRP+ICidN2bs5g54ei/k05xlb2SN+BvVEjlQoYs157Pr7LOaQPSLrMnrYrGjXp O3D6ruIHdsGpbgepI9Gb7lX0NGMQuzP+acxZ1FP+4hojIxpgnmEOMprhc2rbrXT/6VyH JD7cutolRlCWFp7+PO6zR8GW0V6Pg3Ckd94/obJ0yqXXaiwVTNw+1Ucxr3d7xWPF/Mgl 5QA0i5LwnjKHfezlIYPb2oNHSm5JNiV7vPhUcdd1kdUugmUTCoGzLx5HN5CdmUuIU079 KvLoscQ5/v1PSBnjap77MYA2cI6YS/mO+cGpmnGsBMvIMO1dRgxWGfBYvrNzpoRjXKp/ ua+g== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo1shVr9YVVlDxH3YA9FVeI9yAkyoXw6spb/ZgaMc8A849nFJ4YW UUwyB8c9W/COKbX1xfT+Wuebwvn0UjvrV0gFt28+pMXxy4PI8A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR7NGGSvWU8NuTtTd2mDGG3z8qrv7VCtdCNGHLyCSiGG3ClgTMabWnph1MPvcatLr36LHZ/VCOBE262PFvTfepc= X-Received: by 2002:a67:e085:0:b0:398:30a7:3be5 with SMTP id f5-20020a67e085000000b0039830a73be5mr8974522vsl.45.1663084991373; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 09:03:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Ryan Grant Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2022 16:02:35 +0000 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: Buck O Perley Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] On a new community process to specify covenants X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2022 16:03:14 -0000 On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 2:47 AM Buck O Perley via bitcoin-dev First just wanted to thank you for taking the initiative to > put this together. I think that as the community and > ecosystem continue to grow, it's going to be an important > part of the process to have groups like this develop. Hopefully > they allow us to resist the "Tyranny of Structurelessness" without > resorting to formalized governance processes and systems. Huh, lots of reading material behind that phrase. I'd heard it before, but hadn't looked it up. > > Defining a communication channel is still an open question: IRC, Slack, > Discord, Discourse, ... > > I would vote against Slack. IRC is probably the best but maybe too > high a barrier to entry? Publishing logs at least would counter > concerns of it being exclusive. Maybe discord as an alternative. I found Discord immediately wanted a phone number from me. I think IRC remains the lowest bar for participants to contribute. > > About the starting point for regular meetings, I think the good timing is > somewhere in November, after the upcoming cycle of Bitcoin conferences, +1 > Maybe as a way to keep these topics separate, it would make sense > for activation to have its own WG. As norms develop around this one, > they could inform creating a separate space focused on forwarding > research and discussion around how to introduce upgrades to bitcoin. I'd participate in this. > In general it would be nice to have multiple of these groups > happening at once, and finding a way that they can operate separate > from centralized companies. To my mind, there's no good reason why > a supposedly decentralized protocol should have to be focusing on only > one set of protocol advancements at a time. The linear way that > discussions post-Taproot activation took shape ("What do you think the > next bitcoin softfork should be?") is a sign of weakness in my opinion. > Definitely a big red flag that we should be concerned with. Yes. > * Any thoughts on starting to commit to an in-person meetup to happen > ~6 months - 1 year after the start of the regular online meetings? I think that sounds reasonable.