Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SoJQB-0004KM-5E for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:14:59 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.212.169 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.169; envelope-from=etotheipi@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f169.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com ([209.85.212.169]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1SoJQA-0000JX-4l for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:14:59 +0000 Received: by wibhm2 with SMTP id hm2so2768758wib.4 for ; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 12:14:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.105.135 with SMTP id gm7mr31862773wib.10.1341861291873; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 12:14:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.8.39 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 12:14:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1341860082.19764.140661099832829.0B000C71@webmail.messagingengine.com> Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 15:14:51 -0400 Message-ID: From: Alan Reiner To: Gregory Maxwell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04182578a3d47504c46a6d8a X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (etotheipi[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1SoJQA-0000JX-4l Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net, Jim Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Random order for clients page X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:14:59 -0000 --f46d04182578a3d47504c46a6d8a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I was originaly for the idea of randomization. Because it is the most "fair", but "fair" is a relative term. It's fair for client developers who argue over whose client should be first, and whose is better for various purposes. But it's not fair for users, to have an inconsistent page, that sometimes recommends less-developed solutions, or doesn't show what's best *for the users in the community*. I think the premise of having a page that is "fair for developers" is its downfall. Once we agree things have to be fair, we must agree on what fair means, and then we must accept 30 new recently-started projects that barely squeak by the requirements for being on the page, despite having substantial issues/bugs. The premise of being fair is the downfall here. This *has* to be a subjective list. Someone who is trusted to understand what is good for users, and who also has familiarity with the programs, should be the one to decide. People can try to provide input, and make them aware of stuff they didn't know. But it should be *that person's*decision, and if it's not "fair" in your world, too bad. At least we won't spend the next 3 years arguing on the mailing list about how to compare programs that are all great in many different dimensions, and failing in the others. If it's going to go on the main page, give someone the responsibility to come up with "what's best for the users of Bitcoin.org", however they decide to interpret it, and save our breath arguing over more important things. -Alan On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Jim wrote: > > RE: The position randomisation - I have to admit I was secretly pleased > > with the original layout, as MultiBit just happened to have the "eye > > candy" position of "top and centre". It is only fair to have them > > switch around. > > This ordering wasn't accidental. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > --f46d04182578a3d47504c46a6d8a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I was originaly for the idea of randomization. =A0Because it is the most &q= uot;fair", but "fair" is a relative term. =A0It's fair f= or client developers who argue over whose client should be first, and whose= is better for various purposes. =A0 But it's not fair for users, to ha= ve an inconsistent page, that sometimes recommends less-developed solutions= , or doesn't show what's best for the users in the community= .=A0

I think the premise of having a page that is "fair for = developers" is its downfall. =A0Once we agree things have to be fair, = we must agree on what fair means, and then we must accept 30 new recently-s= tarted projects that barely squeak by the requirements for being on the pag= e, despite having substantial issues/bugs. =A0The premise of being fair is = the downfall here. =A0=A0

This has=A0to be a subjective list. =A0 Someone = who is trusted to understand what is good for users, and who also has famil= iarity with the programs, should be the one to decide. =A0People can try to= provide input, and make them aware of stuff they didn't know. =A0But i= t should be that person's decision, and if it's not "fa= ir" in your world, too bad. =A0At least we won't spend the next 3 = years arguing on the mailing list about how to compare programs that are al= l great in many different dimensions, and failing in the others.

If it's going to go on the main page, give someone = the responsibility to come up with "what's best for the users of B= itcoin.org", however they decide to interpret it, and save our breath = arguing over more important things.=A0

-Alan



On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gma= xwell@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 2:5= 4 PM, Jim <jim618@fastmail.co.u= k> wrote:
> RE: The position randomisation - I have to admit I was secretly please= d
> with the original layout, as MultiBit just happened to have the "= eye
> candy" position of "top and centre". =A0It is only fair= to have them
> switch around.

This ordering wasn't accidental.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122= 263/
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment

--f46d04182578a3d47504c46a6d8a--