Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SphgC-0006SK-TV for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:21:16 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.161.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.175; envelope-from=nanotube@gmail.com; helo=mail-gg0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-gg0-f175.google.com ([209.85.161.175]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1SphgC-0002Gd-1W for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:21:16 +0000 Received: by ggnp4 with SMTP id p4so3800069ggn.34 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:21:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.228.3 with SMTP id a3mr466866anh.4.1342192870582; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:21:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.100] (c-68-80-166-130.hsd1.nj.comcast.net. [68.80.166.130]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q10sm7567071anm.16.2012.07.13.08.21.08 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:21:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <50003CDA.60205@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:20:58 -0400 From: Daniel F User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net References: <1341849295.94710.YahooMailNeo@web121003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1341850157.18601.YahooMailNeo@web121006.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1341857882.56956.YahooMailNeo@web121006.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4FFB5A7E.7020604@justmoon.de> <4FFB9537.8040909@justmoon.de> <4FFB9707.9020307@gmail.com> <4FFBF1DF.8070203@justmoon.de> In-Reply-To: <4FFBF1DF.8070203@justmoon.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig8C4825FD632DD8EDFC5F8A37" X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) 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 (nanotube[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -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: 1SphgC-0002Gd-1W Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Random order for clients page 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: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:21:17 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig8C4825FD632DD8EDFC5F8A37 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This discussion is quite bikesheddy, but (or thus? :) ) I will put in my 2c. The main thing to think about, I think, is "what would be best for the users". To that end, I suggest the following: * I do think a page on bitcoin.org listing relatively major, and relatively vetted, clients is a good idea. Removing it completely and relegating it to a wiki page, which is likely to contain all sorts of marginal crufty clients, would likely be a disservice to the users. * Randomized order is likely also a disservice to the users. We should list clients in order of "goodness", as determined by whoever(s) we decide to put in charge of the page. This "goodness" should likely to be some kind of weighted average of features, security, goodness for bitcoin network, etc. [1] ** If randomized order is after all chosen, it should be done in javascript client-side, rather than doing daily page reorgs. If people without JS don't see random, it's not material at all. * Prose vs. feature matrix: both have their good and bad points, as discussed upthread. I think the users will be best served by a combination of both: ** Prose descriptions of clients should deliberately include negative points, not just let the user infer them by lack of corresponding positive mention. (e.g. "This client has fast startup time. That means you're completely trusting the server operator with your money.") This task is left up to the person(s) in charge. ** A feature matrix, with carefully chosen and /well defined/ categories, /in addition to prose/ would likely also be of service to the users. That could be left to the wiki though. The current wiki clients page seems to be having a good go at it.[2] ** If we are targeting people who "don't know what they're doing", it may be a good idea to have a 'decision assistant' type setup, where users are asked several questions and are recommended clients based on these answers. (This could be done in a static way by having a matrix of questions.) Finally - I'd say we're spending disproportionate developer resources on this question, and if it were completely up to me, I'd resolve this situation in the following quick-and-painless way: leave page as is, add negative points to prose, link to wiki clients list. Estimated time to completion: 1 hour (to think through which negative points to add). [1] Meehl, 1954, clinical versus statistical prediction... (see also Grove and Meehl, 1996; Sawyer, 1966) (and yes, despite the age of some of this research, the conclusions have been surprisingly robust and timeproof.) [2] https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=3DClients&oldid=3D28615 -nanotube --------------enig8C4825FD632DD8EDFC5F8A37 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAlAAPN4ACgkQ5/k4vslVlLK2xgCfRMnbYpEPPasz0EyUIJQbfyl6 KbAAn3g2r8DN5auG0SuOA64uLeUYrcmU =l8rU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig8C4825FD632DD8EDFC5F8A37--