summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/3f/0f2e46325b02ab7111da24d6d21f372f38a14c
blob: df3e6ea272bfb301833d06b8d1fdc6f31a32a87b (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
Return-Path: <michaelfolkson@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC6BC002D
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 20 Dec 2022 18:44:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5929340138
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 20 Dec 2022 18:44:17 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 5929340138
Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org;
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com header.i=@protonmail.com
 header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=protonmail3 header.b=ZGRS3yTW
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.102
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.102 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id R8fuO8oOV7ih
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 20 Dec 2022 18:44:13 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 7C78040126
Received: from mail-4322.protonmail.ch (mail-4322.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.22])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C78040126
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 20 Dec 2022 18:44:13 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2022 18:44:05 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
 s=protonmail3; t=1671561851; x=1671821051;
 bh=qcaOD+Pt96/pEf5Er0dITBr3tgwWZRljxbhgER+HVEM=;
 h=Date:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:
 Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID:
 Message-ID:BIMI-Selector;
 b=ZGRS3yTWzf8Q5cRPFXnqffFo3Q//l/XSSpI30B87nwYsP4A7KYlhwRk1SLuUQOV9T
 LwykAZRdT+AX+dn+HaZn0YofIJ7qnRpXsezIoxyPmH48gf19y5j02GKqpvEKbKteSH
 oKmyphRGGQ5zwjetoXP9ocgzqbuPxV2cLLi4SjbSoGF9gWoWrI8FW+tmrWDpX3U52w
 qcjJ3M7pJA9oarFmU2roEQg4ekrWKmd5sLOaU/lYMU7XgaWlVwBSdgG9DwT5u7SddC
 sKlmPo29X7LMNQFVRkz2XZF04Jr77PWL8+AemBgdLd/F5JLy1e/EHqbtjvvsT9IHAV
 Fngnx4yyhBS5Q==
To: alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <2r9jSI5Ruf_j2Rm4R4a0g33YYhdLq1AQzrWCRLyna1BffMhCqXVBrH7Rll9noJeISH4uRM2ElF06x9FIXZoJh1ylxR-D9GX4s_fWFcqScHI=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <XB9BYeJEzU3l3LRXVwzGf8jSZYC2Uo5IXPCuhtne3V8xXVlkQ7VY0vc11lldZRm52fmniEYWN9AntPbJdJZ8fEeIVVMHUfWsbbvEr8OKwzc=@protonmail.com>
References: <XB9BYeJEzU3l3LRXVwzGf8jSZYC2Uo5IXPCuhtne3V8xXVlkQ7VY0vc11lldZRm52fmniEYWN9AntPbJdJZ8fEeIVVMHUfWsbbvEr8OKwzc=@protonmail.com>
Feedback-ID: 27732268:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 20 Dec 2022 20:00:02 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Roles and procedures around adding a bitcoin core
	maintainer
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2022 18:44:18 -0000

Hi alicexbt

There does seem to be some confusion on this which I'm going to look into. =
I don't think ranting and raving or throwing toys out the pram on the maili=
ng list is the productive way to go though. I'll chat to some people offlin=
e and see what the confusion is and hopefully this can be resolved without =
unnecessary drama. I'll respond in the new year. I don't know if you celebr=
ate but if you do Happy Holidays.

Thanks
Michael

--
Michael Folkson
Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com
Keybase: michaelfolkson
PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3


------- Original Message -------
On Monday, December 19th, 2022 at 23:58, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-=
dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:


