Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D04EC0029; Mon, 12 Jun 2023 05:36:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 049EF4175F; Mon, 12 Jun 2023 05:36:45 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 049EF4175F Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gazeta.pl header.i=@gazeta.pl header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=2013 header.b=R0+yKEu+ X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.097 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CooiNfRrsm47; Mon, 12 Jun 2023 05:36:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:10:00 by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 9DEDB41739 X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from smtpo79.poczta.onet.pl (smtpo79.poczta.onet.pl [141.105.16.29]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DEDB41739; Mon, 12 Jun 2023 05:36:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pmq2v.m5r2.onet (pmq2v.m5r2.onet [10.174.32.68]) by smtp.poczta.onet.pl (Onet) with ESMTP id 4QfgCb1MRvz2K25mq; Mon, 12 Jun 2023 07:26:35 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gazeta.pl; s=2013; t=1686547595; bh=tp2BYSwLHJvhG7drlABP0GUV4g2Y86GYoO3PxwZ5p7Y=; h=From:To:In-Reply-To:Date:Subject:From; b=R0+yKEu+bazu5Rmx7Bc3B4QAy2pI6UhmeNzm8Us+rmiXBiVGH7YD8lTWXAhZuJvkh nD3BcsKoSxxlE1Gk0dOPc0Ynx8sXFEjQe6K7oZSdMMNF6xoNYObAkC07JD9gVUG1Qj ilq6KOkNArD++kjkPlaKXUHHhdXcwemE/hEuQlsk= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received: from [5.173.224.115] by pmq2v.m5r2.onet via HTTP id ; Mon, 12 Jun 2023 07:26:35 +0200 From: vjudeu@gazeta.pl X-Priority: 3 To: "Dr Maxim Orlovsky , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion" , bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 07:26:32 +0200 Message-Id: <173302382-3bf2a2109ad2a5f745cd065c92cca512@pmq2v.m5r2.onet> X-Mailer: onet.poczta X-Onet-PMQ: ;5.173.224.115;PL;2 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 09:41:00 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin mail list needs an explicit moderation policy X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 05:36:45 -0000 > Nevertheless, I next day I see other e-mails getting released to bitcoin-= dev, while mine - was not. If you created a new topic, then that is the reason. I noticed an interesti= ng thing: if the title of your post is just a reply to some existing topic,= then there are less strict rules, than if you create a new one. It is hard= to start new topics properly, it is not a forum, a lot of effort is needed= to create some new discussion, and pass through all moderation filters. Ho= wever, if you reply to some existing post, then it is all about quotes and = replies, there are less requirements. In the past, I tried writing two very= similar replies, just with a different title, and guess what: the one with= "re" was published, but the one with the new title was rejected. The reaso= n is that people filter messages by title, and some of them read only some = topics, so if you bring a new one, then they can get angry, if they are not= interested in it. However, if you start from existing topic, and you gradu= ally move the discussion into something else, then the title will be finall= y changed by some moderator into "Topic Y (was: topic X)", and that approac= h is much easier than starting from "Topic Y" explicitly. The main reason for such moderation is this: if you reply for some topic, t= hen there are rules for the quality of your reply, and nothing else. But if= you start a new topic, then there are more sieves: not only your content h= as to meet some criteria, but also bringing that new particular topic has t= o be justified. So, rejecting replies is about "your content is spam", but = rejecting new topic is about "talking about this is spam, no matter of the = content". On 2023-06-03 01:48:45 user Dr Maxim Orlovsky via bitcoin-dev wrote: Dear community, =C2=A0 I am writing this list to bitcoin-dev mail list, but to prevent potential c= ensorship I am sending CC to lightning-dev mail list, in order to leave the= current moderator(s) without an option not to publish the letter and not t= o=C2=A0leave the topic =E2=80=9Cunder the cover=E2=80=9D (sorry Lightning f= riends for spamming your list with this off-topic). A day before yesterday I sent a post to bitcoin-dev referencing the publica= tion of the new Bitcoin scalability and privacy protocol, which had already= received a broad reaction across the bitcoin community with literally no c= ritical/negative responses after ~25k of reads [1]. I am not the first-time= writer to the mail list and had developed things like RGB smart contracts = [2], rust lightning implementation named LNP [3], multiple bitcoin librarie= s and software [4], [5], during three years was a main contributor to rust-= bitcoin [6] etc, etc. The post was clearly not spam and received support fr= om known community members like Giacomo Zucco [7]. Bryan Bishop knows me si= nce 2019 when I was presenting