To: Justus Ranvier <justus@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org>,
	bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <CADm_WcYnq5sk=wdhqx5UysyS=fu7kRUrixOJC=QfoY5np1ATmA@mail.gmail.com>
	<561F04BD.6000203@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org>
From: odinn <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net>
Message-ID: <561F660B.3070901@riseup.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 08:38:35 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <561F04BD.6000203@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed list moderation policy and conduct
Precedence: list

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Another point building on Justus's remarks that I'll make.... (below)

Justus Ranvier via bitcoin-dev:
> On 14/10/15 19:02, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> *Disclose potential conflicts*
>> 
>> 1. List discussions often involve interested parties. We expect 
>> participants to be aware when they are conflicted due to
>> employment or other projects they are involved in, and disclose
>> those interests to other project members. 2. When in doubt,
>> over-disclose. Perceived conflicts of interest are important to
>> address, so that the lists’ decisions are credible even when 
>> unpopular, difficult or favorable to the interests of one group
>> over another.
> 
> Even if we assume everybody will try to approach that topic in
> good faith, I don't think it's that simple.
> 
> A term that's become popular recently is "Bitcoin maximalist", and
> it's frequently used as a slur or insult.
> 
> I honestly find that to be incomprehensible. If somebody at a Ford
> board meeting started talking about how Ford needed to make sure
> Toyota was able to sell enough cars, they wouldn't get very far by
> labelling their critics as "Ford maximalists".
> 
> Anyone who works at Ford and who isn't a Ford maximalist is in the
> wrong job.
> 
> And yet in Bitcoin, a much development is funded by companies who
> offer products which compete with Bitcoin, or at least would be in
> competition if Bitcoin were to achieve unlimited success.


One example that came to mind as I was reading this was, when I
presented an idea that I thought would be good for integration into
Bitcoin Core, explaining in various ways why I felt it would be
worthwhile to explore, I eventually had someone tell me I should go
and develop the idea first as either some sort of independent wallet,
or to demonstrate it would work via an alt.  (This has now occurred,
as a successful implementation of my micro-donations idea has been
demonstrated in an alt.)  I have to wonder, however, when I eventually
bring the micro-donation ideas back in such a form that they could
again be considered in bitcoin-dev, whether or not they would
seriously be considered, in part due to this effect which Justus
Ranvier has described in part ~ that is to say, the effect of people
engaging in the use of "maximalist" or some other label (or labels) as
limiting the extent of discourse which people can engage in.  (I
realize that wasn't exactly where you were going with this Justus, but
I'm just expanding upon the notion of how some labels and categories
can be used to suppress real discussion.)  Or, for example, if people
see me as "conflicted," and someone else doesn't, and I'm confused
about why someone would see me as "conflicted," where does that leave
one?  Quite possibly, stuck in a morass of unproductive commentary (or
maybe just being ignored by moderators who might see quite a few
people as "conflicted").

> 
> I expect this is a minority view on this list, but my position is
> that anyone who is not a Bitcoin maximalists has a potential
> conflict of interest if they're also involved in Bitcoin
> development.
> 
> I also suspect this issue is a cause of much user dissatisfaction
> with Bitcoin development. If Bitcoin users and investors don't
> trust that the developers are working toward the unlimited success
> case, they can and will revolt.
> 

Another thing to consider, although the person(s) proposing the list
moderation policy and conduct document will certainly not want to hear
it, is that the list might be better off without a policy document
that is enforced by moderators.  (An "about" section for what the list
is about, its purpose, and how people are supposed to treat each
other, is probably good... but the enforcement angle that I'm seeing
is probably a bad idea.)  What we stand for here is more than making
people comfortable while technical issues are discussed on a list.
The idea of keeping a protocol free of financial censorship, in
concept, extends to language as well, and thus people should be able
to be free in how they write and speak, even when their peers on the
list don't like what they see in others' expressions.

I recommend removal of the enforcement and moderator sections.
(Technically, there are mods for it already... I suppose... the
question is how you disclose in a "Purpose" or "About" section that
refers to this list who the mods are, or rather, what the roles are of
each person involved in a way that is minimally invasive and lets the
list flow.)

> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing
> list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org 
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> 

- -- 
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJWH2YLAAoJEGxwq/inSG8C0aAH/AqYWgZEyRM5d1rAwjt6jNrf
Vqkd+kBCu0+0CQRXHUwJpK07IzFm5CwzSGIwri/VWT+1t/27Lk1Kt9iV4+zxOZhO
RFyo4gmJ6GApZ7N6wlIWD9R2hFdg9Q+taZHgRXiMDMqi8MOJjf5tMAXnYjbMQrSr
ntLY3ESFF0yF3ZGIIptNI4atv6UdhL2po7p+F5GMa7VZp7/e3zw96Uxmd2wkZN0R
3G5VHR2gscn3PooykpH/nhpH4mk0eFsWomuwWXAxfo2JjMhuyIXU0KnUs7ibpfPT
qtOmBW/7DI//IeRJpstAnbc22g6YOqCKrMDgNe0HgVjnmugNpY1/wRh29m+WCpA=
=felI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----