Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.212.182 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.212.182; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-wi0-f182.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <55828737.6000007@riseup.net>
References: <55828737.6000007@riseup.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 12:00:17 +0200
Message-ID: <CANEZrP3M7+BsZKLFZV-0A_fC7NmMGbTDxsx3ywru3dSW78ZskQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: odinn <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3a82e2e1ef050518c7df05
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer
 to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers
Precedence: list

--047d7b3a82e2e1ef050518c7df05
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Dude, calm down. I don't have commit access to Bitcoin Core and Gavin
already said long ago he wouldn't just commit something, even though he has
the ability to do so.

So why did I say it? Because it's consistent with what I've always said:
 you cannot run a codebase like Wikipedia. Maintainers have to take part in
debates, and then make a decision, and anyone else who was delegated commit
access for robustness or convenience must then respect that decision. It's
the only way to keep a project making progress at a reasonable pace.

This is not a radical position. That's how nearly all coding projects work.
I have been involved with open source for 15 years and the 'single
maintainer who makes decisions' model is normal, even if in some large
codebases  subsystems have delegated submaintainers.

This is also how all my own projects are run. Bitcoinj has multiple people
with commit access. Regardless, if there were to be some design dispute or
whatever, I wouldn't tolerate the others with commit access starting some
kind of Wiki-style edit war in the code if they disagreed. Nor would I ever
expect to get my own way in other people's projects by threatening to
revert the maintainers changes.

Core is in the weird position where there's no decision making ability at
all, because anyone who shows up and shouts enough can generate
'controversy', then Wladimir sees there is disagreement and won't touch the
issue in question. So it just runs and runs and *anyone* with commit access
can then block any change.

I realise some people think this anti-process leads to better decision
making. I disagree. It leads to no decision making, which is not the same
thing at all.

--047d7b3a82e2e1ef050518c7df05
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Dude, calm down. I don&#39;t have commit access to Bitcoin=
 Core and Gavin already said long ago he wouldn&#39;t just commit something=
, even though he has the ability to do so.<div><br></div><div>So why did I =
say it? Because it&#39;s consistent with what I&#39;ve always said: =C2=A0y=
ou cannot run a codebase like Wikipedia. Maintainers have to take part in d=
ebates, and then make a decision, and anyone else who was delegated commit =
access for robustness or convenience must then respect that decision. It=
9;s the only way to keep a project making progress at a reasonable pace.</d=
iv><div><br></div><div>This is not a radical position. That&#39;s how nearl=
y all coding projects work. I have been involved with open source for 15 ye=
ars and the &#39;single maintainer who makes decisions&#39; model is normal=
, even if in some large codebases =C2=A0subsystems have delegated submainta=
iners.</div><div><br></div><div>This is also how all my own projects are ru=
n. Bitcoinj has multiple people with commit access. Regardless, if there we=
re to be some design dispute or whatever, I wouldn&#39;t tolerate the other=
s with commit access starting some kind of Wiki-style edit war in the code =
if they disagreed. Nor would I ever expect to get my own way in other peopl=
e&#39;s projects by threatening to revert the maintainers changes.</div><di=
v><br></div><div>Core is in the weird position where there&#39;s no decisio=
n making ability at all, because anyone who shows up and shouts enough can =
generate &#39;controversy&#39;, then Wladimir sees there is disagreement an=
d won&#39;t touch the issue in question. So it just runs and runs and <i>an=
yone</i>=C2=A0with commit access can then block any change.</div><div><br><=
/div><div>I realise some people think this anti-process leads to better dec=
ision making. I disagree. It leads to no decision making, which is not the =
same thing at all.</div></div>

--047d7b3a82e2e1ef050518c7df05--