Storm protocol on the stage on Scaling Bitco= in in Tel Aviv - and he was writing a transcript of it [8]. Thus, I am not = a random unknown guy or a known spammer - and the post can be easily checke= d for not containing any scam promotion. Nevertheless, I next day I see other e-mails getting released to bitcoin-de= v, while mine - was not. It is not a problem, but since we already had an i= ncident in the past where Bryan reported the failure of his software, me an= d my colleagues from LNP/BP Standards Association started asking questions = about whether this post ever got to Bryan. What happened next was very unexpected. I am giving the core of the convers= ation over Twitter after in Annex A - with the purpose to showcase the prob= lem I=E2=80=99d like to address in this e-mail. From the discussion, it is = clear that bitcoin-dev mail list lacks clear explicit moderation (or peer-r= eview) policies, which must be applied on a non-selective basis. Also, Brya= n Bishop, as the current moderator, had abused his powers in achieving his = agenda based on personal likes or dislikes. The conversation went nowhere, = and the post got published only after a requirement from Peter Todd [9]. In this regard, I=E2=80=99d like to propose the following: The bitcoin-dev mail list must have a clear moderation (or pre-publication = peer-review policy). It can be proposed and discussed in this mail list and= , upon agreement, must become public and obligatory. Bryan Bishop, who was acting for a long time as moderator, must be apprecia= ted for many years of unpaid work, and replaced with the new moderator who = should be selected from a list of potential candidates (again in this mail = list) using the criteria =E2=80=9Cleast votes against=E2=80=9D. The role of the moderator(s) must be purely executive of the policies, with= out any personal preferences. A dedicated mail list should be created (=E2=80=9Cbitcoin-dev-unmoderated= =E2=80=9D) which will publish all submissions without moderation. It may co= ntain spam and only people interested in the auditing bitcoin-dev main mal = list non-censorship will be reading it. However, if they will notice that s= ome non-spam e-mails were censored, they can announce that publicly. In thi= s case, the failing moderator(s) should be removed and replaced. The incentive to work as a moderator should be reputation-based. =C2=A0 With that, I rest my case. Kind regards, Maxim Orlovsky [1]:=C2=A0https://twitter.com/lnp_bp/status/1664329393131364353?s=3D61&t=3D= 9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg [2]:=C2=A0https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-Apri= l/021554.html [3]:=C2=A0https://github.com/LNP-WG [4]:=C2=A0https://github.com/BP-WG [5]:=C2=A0https://github.com/mycitadel [6]:=C2=A0https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/graphs/contributors?= from=3D2018-12-31&to=3D2022-04-12&type=3Dc [7]:=C2=A0https://twitter.com/giacomozucco/status/1664515543154544645?s=3D6= 1&t=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg=C2=A0and=C2=A0https://twitter.com/giacomozucco= /status/1664731504923095041?s=3D61&t=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg [8]:=C2=A0https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/telaviv2019/wip-storm-layer= -2-3-storage-and-messaging [9]:=C2=A0https://twitter.com/peterktodd/status/1664742651835367424?s=3D61&= t=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg Annex A: @kanzure just like to check that our submission to bitcoin-dev hasn=E2=80= =99t got to spam A few mods are reviewing it Oh, so a peer review is required to get to bitcoin-dev mail list? Never rea= d about that requirement anywhere . Seems like bitcoin-dev ma= il list requirements are now specific to the author :) Not the greatest email to pull this over. I'll double check but pretty sure= the antagonization is boring me. Not sure I understand what you are saying. Can you please clarify? You are boring me and these antics don't make me want to go click approve o= n your email. Are you the person to approve emails for it? Yes It appears that people boring @kanzure is going through a dedicated review = procedure on bitcoin-dev mail list. Good moderation! Very clear policy! What are you even doing. How does this behavior suppose to get people to he= lp you? I am not expecting you to help me - and never asked. I expect you to openly= declare moderation (or peer review) policy and follow it. Since =E2=80=9Cif you get me bored I will not click an accept button=E2= =80=9D is not a moderation policy which I expect from bitcoin-dev mail list= . Probably not just me. Yeah I mean I don't think these tweets are likely to get me to enthusiastic= ally resolve your problem... I dunno man. What's even going on here. Bitcoin mail list clearly lacks explicit moderation policy. The same mistak= e like with rust-bitcoin 1+ yrs ago. I am fine with peer review. Moderation= . But only explicit - not just =E2=80=9Cthe way I (dis)like this guy=E2=80= =9D