Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitcoins.info
	designates 70.90.2.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=70.90.2.18;
	envelope-from=milly@bitcoins.info; helo=mail.help.org; 
Message-ID: <5582E025.7000704@bitcoins.info>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:13:41 -0400
From: Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64;
	rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
References: <55828737.6000007@riseup.net>
	<CANEZrP3M7+BsZKLFZV-0A_fC7NmMGbTDxsx3ywru3dSW78ZskQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150618111407.GA6690@amethyst.visucore.com>
	<CAPg+sBj_go==m6-++sA53imYdz4OLH4bkyiuAyEM8YR8CaTd=w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP04SUHShoqUkA3aSs3yEP3GSsZ_3ZOGFXyJfNve5KTPfA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150618140544.GA7674@amethyst.visucore.com>
	<5582DB62.8000700@bitcoins.info>
	<CAJHLa0NuUXbf=-4wRKQH3GMzSttLnGiWJA79dGSgN8zywY8mUA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0NuUXbf=-4wRKQH3GMzSttLnGiWJA79dGSgN8zywY8mUA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer
 to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers
Precedence: list

 >Impacts, yes, decider, no.  Multiple ACKs are required from developers 
who will not act if the community will disagree with the change.

 >The users ultimately choose by deciding which software to download, 
and that dictates the range of choices available.

That is what I mean by a cultish reply.  Just saying the users 
ultimately decide is not an adequate explanation of the situation. You 
are talking hard fork if someone doesn't like it.  If 10% of the users 
don't like there is nothing they can do unless they want to operate an 
altcoin.  You are not going to resolve anything by repeating these types 
of replies that really have no applicability in the real world.  The 
person who approves the pull request (no matter what the process is 
beforehand) is effectively the decider.

Also, as pointed out, there is no real process in place.   Making 
offhand statements that "multiple ACKs are required" without describing 
a real process just sends people down a rat hole like this block size 
debate.  Providing these (non) answers instead of developing a real 
process is why there is so much contention now.

Russ