To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <CAKzdR-rPoByn=+CgsTc1ZnLkjwtYyJnbQLbn-VHOvz0dLciefQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1489086.kGfJeeyi4a@garp>
	<CAAS2fgSyWaRfXHKWZYzZ4X8ksMECaO47dTXum67XwpTTYnbDXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<2081461.sDX5ARzIdv@garp>
	<CAAS2fgSsJ10P7YYAAsV4P6no3pC=WYozWuN64u=WLSB3h6cHwA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
Message-ID: <561325D4.5030800@thinlink.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:37:24 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgSsJ10P7YYAAsV4P6no3pC=WYozWuN64u=WLSB3h6cHwA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork
 technical debate
Precedence: list

On 10/5/2015 1:56 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> In this case, I don't even believe we have any regulator contributors
> that disagree.

Since Gavin Andresen chose you to be one of 4 people who decides whose
contributions are accepted to the Core project, shouldn't you recuse
yourself from referencing "regular contributor" as some kind of bar to
an opinion being worthy?

You don't want to be accused of squelching a person's opinions by
nacking or sitting on commits, then turning around and branding those
opinions as worthless because they are not from a "regular contributor."
Do you?