Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E40F483 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 23:24:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f50.google.com (mail-vk0-f50.google.com [209.85.213.50]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08190189 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 23:24:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f50.google.com with SMTP id k196so1981427vka.0 for ; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 15:24:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:cc :content-type; bh=RCpNzmGsrt0wFwcffeaRsZA5KCsGPz5pYTMQnARJojE=; b=Dmj1EuR/x1s6nMeNlQCXIlp+vHGEf8xEVZXLfIIH7Mmiz/QOVpBvIqF3NUcZ523jo1 9xklN43o7A+MZd5LZdbnxiygfrCJiNz5FQCHV0a7SqBLCGFB21t2IrTWGJkx9e1sZAOE h2lNywiZEOTJOQ/FPjVZW365eP0WchA1ya6yv56pfbWSZvzEWnzpNKBEIUrh3TFFsgsJ L0116/lAPkJHV51I0ayfUy1g2takTk+x5CBq+O/7l8IdfwpW1Sopkvsn3tvHHXC1sgAM tsLMmxrPy6M/LaG1+RRI3qJPf3b+P/5Jm7n3i1QOanbFTbwSTwGjAlxDIddJ4NM3Y0wJ Gg+w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:cc:content-type; bh=RCpNzmGsrt0wFwcffeaRsZA5KCsGPz5pYTMQnARJojE=; b=Lx2laCPIvdvpjIvDvC+egHH25ag3qICwKxCMstMi7xg+9jGPq9x+qYyrDUtSS+glrR zCEko/DXYOxGkVVWyF6Ix79OVOCURSnKZSZzgMJTV0HlDyclv1I7Y5OBYNkej3Sd6Wvu ysNiqKs6muG8CR1hEIds58vrjqHenVtYStCOr+XuD1jviZh/AYvwRoJoE3lyI/7HaAhz +TLEMVBJy4XLq0PA1bhL0TGl1pDfft1oNxRS3LH9OYKXtAqzNpimGTLn9XGFnbo/OVkI O5ORMeuS9VomBbA3H/+Qu0XZA2CprVjEOVoEvx+4TFCn+ni2hp/ccQJkRg7zG6wCsXMv MpqQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOR67q6U4CeIv3lH8rdXbU2rGjYsZyYXb2QRiB1VmLOHjG8Uqw5hjyVbKFJTwwEDqTBh8yR5VZN8FdTLSA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.169.67 with SMTP id s64mr28160316vke.72.1455060269177; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 15:24:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.31.9.72 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 15:24:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.31.9.72 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 15:24:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <87si1rycux.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <2998879.R5sQRbxZRv@1337h4x0r> <87powvy20w.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <1736759.DT0dcscznj@1337h4x0r> <20160123205953.GA22494@muck> <3B18134A-3E3A-4A98-ADD3-9F5E8600047E@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 18:24:28 -0500 Message-ID: From: David Vorick Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11415d2678a0f9052b5e9eb2 X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, MALFORMED_FREEMAIL, MISSING_HEADERS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Three Month bitcoin-dev Moderation Review X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 23:24:31 -0000 --001a11415d2678a0f9052b5e9eb2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I do like that the volume of emails has been reduced substantially. I used to delete hordes of dev emails because I couldn't keep up. At least now I feel like I'm able to skim most things that look interesting and I get to assume that if the subject seems relevant to me the content is worthwhile. My life has improved because of the changes. On Jan 23, 2016 8:08 PM, "Dave Scotese via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > +1 > The distinction we are making importantly requires that contributors > provide readers with another thing to say in favor of something - another > thing which is different than "X people support this instead of only X-1 > people." Evidence trumps votes. > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Gavin via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> >> > On Jan 23, 2016, at 3:59 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> > >> > I would extend this to say that the technical explanation also should >> > contribute uniquely to the conversation; a +1 with an explanation >> > the last +1 gave isn't useful. >> >> Yes, comments should contribute to the discussion, with either technical >> discussion or additional relevant data. I think a +1 like the following >> should be encouraged: >> >> "+1: we had eleven customer support tickets in just the last week that >> would have been prevented if XYZ. >> >> Jane Doe, CTO CoinBitChainBasely.com" >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 and Meme Racing > (in alpha). > I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist > which now accepts Bitcoin. > I also code for The Dollar Vigilante . > "He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" - Satoshi > Nakamoto > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --001a11415d2678a0f9052b5e9eb2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I do like that the volume of emails has been reduced substan= tially. I used to delete hordes of dev emails because I couldn't keep u= p. At least now I feel like I'm able to skim most things that look inte= resting and I get to assume that if the subject seems relevant to me the co= ntent is worthwhile.

My life has improved because of the changes.

On Jan 23, 2016 8:08 PM, "Dave Scotese via = bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
+1
The = distinction we are making importantly requires that contributors provide re= aders with another thing to say in favor of something - another thing which= is different than "X people support this instead of only X-1 people.&= quot;=C2=A0 Evidence trumps votes.

=
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Gavin via bitco= in-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org><= /span> wrote:

> On Jan 23, 2016, at 3:59 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-de= v@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> I would extend this to say that the technical explanation also should<= br> > contribute uniquely to the conversation; a +1 with an explanation
> the last +1 gave isn't useful.

Yes, comments should contribute to the discussion, with either techn= ical discussion or additional relevant data. I think a +1 like the followin= g should be encouraged:

"+1: we had eleven customer support tickets in just the last week that= would have been prevented if XYZ.

Jane Doe, CTO CoinBitChainBasely.com"

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev



--
I= like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do you need a te= chie?=C2=A0
I own Litmocracy and Meme Racing (in alpha).
I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist which now = accepts Bitcoin.
I also code for The Dollar Vigilante.
"He ought to find it m= ore profitable to play by the rules" - Satoshi Nakamoto

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--001a11415d2678a0f9052b5e9eb2--