MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP2iMXeL-5zyE2cvoyNRakhZbQfLXORZ2AhqEATQE-KjAQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <55828737.6000007@riseup.net>
	<CANEZrP3M7+BsZKLFZV-0A_fC7NmMGbTDxsx3ywru3dSW78ZskQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150618111407.GA6690@amethyst.visucore.com>
	<CANEZrP2iMXeL-5zyE2cvoyNRakhZbQfLXORZ2AhqEATQE-KjAQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 08:03:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOG=w-sWimZTJe=4gCvC5R7SAEK+Nvo-hZtM7xC-bBQd0pG3mw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>, 
	Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2ff1ccaeb380518cc1bc2
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer
 to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers
Precedence: list

--001a11c2ff1ccaeb380518cc1bc2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:

> The first issue is how are decisions made in Bitcoin Core? I struggle to
> explain this to others because I don't understand it myself. Is it a vote
> of people with commit access? Is it a 100% agreement of "core developers"
> and if so, who are these people? Is it "whoever reverts the change last"?
> Could I write down in a document a precise description of how decisions are
> made? No, and that's been a fairly frustrating problem for a long time.
>

There is a quote from United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to
describe his threshold test for obscenity which is relevant here: "I know
it when I see it."

It is hard certainly, and perhaps even impossible to write down a system of
rules that is used to resolve every dispute among core developers. But that
doesn't mean it isn't obvious to all the participants what is going on. If
a contentious change is proposed, and if after sufficient debate there are
still members of the technical community with reasoned, comprehensible
objections who are not merely being obstinate in the views -- a neutral
observer would agree that their concerns have not been met -- then there is
a lack of consensus.

If there was some sort of formal process however, the system wouldn't work.
Rules can be gamed, and if you add rules to a process then that process can
be gamed. Instead we all have a reasonable understanding of what "technical
consensus" is, and we all know it when we see it. Where we do not see it,
we do not proceed.

--001a11c2ff1ccaeb380518cc1bc2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Mike Hearn <span dir=3D"l=
tr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mike@plan99.net" target=3D"_blank">mike@plan99.ne=
t</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_q=
uote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;b=
order-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><d=
iv class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">The first issue is how =
are decisions made in Bitcoin Core? I struggle to explain this to others be=
cause I don&#39;t understand it myself. Is it a vote of people with commit =
access? Is it a 100% agreement of &quot;core developers&quot; and if so, wh=
o are these people? Is it &quot;whoever reverts the change last&quot;?=C2=
=A0 Could I write down in a document a precise description of how decisions=
 are made? No, and that&#39;s been a fairly frustrating problem for a long =
time.<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>There is a quote from Unit=
ed States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold te=
st for obscenity which is relevant here: &quot;I know it when I see it.&quo=
t;<br><br></div><div>It is hard certainly, and perhaps even impossible to w=
rite down a system of rules that is used to resolve every dispute among cor=
e developers. But that doesn&#39;t mean it isn&#39;t obvious to all the par=
ticipants what is going on. If a contentious change is proposed, and if aft=
er sufficient debate there are still members of the technical community wit=
h reasoned, comprehensible objections who are not merely being obstinate in=
 the views -- a neutral observer would agree that their concerns have not b=
een met -- then there is a lack of consensus.<br><br></div><div>If there wa=
s some sort of formal process however, the system wouldn&#39;t work. Rules =
can be gamed, and if you add rules to a process then that process can be ga=
med. Instead we all have a reasonable understanding of what &quot;technical=
 consensus&quot; is, and we all know it when we see it. Where we do not see=
 it, we do not proceed.<br></div></div></div></div>

--001a11c2ff1ccaeb380518cc1bc2--