Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z5i1M-0004rE-9w for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 22:10:52 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of riseup.net designates 198.252.153.129 as permitted sender) client-ip=198.252.153.129; envelope-from=odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net; helo=mx1.riseup.net; Received: from mx1.riseup.net ([198.252.153.129]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z5i1J-0003r8-Va for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 22:10:52 +0000 Received: from berryeater.riseup.net (berryeater-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.120]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.riseup.net", Issuer "COMODO RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FA78422DA; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 22:10:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: odinn.cyberguerrilla) with ESMTPSA id 9A1723F632 Message-ID: <558341E2.4010403@riseup.net> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:10:42 -0700 From: odinn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Hearn References: <55828737.6000007@riseup.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.7 at mx1 X-Virus-Status: Clean Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) 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 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [198.252.153.129 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.3 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines -0.1 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1Z5i1J-0003r8-Va Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 22:10:52 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I maintain that you should apologize to those who traverse this list. What you are saying is digging yourself a deeper hole and is not merely embarrassing but is crossing a threshold in which you have used words, albeit subtly, to attack a community. If you refuse to apologize, I get it. You have not apologized thus far, and pressing for an apology is unlikely to get an (authentic) one. But then, you should voluntarily step back and let others do the hard work of coming to the consensus that you seem to think is impossible to accomplish based on how bitcoin is run. I believe this matter will be resolved, but not with the "help" of those who make threatening statements (and who are unable to apologize for having made them). - -O On 06/18/2015 03:00 AM, Mike Hearn wrote: > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. - --=20 http://abis.io ~ "a protocol concept to enable decentralization and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good" https://keybase.io/odinn -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVg0HiAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CXOwIAKSGRJPtSx+untgMERwE7lW7 9p0gWz4jvKhyO+RrGPXlofckvp4Fp/7Yxa+TDLcXbzGi6OesX9yIyN7e06LJW4DP h7V2PwzS49ZyB/krd03HjvWMFnhoGy7zB7M1okq5myIvx+h1htX9TirNbDl7PU9Z SWyNNw+GXPsIV/xuPu81LP5GrR3gIxwwhhopOq2qcm08AUiuIJ8EA31mT2ZgwMWB RxrnktFRzMbW2fD7Z7njTz1gjw1duPyGApJ+xpqtcjjS2idPNuw1nESZTCE3+TwG Dk1AKmYt8TvZzFWyo/0ly7vYFFW27Yh7SC3oeDJBoWkvySuIFrevux7ekfKxPOc=3D =3Dwc2m -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----