1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1Z4GYL-00034s-AL
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 14 Jun 2015 22:38:57 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.173 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.173; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f173.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f173.google.com ([209.85.213.173])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z4GYK-0007sx-H9
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 14 Jun 2015 22:38:57 +0000
Received: by igbos3 with SMTP id os3so6544822igb.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 14 Jun 2015 15:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.4.66 with SMTP id i2mr17299625igi.40.1434321531272; Sun,
14 Jun 2015 15:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.147.213 with HTTP; Sun, 14 Jun 2015 15:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAEz79Pp_6FhDjtR6emBcXf_WT14MbDaTxMbeAo=QAfhS-ihFCQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEz79Pp_6FhDjtR6emBcXf_WT14MbDaTxMbeAo=QAfhS-ihFCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 22:38:51 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTZ65G=Qpu0tPQMsGoaRwfi_L67w0GCJGtfwc4xLrOAgA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: "Warren Togami Jr." <wtogami@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Z4GYK-0007sx-H9
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a
Neutral Competent Entity
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 22:38:57 -0000
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Warren Togami Jr. <wtogami@gmail.com> wrote:
> From the perspective of our community, for bitcoin-dev it seems like a great
> fit. Why? While they are interested in supporting general open source
> development, the LF has literally zero stake in this. In addition to
> neutrality, they seem to be suitable as a competent host. They have
I support this proposal.
But for clarity sake, we should recognize that Linux Foundation isn't
a charity chartered to act in the public good, is a trade organization
which acts in the commercial interest of it's membership.
I do not think this presents a problem: LF's membership's interests
are not at odds with ours currently, and aren't likely to become so
(doubly so with sourceforge as the comparison point). We are, after
all, just talking about a development mailing list; in the unlikely
case that there were issues in the future it could be changed, and
they've demonstrated considerable competence at this kind of operation
as well, and I would be grateful to have their support. I mention it
only because the 'foundation' name sometimes carries the charity
confusion, and to be clear that I think the stakes on this matter are
small enough that it doesn't require a careful weighing of interests.
These concerns may matter for other initiatives but as you note, LF
has zero stake beyond the general support of the open source
ecosystem.
I do not believe it would be wise to delete the SF account, at least
while there are many active links to it. As it might well be recreated
to 'mirror' things as a 'service' to those following the old links.
I also agree with Jeff's comments wrt, bitcoin-security.
|
