Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2023 05:11:00 +0000
To: Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson@protonmail.com>
From: alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <iBvDFVaV3N_Dck5M9_Ngust8O9YXcY3C3gMbvqKH5895WhyeYu-14_bJPt3cbeLoTNJtfdu9TwPqDqna8zPlAKydjJljuMpic4Gt5rBJ5xg=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2r9jSI5Ruf_j2Rm4R4a0g33YYhdLq1AQzrWCRLyna1BffMhCqXVBrH7Rll9noJeISH4uRM2ElF06x9FIXZoJh1ylxR-D9GX4s_fWFcqScHI=@protonmail.com>
References: <XB9BYeJEzU3l3LRXVwzGf8jSZYC2Uo5IXPCuhtne3V8xXVlkQ7VY0vc11lldZRm52fmniEYWN9AntPbJdJZ8fEeIVVMHUfWsbbvEr8OKwzc=@protonmail.com>
 <2r9jSI5Ruf_j2Rm4R4a0g33YYhdLq1AQzrWCRLyna1BffMhCqXVBrH7Rll9noJeISH4uRM2ElF06x9FIXZoJh1ylxR-D9GX4s_fWFcqScHI=@protonmail.com>
Feedback-ID: 40602938:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Roles and procedures around adding a bitcoin core
	maintainer
Precedence: list

Hi Michael,

> I don't think ranting and raving or throwing toys out the pram on the mai=
ling list is the productive way to go though.

It was the best possible way I found to summarize everything, look for opin=
ions to improve the process, feedback about PR #25871 open since 140 days a=
nd includes no raving.

> I'll chat to some people offline and see what the confusion is and hopefu=
lly this can be resolved without unnecessary drama.=20

I like all my Bitcoin and Bitcoin Core communication to be public for trans=
parency and documentation purposes. Except reporting vulnerabilities althou=
gh some bitcoin core developers even post vulns in public as GitHub issue w=
hen it involves other implementations.


/dev/fd0
floppy disc guy

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.


------- Original Message -------
On Wednesday, December 21st, 2022 at 12:14 AM, Michael Folkson michaelfolks=
on@protonmail.com wrote:


> Hi alicexbt
>=20
> There does seem to be some confusion on this which I'm going to look into=
. I don't think ranting and raving or throwing toys out the pram on the mai=
ling list is the productive way to go though. I'll chat to some people offl=
ine and see what the confusion is and hopefully this can be resolved withou=
t unnecessary drama. I'll respond in the new year. I don't know if you cele=
brate but if you do Happy Holidays.
>=20
> Thanks
> Michael
>=20
> --
> Michael Folkson
> Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com
> Keybase: michaelfolkson
> PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3
>=20
> ------- Original Message -------
> On Monday, December 19th, 2022 at 23:58, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev bitcoin=
-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>=20
> > Hi Bitcoin Developers,
> >=20
> > List of present bitcoin core maintainers:
> >=20
> > Username
> >=20
> > Focus Area
> >=20
> > MarcoFalke
> >=20
> > General, QA
> >=20
> > fanquake
> >=20
> > General, Build
> >=20
> > hebasto
> >=20
> > General, UI/UX
> >=20
> > achow101
> >=20
> > General, Wallet
> >=20
> > glozow
> >=20
> > General, Mempool
> >=20
> > Last 2 developers that stepped down as bitcoin core maintainer:
> >=20
> > Username
> >=20
> > -------------
> >=20
> > sipa
> >=20
> > laanwj
> >=20
> > Process followed in adding last maintainer:
> >=20
> > 1) fanquake nominated glowzow as rbf/mempool/validation maintainer.
> >=20
> > 2) It was discussed in an IRC meeting and most of the developers agreed=
 to add her as new maintainer except mild NACK from Jeremy Rubin. Some cont=
ributors did not like different opinions being shared in the meeting.
> >=20
> > 3) A pull request was opened by glowzow to add keys. There were several=
 ACKs, 2 NACKs and 1 meta concept NACK.
> >=20
> > My NACK: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25524#issuecomment-117=
2518409
> >=20
> > NACK by jamesob: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25524#issuecom=
ment-1172570635
> >=20
> > Meta concept NACK by luke-jr: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2=
5524#issuecomment-1175625779
> >=20
> > Eventually everyone agreed to add glowzow as maintainer and improve the=
 process of adding maintainers. Pull request was merged by MarcoFalke.
> >=20
> > Initiatives to improve the process and documentation:
> >=20
> > 1) Jeremy opened a pull request and there were lot of disagreements wit=
h the documentation. It was closed since a related PR with less changes cou=
ld be easy to agree upon.
> >=20
> > 2) Related pull request with minimal documentation was also closed by J=
eremy with a comment that desire to improve docs seems to be missing based =
on reviews.
> >=20
> > 3) Jeremy opened an issue with title 'Call for Maintainer: P2P & Networ=
king + Privacy' which was changed later and 'Privacy' was removed. He nomin=
ated jonatack and vasild was already self nominated so mentioned in the pul=
l request. Nobody appreciated this effort to nominate self or others for a =
new maintainer. Later this was closed.
> >=20
> > 4) I had opened an issue with title Call for Maintainer: Privacy'. This=
 even involved privacy of contributors and not just bitcoin core. It receiv=
ed some comments that made no sense and I eventually closed the issue.
> >=20
> > Process being followed for adding vasild as maintainer:
> >=20
> > 1) vasild volunteered to be a new maintainer on IRC
> >=20
> > 2) It was discussed in IRC meeting, some developers ACKed it and there =
were no issues.
> >=20
> > 3) A pull request was opened by vasild to add keys which is still open =
and its been 4 months. There were already some ACKs from the IRC meeting an=
d pull request also received some ACKs (16 until now). fanquake, dergoegge =
and JeremyRubin had some disagreements. Jeremy had recently withdrawn all A=
CK/NACK from bitcoin core repository for some reasons, fanquake has not rep=
lied yet and dergoegge had some new disagreements although don't mind if th=
e pull request is merged.
> >=20
> > 4) Earlier disagreements were related to scoping and it was changed by =
vasild
> >=20
> > 4) There was even a comment that disrespected vasild's contributions in=
 bitcoin core and we had to literally share pull requests in which vasild h=
as improved bitcoin core.
> >=20
> > 5) I tried adding the topic for a bitcoin core dev weekly meeting but d=
id not achieve anything.
> >=20
> > Since Bitcoin Core is the reference implementation for Bitcoin and used=
 by 90% nodes, what should be the ideal process or changes you would expect=
 in roles, procedures etc.?
> >=20
> > - 'Call for maintainers' issue should be opened if contributors or main=
tainers need a new maintainer.
> >=20
> > - Discussion about nominated contributors in an IRC meeting where every=
one is allowed to share their opinion.
> >=20
> > - One of the nominated contributor that gets most ACKs could open pull =
request to add keys. Everyone can ACK/NACK this PR with reasons.
> >=20
> > - Maintainers should be unbiased in merging these pull requests.
> >=20
> > - New maintainer should not be funded by the organization that already =
does it for most of the maintainers.
> >=20
> > - Long term contributors that are not living in a first world country s=
hould be encouraged.
> >=20
> > - Either we should agree every maintainer is a general maintainer that =
can merge pull request from different modules or define scope for present a=
nd new maintainers. We can't do both.
> >=20
> > - Self merging pull requests should be avoided.
> >=20
> > Let me know if you have any thoughts that could improve this process an=
d involve less politics.
> >=20
> > /dev/fd0
> >=20
> > 'floppy disc guy'
> >=20
> > Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
> >=20
> > _______________________________________________
> >=20
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> >=20
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> >=20
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev