Return-Path: <gacrux@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F58F9F2
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 25 Jun 2015 03:42:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ob0-f176.google.com (mail-ob0-f176.google.com
	[209.85.214.176])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99542124
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 25 Jun 2015 03:42:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by obbkm3 with SMTP id km3so39396119obb.1
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 24 Jun 2015 20:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:cc:content-type;
	bh=z4/G3EMv5XW8xBCeFLoyuwmkWWbZ1mckfboKoc4TlDc=;
	b=aIw6sd66DITV7XVTZIVYsJd5Oh0GrpGwsI41RBmmzyY9JTaqdF14fRfIvJH1+NG4p/
	T1mSZ0J13y3/V/Mb7UGDjkPFgE0/R3PLffBWH0LSZqVz0IfTGzMidwDhZLT/GropJ/9/
	Vi1qyB1XRJdXJBRNfX4pitkXEL60FWEZvDdlz184Abp/sGz1cAwiWiDlxoqQXmia/5Db
	Mi+05o6CRJcONAHUJHAOeODXpKht7X5dmeGoyhmjx8b9fyNfBuXwqdiCRv9o0MOBVtee
	hEDnTVkbQI1Ph8A8edWxNun5tPmOMJWueLKpHDSjQ6M7ihZEx33CCqWDpQ+tXmNkH5LW
	D7dw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.156.130 with SMTP id we2mr37856771oeb.24.1435203772909;
	Wed, 24 Jun 2015 20:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.226.136 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 20:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <558B4632.8080504@bitcoins.info>
References: <COL402-EAS109000AAC490BCF2DD69116CDAF0@phx.gbl>
	<558B4632.8080504@bitcoins.info>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 13:42:52 +1000
Message-ID: <CALohRkj89mgZTYXQxd0a-mB3SVdMjEF6-9jUm75m=D1wLNZSqg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gareth Williams <gacrux@gmail.com>
To: Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
	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
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process and Votes
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 03:42:54 -0000

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info>
wrote:
<snip>
> Also, the incentive for new
> developers to come in is that they will be paid by companies who want to
> influence the code and this should be considered
<snip>
> Now you are left with a broken, unwritten/unspoken process.

Your former statement is a great example of why "rough consensus and
running code" is superior to design by committee.
An argument should be assessed on its technical merit alone, not on
the number of people advancing it -- a process that would be open to
exactly the type of external manipulation you say you are concerned
about.