Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED6BF959 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 23:16:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-oi0-f53.google.com (mail-oi0-f53.google.com [209.85.218.53]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B9C7163 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 23:16:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by oiew67 with SMTP id w67so12863669oie.2 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 16:16:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=OqP4KvqirdzO94+87BvlEtaA3RdX2bvAKvpb543SEoI=; b=hR6ggUfAPKmJjlKSeZKBfN6dPvoCEdlem8q/ZPRFxu/NIh9VbZ2uJO14yzkVy66g7u 8D18EuI8QzxcWOFPrygIbChGWeBcQ/+qimtL9lnWiMiaqBpRmz0YYm1MUlQv97sG4ROI 4LLhRV+KZ/NL7jTfL6K4LA4p6cJ7xocdfILCp5NFOaYr78yrjBrgTwI1Z8j7L3wvUxA3 n7wCKBXmDs2ZXCf2qwkSahKv2mM+q7IxHNENoEQ1EbkncyEJvzEy7/DPI0BBGdRUMUF0 Bw9GkrOdSrMVyh4266jbxhE5KbK6owDdRAhYQz8fxzf0KQ/MQKRT22+KPLsn++DrsZQL h42A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.218.212 with SMTP id r203mr15968oig.69.1440026187312; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 16:16:27 -0700 (PDT) Sender: dscotese@gmail.com Received: by 10.202.175.1 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 16:16:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 16:16:27 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2Zbbw6cYtcB7O3Z2UzUAgteeMT4 Message-ID: From: Dave Scotese To: "Warren Togami Jr." Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d54d25cb6cd051db239e2 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Separated bitcoin-consensus mailing list (was Re: Bitcoin XT Fork) 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: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 23:16:29 -0000 --001a113d54d25cb6cd051db239e2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I guess every mailing list should have its own internal SNR discussions. My answer is to respond when something is off-topic and offer a different place for the topic. I haven't been doing that, partly because no one else has, but mostly because I figured I don't have a strong handle on what is off-topic and what isn't. Let's all start doing that. Of course, someone can object to the claim, "No, I don't think this is off-topic... blah blah blah," and people can respond. The norms will develop. It just requires some relative humility, courage, and honesty. On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Warren Togami Jr. via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > FYI, a few developers including Wladimir, Greg, Peter Todd, Pieter, and > Alex Morcos have been discussing what to do about improving the signal > noise ratio on bitcoin-dev list. One proposal similar to this discussion > was to split it into multiple mailing lists. It was pointed out that the > less technical Bitcoin discussion list already existed in the past and > nobody used it. Generally the discussion went away from creating yet > another mailing list and toward instituting an on-topic guidelines for > bitcoin-dev. Gavin, Wladimir, and a few of the others agreed to a simple > few paragraphs written by Alex Morcos. IIRC Wladimir agreed to post it. > Has it been posted yet? > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> > bitcoin-dev for protocol discussion and bitcoin-core for Bitcoin Core >> > discussion? >> >> Well -dev or both, I dont particularly see a difference at the moment, >> and establishing two lists isnt really going to make a difference so >> long as Bitcoin Core is the reference client, which it is by defacto. >> The risk of having too many lists is interested stakeholders will miss >> a discussions. Normal protocol and core discussions are usually pretty >> low volume in any case. >> >> > As Jorge notes, a general discussion list has existed for a long time >> with >> > little use. >> >> I would suggest it's only because there havent been any rules for -dev >> that would force general discussion over to the bitcoin list. On IRC >> we regularly tell people in #bitcoin-dev they are OT and ask them to >> move to #bitcoin and as a result, -dev remains quite clear of chit >> chat, #bitcoin has a steady stream of general chatter. >> >> We could reduce the OT/noise of bitcoin-dev list considerably by >> offloading the non-technical/academic debate to the bitcoin list. It >> just needs a bit of shepherding. I am more than happy to help out. >> Especially if the list already exists, we should consider making a >> decision now. >> >> Who are the moderators for that list? Do we really want to use >> sourceforge or are there alternatives, like another list on >> linuxfoundation? >> >> ping @Warren. >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 --001a113d54d25cb6cd051db239e2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I guess every mailing list should have its own intern= al SNR discussions.

My answer is to respond when something is = off-topic and offer a different place for the topic.=C2=A0 I haven't be= en doing that, partly because no one else has, but mostly because I figured= I don't have a strong handle on what is off-topic and what isn't.= =C2=A0 Let's all start doing that.=C2=A0 Of course, someone can object = to the claim, "No, I don't think this is off-topic... blah blah bl= ah," and people can respond.=C2=A0 The norms will develop.=C2=A0 It ju= st requires some relative humility, courage, and honesty.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1= 2:28 PM, Warren Togami Jr. via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-de= v@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
FYI, a few developers including Wladimir, Greg, P= eter Todd, Pieter, and Alex Morcos have been discussing what to do about im= proving the signal noise ratio on bitcoin-dev list.=C2=A0 One proposal simi= lar to this discussion was to split it into multiple mailing lists.=C2=A0 I= t was pointed out that the less technical Bitcoin discussion list already e= xisted in the past and nobody used it.=C2=A0 Generally the discussion went = away from creating yet another mailing list and toward instituting an on-to= pic guidelines for bitcoin-dev.=C2=A0 Gavin, Wladimir, and a few of the oth= ers agreed to a simple few paragraphs written by Alex Morcos.=C2=A0 IIRC Wl= adimir agreed to post it.=C2=A0 Has it been posted yet?

On Wed, Aug 19= , 2015 at 11:47 AM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin= -dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com> = wrote:
> bitcoin-dev for protocol discussion and bitcoin-core for Bitcoin Core<= br> > discussion?

Well -dev or both, I dont particularly see a difference at the momen= t,
and establishing two lists isnt really going to make a difference so
long as Bitcoin Core is the reference client, which it is by defacto.
The risk of having too many lists is interested stakeholders will miss
a discussions. Normal protocol and core discussions are usually pretty
low volume in any case.

> As Jorge notes, a general discussion list has existed for a long time = with
> little use.

I would suggest it's only because there havent been any rules fo= r -dev
that would force general discussion over to the bitcoin list. On IRC
we regularly tell people in #bitcoin-dev they are OT and ask them to
move to #bitcoin and as a result, -dev remains quite clear of chit
chat, #bitcoin has a steady stream of general chatter.

We could reduce the OT/noise of bitcoin-dev list considerably by
offloading the non-technical/academic debate to the bitcoin list. It
just needs a bit of shepherding. I am more than happy to help out.
Especially if the list already exists, we should consider making a
decision now.

Who are the moderators for that list? Do we really want to use
sourceforge or are there alternatives, like another list on
linuxfoundation?

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


_______________________________________________
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 pr= ove my value. Do you need a techie?=C2=A0
I own Litmocracy and Meme Racing (in alpha).
I'm th= e webmaster for T= he 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
--001a113d54d25cb6cd051db239e2--