> Hi Bitcoin Developers,
>=20
> List of present bitcoin core maintainers:
>=20
> Username
>=20
> Focus Area
>=20
> MarcoFalke
>=20
> General, QA
>=20
> fanquake
>=20
> General, Build
>=20
> hebasto
>=20
> General, UI/UX
>=20
> achow101
>=20
> General, Wallet
>=20
> glozow
>=20
> General, Mempool
>=20
> Last 2 developers that stepped down as bitcoin core maintainer:
>=20
> Username
>=20
> -------------
>=20
> sipa
>=20
> laanwj
>=20
> Process followed in adding last maintainer:
>=20
> 1) fanquake [nominated][0] glowzow as rbf/mempool/validation maintainer.
>=20
> 2) It was discussed in an IRC [meeting][1] and most of the developers agr=
eed to add her as new maintainer except mild NACK from Jeremy Rubin. Some c=
ontributors did not like different opinions being shared in the meeting.
>=20
> 3) A [pull request][2] was opened by glowzow to add keys. There were seve=
ral ACKs, 2 NACKs and 1 meta concept NACK.
>=20
> My NACK: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25524#issuecomment-11725=
18409
>=20
> NACK by jamesob: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25524#issuecomme=
nt-1172570635
>=20
> Meta concept NACK by luke-jr: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/255=
24#issuecomment-1175625779
>=20
> Eventually everyone agreed to add glowzow as maintainer and improve the p=
rocess of adding maintainers. Pull request was merged by MarcoFalke.
>=20
> Initiatives to improve the process and documentation:
>=20
> 1) Jeremy opened a [pull request][3] and there were lot of disagreements =
with the documentation. It was closed since a related PR with less changes =
could be easy to agree upon.
>=20
> 2) Related [pull request][4] with minimal documentation was also closed b=
y Jeremy with a comment that desire to improve docs seems to be missing bas=
ed on reviews.
>=20
> 3) Jeremy opened an [issue][5] with title 'Call for Maintainer: P2P & Net=
working + Privacy' which was changed later and 'Privacy' was removed. He no=
minated jonatack and vasild was already self nominated so mentioned in the =
pull request. Nobody appreciated this effort to nominate self or others for=
 a new maintainer. Later this was closed.
>=20
> 4) I had opened an [issue][6] with title Call for Maintainer: Privacy'. T=
his even involved privacy of contributors and not just bitcoin core. It rec=
eived some comments that made no sense and I eventually closed the issue.
>=20
> Process being followed for adding vasild as maintainer:
>=20
> 1) vasild volunteered to be a new maintainer on [IRC][7]
>=20
> 2) It was discussed in IRC [meeting][8], some developers ACKed it and the=
re were no issues.
>=20
> 3) A [pull request][9] was opened by vasild to add keys which is still op=
en and its been 4 months. There were already some ACKs from the IRC meeting=
 and pull request also received some ACKs (16 until now). fanquake, dergoeg=
ge and JeremyRubin had some disagreements. Jeremy had recently withdrawn al=
l ACK/NACK from bitcoin core repository for some reasons, fanquake has not =
replied yet and dergoegge had some new disagreements although don't mind if=
 the pull request is merged.
>=20
> 4) Earlier disagreements were related to scoping and it was changed by va=
sild
>=20
> 4) There was even a comment that disrespected vasild's contributions in b=
itcoin core and we had to literally share pull requests in which vasild has=
 improved bitcoin core.
>=20
> 5) I tried adding the topic for a bitcoin core dev weekly meeting but did=
 not achieve anything.
>=20
> Since Bitcoin Core is the reference implementation for Bitcoin and used b=
y 90% nodes, what should be the ideal process or changes you would expect i=
n roles, procedures etc.?
>=20
> - 'Call for maintainers' issue should be opened if contributors or mainta=
iners need a new maintainer.
>=20
> - Discussion about nominated contributors in an IRC meeting where everyon=
e is allowed to share their opinion.
>=20
> - One of the nominated contributor that gets most ACKs could open pull re=
quest to add keys. Everyone can ACK/NACK this PR with reasons.
>=20
> - Maintainers should be unbiased in merging these pull requests.
>=20
> - New maintainer should not be funded by the organization that already do=
es it for most of the maintainers.
>=20
> - Long term contributors that are not living in a first world country sho=
uld be encouraged.
>=20
> - Either we should agree every maintainer is a general maintainer that ca=
n merge pull request from different modules or define scope for present and=
 new maintainers. We can't do both.
>=20
> - Self merging pull requests should be avoided.
>=20
> Let me know if you have any thoughts that could improve this process and =
involve less politics.
>=20
> [0]: https://bitcoin-irc.chaincode.com/bitcoin-core-dev/2022-06-28#826651
>=20
> [1]: https://bitcoin-irc.chaincode.com/bitcoin-core-dev/2022-06-30#827695
>=20
> [2]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25524
>=20
> [3]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25560
>=20
> [4]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25839
>=20
> [5]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25870
>=20
> [6]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25875
>=20
> [7]: https://bitcoin-irc.chaincode.com/bitcoin-core-dev/2022-08-12#842847=
;
>=20
> [8]: https://bitcoin-irc.chaincode.com/bitcoin-core-dev/2022-08-18#844523
>=20
> [9]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25871
>=20
> /dev/fd0
>=20
> 'floppy disc guy'
>=20
> Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
>=20
> _______________________________________________
>=20
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>=20
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>=20
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev