MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: dscotese@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <2998879.R5sQRbxZRv@1337h4x0r>
References: <87si1rycux.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<2998879.R5sQRbxZRv@1337h4x0r>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 20:35:39 -0800
Message-ID: <CAGLBAhd7DCcRiJ6SZvJ9hEBWvBnmgRWKLL00yxaeiGSEbNKNwQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Scotese <dscotese@litmocracy.com>
To: xor@freenetproject.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d426e7da8840529d0a22c
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Three Month bitcoin-dev Moderation Review
Precedence: list

--001a113d426e7da8840529d0a22c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I agree with the prohibition of +1s.  The core competency of those who
provide this list are moderation and technology, not managing a process
through which "involved people [indicate] whether they're for or against
it."

That is certainly an excellent function, but it can be offered by anyone
who wants to run a system for collecting and displaying those indications.
The email list itself is intended to be information rich, and such
"approval voting" is not information-rich enough in my view.

It is a shame that the moderated messages require so many steps to
retrieve.  Is it possible to have the "downloadable version" from
https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev-moderation/ for each month
contain the text of the moderated emails?  They do contain the subjects, so
that helps.

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:25 PM, xor--- via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Thursday, January 21, 2016 11:20:46 AM Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > So, what should moderation look like from now on?
>
> The original mail which announced moderation contains this rule:
> > - Generally discouraged: [...], +1s, [...]
>
> I assume "+1s" means statements such as "I agree with doing X".
>
> Any sane procedure of deciding something includes asking the involved
> people
> whether they're for or against it.
> If there are dozens of proposals on how to solve a particular technical
> problem, how else do you want to decide it than having a vote?
> It's very strange that this is not allowed - especially if we consider that
> the Bitcoin community is in a state of constant dissent currently.
> The effect is likely that you push the actual decision-making to IRC, which
> less people have access to (since it's difficult to bear the high traffic),
> and thus form some kind of "inner circle" - which makes decisions seem even
> more as if they're being dictated.
>
> So please consider allowing people to say whether they agree with something
> something or don't.
>
>
> Other than that, thanks for the good latency of moderation, I guess you're
> doing hard work there :)
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>


-- 
I like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do you need a
techie?
I own Litmocracy <http://www.litmocracy.com> and Meme Racing
<http://www.memeracing.net> (in alpha).
I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist <http://www.voluntaryist.com> which
now accepts Bitcoin.
I also code for The Dollar Vigilante <http://dollarvigilante.com/>.
"He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" - Satoshi
Nakamoto

--001a113d426e7da8840529d0a22c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div>I agree with the prohibition of +1s.=C2=A0 The c=
ore competency of those who provide this list are moderation and technology=
, not managing a process through which &quot;involved people [indicate] whe=
ther they&#39;re for or against it.&quot;<br><br></div>That is certainly an=
 excellent function, but it can be offered by anyone who wants to run a sys=
tem for collecting and displaying those indications.=C2=A0 The email list i=
tself is intended to be information rich, and such &quot;approval voting&qu=
ot; is not information-rich enough in my view.<br><br></div>It is a shame t=
hat the moderated messages require so many steps to retrieve.=C2=A0 Is it p=
ossible to have the &quot;downloadable version&quot; from <a href=3D"https:=
//lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev-moderation/">https://lists.ozlabs.=
org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev-moderation/</a> for each month contain the text o=
f the moderated emails?=C2=A0 They do contain the subjects, so that helps.<=
br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, =
Jan 20, 2016 at 6:25 PM, xor--- via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitco=
in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">On Thursday, January 21, 2016 11:20:46 AM Ru=
sty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
&gt; So, what should moderation look like from now on?<br>
<br>
</span>The original mail which announced moderation contains this rule:<br>
&gt; - Generally discouraged: [...], +1s, [...]<br>
<br>
I assume &quot;+1s&quot; means statements such as &quot;I agree with doing =
X&quot;.<br>
<br>
Any sane procedure of deciding something includes asking the involved peopl=
e<br>
whether they&#39;re for or against it.<br>
If there are dozens of proposals on how to solve a particular technical<br>
problem, how else do you want to decide it than having a vote?<br>
It&#39;s very strange that this is not allowed - especially if we consider =
that<br>
the Bitcoin community is in a state of constant dissent currently.<br>
The effect is likely that you push the actual decision-making to IRC, which=
<br>
less people have access to (since it&#39;s difficult to bear the high traff=
ic),<br>
and thus form some kind of &quot;inner circle&quot; - which makes decisions=
 seem even<br>
more as if they&#39;re being dictated.<br>
<br>
So please consider allowing people to say whether they agree with something=
<br>
something or don&#39;t.<br>
<br>
<br>
Other than that, thanks for the good latency of moderation, I guess you&#39=
;re<br>
doing hard work there :)<br>_______________________________________________=
<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail=
_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr">I like to provide some work at no charge to pr=
ove my value. Do you need a techie?=C2=A0 <br>I own <a href=3D"http://www.l=
itmocracy.com" target=3D"_blank">Litmocracy</a> and <a href=3D"http://www.m=
emeracing.net" target=3D"_blank">Meme Racing</a> (in alpha). <br>I&#39;m th=
e webmaster for <a href=3D"http://www.voluntaryist.com" target=3D"_blank">T=
he Voluntaryist</a> which now accepts Bitcoin.<br>I also code for <a href=
=3D"http://dollarvigilante.com/" target=3D"_blank">The Dollar Vigilante</a>=
.<br>&quot;He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules&quot; -=
 Satoshi Nakamoto</div></div>
</div>

--001a113d426e7da8840529d0a22c--