User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <CAKzdR-rPoByn=+CgsTc1ZnLkjwtYyJnbQLbn-VHOvz0dLciefQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKzdR-rPoByn=+CgsTc1ZnLkjwtYyJnbQLbn-VHOvz0dLciefQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----YDBUJLN64BWVMADQEHCOGQJF0ITCN8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 16:18:12 -0700
To: Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com>,
	Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <82F8B78A-2031-4ADE-B882-DBE68D5AD7AD@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork
	technical	debate
Precedence: list

------YDBUJLN64BWVMADQEHCOGQJF0ITCN8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8

I agree with you, Sergio, up until the part about someone having won a battle. There's a difference between sincere technical objections and someone just being a dick. I think in this case this line has been crossed (and I don't think I'm alone here).

- Eric

On October 5, 2015 8:56:33 AM PDT, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>Some of the people on this mailing list are blindly discussing the
>technicalities of a soft/hard fork without realizing that is not Mike's
>main intention. At least I perceive (and maybe others too) something
>else
>is happening.
>
>Let me try to clarify: the discussion has nothing to do with technical
>arguments. I generally like more hard forks than soft forks (but I
>won't
>explain why because this is not a technical thread), but for CLTV this
>is
>quite irrelevant (but I won't explain why..), and I want CLTV to be
>deployed asap.
>
>Mike's intention is to criticize the informal governance model of
>Bitcoin
>Core development and he has strategically pushed the discussion to a
>dead-end where the group either:
>
>1) ignores him, which is against the established criteria that all
>technical objections coming from anyone must be addressed until that
>person
>agrees, so that a change can be uncontroversial. If the group moves
>forward
>with the change, then the "uncontroversial" criteria is violated and
>then
>credibility is lost. So a new governance model would be required for
>which
>the change is within the established rules.
>
>2) respond to his technical objections one after the other, on never
>ending
>threads, bringing the project to a standstill.
>
>As I don't want 2) to happen, then 1) must happen, which is what Mike
>wants. I have nothing for or against Mike personally. I just think Mike
>Hearn has won this battle. But having a more formal decision making
>process
>may not be too bad for Bitcoin, maybe it can actually be good.
>
>Best regards
> from a non-developer to my dearest developer friends,
>  Sergio.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>bitcoin-dev mailing list
>bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
------YDBUJLN64BWVMADQEHCOGQJF0ITCN8
Content-Type: text/html;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html><head></head><body>I agree with you, Sergio, up until the part about someone having won a battle. There&#39;s a difference between sincere technical objections and someone just being a dick. I think in this case this line has been crossed (and I don&#39;t think I&#39;m alone here).<br>
<br>
- Eric<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On October 5, 2015 8:56:33 AM PDT, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev &lt;bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org&gt; wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr">Some of the people on this mailing list are blindly discussing the technicalities of a soft/hard fork without realizing that is not Mike&#39;s main intention. At least I perceive (and maybe others too) something else is happening.<div><br /><div>Let me try to clarify: the discussion has nothing to do with technical arguments. I generally like more hard forks than soft forks (but I won&#39;t explain why because this is not a technical thread), but for CLTV this is quite irrelevant (but I won&#39;t explain why..), and I want CLTV to be deployed asap.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>Mike&#39;s intention is to criticize the informal governance model of Bitcoin Core development and he has strategically pushed the discussion to a dead-end where the group either:</div><div><br /></div><div>1) ignores him, which is against the established criteria that all technical objections coming from anyone must be addressed until that person agrees, so that a change can be
uncontroversial. If the group moves forward with the change, then the &quot;uncontroversial&quot; criteria is violated and then credibility is lost. So a new governance model would be required for which the change is within the established rules.</div><div><br /></div><div>2) respond to his technical objections one after the other, on never ending threads, bringing the project to a standstill.</div><div><br /></div><div>As I don&#39;t want 2) to happen, then 1) must happen, which is what Mike wants. I have nothing for or against Mike personally. I just think Mike Hearn has won this battle. But having a more formal decision making process may not be too bad for Bitcoin, maybe it can actually be good.</div><div><br /></div><div>Best regards </div><div> from a non-developer to my dearest developer friends,</div><div>  Sergio.<br /><div><br /></div></div></div></div></div>
<p style="margin-top: 2.5em; margin-bottom: 1em; border-bottom: 1px solid #000"></p><pre class="k9mail"><hr /><br />bitcoin-dev mailing list<br />bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<br /><a href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br /></pre></blockquote></div><br>
-- <br>
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.</body></html>
------YDBUJLN64BWVMADQEHCOGQJF0ITCN8--