Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2022 21:58:13 +0000
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <XB9BYeJEzU3l3LRXVwzGf8jSZYC2Uo5IXPCuhtne3V8xXVlkQ7VY0vc11lldZRm52fmniEYWN9AntPbJdJZ8fEeIVVMHUfWsbbvEr8OKwzc=@protonmail.com>
Feedback-ID: 40602938:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Roles and procedures around adding a bitcoin core
	maintainer
Precedence: list

Hi Bitcoin Developers,

List of present bitcoin core maintainers:

|   Username    |    Focus Area   |
| ------------- | -------------   |
|  MarcoFalke   | General, QA     |=20
|  fanquake     | General, Build  |
|  hebasto      | General, UI/UX  |
|  achow101     | General, Wallet |
|  glozow       | General, Mempool|

Last 2 developers that stepped down as bitcoin core maintainer:

|   Username    |=20
| ------------- |=20
|     sipa      |=20
|     laanwj    |=20

Process followed in adding last maintainer:

1) fanquake [nominated][0] glowzow as rbf/mempool/validation maintainer.=20
2) It was discussed in an IRC [meeting][1] and most of the developers agree=
d to add her as new maintainer except mild NACK from Jeremy Rubin. Some con=
tributors did not like different opinions being shared in the meeting.
3) A [pull request][2] was opened by glowzow to add keys. There were severa=
l ACKs, 2 NACKs and 1 meta concept NACK.
   My NACK: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25524#issuecomment-1172=
518409
   NACK by jamesob: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25524#issuecomm=
ent-1172570635
   Meta concept NACK by luke-jr: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25=
524#issuecomment-1175625779

   Eventually everyone agreed to add glowzow as maintainer and improve the =
process of adding maintainers. Pull request was merged by MarcoFalke.

Initiatives to improve the process and documentation:

1) Jeremy opened a [pull request][3] and there were lot of disagreements wi=
th the documentation. It was closed since a related PR with less changes co=
uld be easy to agree upon.=20
2) Related [pull request][4] with minimal documentation was also closed by =
Jeremy with a comment that desire to improve docs seems to be missing based=
 on reviews.
3) Jeremy opened an [issue][5] with title 'Call for Maintainer: P2P & Netwo=
rking + Privacy' which was changed later and 'Privacy' was removed. He nomi=
nated jonatack and vasild was already self nominated so mentioned in the pu=
ll request. Nobody appreciated this effort to nominate self or others for a=
 new maintainer. Later this was closed.
4) I had opened an [issue][6] with title Call for Maintainer: Privacy'. Thi=
s even involved privacy of contributors and not just bitcoin core. It recei=
ved some comments that made no sense and I eventually closed the issue.=20

Process being followed for adding vasild as maintainer:

1) vasild volunteered to be a new maintainer on [IRC][7]
2) It was discussed in IRC [meeting][8], some developers ACKed it and there=
 were no issues.
3) A [pull request][9] was opened by vasild to add keys which is still open=
 and its been 4 months. There were already some ACKs from the IRC meeting a=
nd pull request also received some ACKs (16 until now). fanquake, dergoegge=
 and JeremyRubin had some disagreements. Jeremy had recently withdrawn all =
ACK/NACK from bitcoin core repository for some reasons, fanquake has not re=
plied yet and dergoegge had some new disagreements although don't mind if t=
he pull request is merged.
4) Earlier disagreements were related to scoping and it was changed by vasi=
ld
4) There was even a comment that disrespected vasild's contributions in bit=
coin core and we had to literally share pull requests in which vasild has i=
mproved bitcoin core.
5) I tried adding the topic for a bitcoin core dev weekly meeting but did n=
ot achieve anything.


Since Bitcoin Core is the reference implementation for Bitcoin and used by =
90% nodes, what should be the ideal process or changes you would expect in =
roles, procedures etc.?

- 'Call for maintainers' issue should be opened if contributors or maintain=
ers need a new maintainer.
- Discussion about nominated contributors in an IRC meeting where everyone =
is allowed to share their opinion.
- One of the nominated contributor that gets most ACKs could open pull requ=
est to add keys. Everyone can ACK/NACK this PR with reasons.
- Maintainers should be unbiased in merging these pull requests.
- New maintainer should not be funded by the organization that already does=
 it for most of the maintainers.
- Long term contributors that are not living in a first world country shoul=
d be encouraged.
- Either we should agree every maintainer is a general maintainer that can =
merge pull request from different modules or define scope for present and n=
ew maintainers. We can't do both.
- Self merging pull requests should be avoided.

Let me know if you have any thoughts that could improve this process and in=
volve less politics.=20
  =20

[0]: https://bitcoin-irc.chaincode.com/bitcoin-core-dev/2022-06-28#826651
[1]: https://bitcoin-irc.chaincode.com/bitcoin-core-dev/2022-06-30#827695
[2]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25524
[3]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25560
[4]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25839
[5]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25870
[6]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25875
[7]: https://bitcoin-irc.chaincode.com/bitcoin-core-dev/2022-08-12#842847;
[8]: https://bitcoin-irc.chaincode.com/bitcoin-core-dev/2022-08-18#844523
[9]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25871

/dev/fd0
'floppy disc guy'

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.