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
|
Return-Path: <alicexbt@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 389FDC0070
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 19 Dec 2022 21:58:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0040F8138C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 19 Dec 2022 21:58:27 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 0040F8138C
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org;
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com header.i=@protonmail.com
header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=protonmail3 header.b=OqNYPJdz
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 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,
SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 8UxqoVd8RC5x
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 19 Dec 2022 21:58:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org E6F9E81389
Received: from mail-4318.protonmail.ch (mail-4318.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.18])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6F9E81389
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 19 Dec 2022 21:58:25 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2022 21:58:13 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail3; t=1671487103; x=1671746303;
bh=YEOY0U3ADRy/SN4+LUxCURhm3mgX0OA+wMt+/OVCui8=;
h=Date:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:
Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID:Message-ID:BIMI-Selector;
b=OqNYPJdzJ1+GeykmIobkRuM6dXI09lbtrywYGDn5vuSpN1GC9cc1aXq1v2DWRvBCM
5XXzVYKZhlVyhNTC43nZTQ3Bu/tyZtEOrURJHO6X5/nzNw7qcyITF+tLYI/XwFMDEg
TefS6zRi4rQnAgU7Boszqa4Qw29EUkV+pwcL+35rdhJuAD+mhXZrRaHP0GjVw9dXi2
AJVSNQ8vXJdZXo5kjOKWzFC32ppvdTUIp9sF9Fjh+yfCjBBoyJEXpVrTHBE5wsI4VO
/zU+5NQPH9iPdUeK6Fc7VH7frTYRPC/anUm47Y6yvikd0PrnrXz+tQbH+er/xBpEVm
4uEEuHQlHletw==
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <XB9BYeJEzU3l3LRXVwzGf8jSZYC2Uo5IXPCuhtne3V8xXVlkQ7VY0vc11lldZRm52fmniEYWN9AntPbJdJZ8fEeIVVMHUfWsbbvEr8OKwzc=@protonmail.com>
Feedback-ID: 40602938: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 00:16:54 +0000
Subject: [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: Mon, 19 Dec 2022 21:58:27 -0000
Hi Bitcoin Developers,
List of present bitcoin core maintainers:
| Username | Focus Area |
| ------------- | ------------- |
| MarcoFalke | General, QA |=20
| fanquake | General, Build |
| hebasto | General, UI/UX |
| achow101 | General, Wallet |
| glozow | General, Mempool|
Last 2 developers that stepped down as bitcoin core maintainer:
| Username |=20
| ------------- |=20
| sipa |=20
| laanwj |=20
Process followed in adding last maintainer:
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 agree=
d to add her as new maintainer except mild NACK from Jeremy Rubin. Some con=
tributors did not like different opinions being shared in the meeting.
3) A [pull request][2] was opened by glowzow to add keys. There were severa=
l ACKs, 2 NACKs and 1 meta concept NACK.
My NACK: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25524#issuecomment-1172=
518409
NACK by jamesob: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25524#issuecomm=
ent-1172570635
Meta concept NACK by luke-jr: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25=
524#issuecomment-1175625779
Eventually everyone agreed to add glowzow as maintainer and improve the =
process of adding maintainers. Pull request was merged by MarcoFalke.
Initiatives to improve the process and documentation:
1) Jeremy opened a [pull request][3] and there were lot of disagreements wi=
th the documentation. It was closed since a related PR with less changes co=
uld be easy to agree upon.=20
2) Related [pull request][4] with minimal documentation was also closed by =
Jeremy with a comment that desire to improve docs seems to be missing based=
on reviews.
3) Jeremy opened an [issue][5] with title 'Call for Maintainer: P2P & Netwo=
rking + Privacy' which was changed later and 'Privacy' was removed. He nomi=
nated jonatack and vasild was already self nominated so mentioned in the pu=
ll request. Nobody appreciated this effort to nominate self or others for a=
new maintainer. Later this was closed.
4) I had opened an [issue][6] with title Call for Maintainer: Privacy'. Thi=
s even involved privacy of contributors and not just bitcoin core. It recei=
ved some comments that made no sense and I eventually closed the issue.=20
Process being followed for adding vasild as maintainer:
1) vasild volunteered to be a new maintainer on [IRC][7]
2) It was discussed in IRC [meeting][8], some developers ACKed it and there=
were no issues.
3) A [pull request][9] was opened by vasild to add keys which is still open=
and its been 4 months. There were already some ACKs from the IRC meeting a=
nd pull request also received some ACKs (16 until now). fanquake, dergoegge=
and JeremyRubin had some disagreements. Jeremy had recently withdrawn all =
ACK/NACK from bitcoin core repository for some reasons, fanquake has not re=
plied yet and dergoegge had some new disagreements although don't mind if t=
he pull request is merged.
4) Earlier disagreements were related to scoping and it was changed by vasi=
ld
4) There was even a comment that disrespected vasild's contributions in bit=
coin core and we had to literally share pull requests in which vasild has i=
mproved bitcoin core.
5) I tried adding the topic for a bitcoin core dev weekly meeting but did n=
ot achieve anything.
Since Bitcoin Core is the reference implementation for Bitcoin and used by =
90% nodes, what should be the ideal process or changes you would expect in =
roles, procedures etc.?
- 'Call for maintainers' issue should be opened if contributors or maintain=
ers need a new maintainer.
- Discussion about nominated contributors in an IRC meeting where everyone =
is allowed to share their opinion.
- One of the nominated contributor that gets most ACKs could open pull requ=
est to add keys. Everyone can ACK/NACK this PR with reasons.
- Maintainers should be unbiased in merging these pull requests.
- New maintainer should not be funded by the organization that already does=
it for most of the maintainers.
- Long term contributors that are not living in a first world country shoul=
d be encouraged.
- Either we should agree every maintainer is a general maintainer that can =
merge pull request from different modules or define scope for present and n=
ew maintainers. We can't do both.
- Self merging pull requests should be avoided.
Let me know if you have any thoughts that could improve this process and in=
volve less politics.=20
=20
[0]: https://bitcoin-irc.chaincode.com/bitcoin-core-dev/2022-06-28#826651
[1]: https://bitcoin-irc.chaincode.com/bitcoin-core-dev/2022-06-30#827695
[2]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25524
[3]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25560
[4]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25839
[5]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25870
[6]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25875
[7]: https://bitcoin-irc.chaincode.com/bitcoin-core-dev/2022-08-12#842847;
[8]: https://bitcoin-irc.chaincode.com/bitcoin-core-dev/2022-08-18#844523
[9]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25871
/dev/fd0
'floppy disc guy'
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
|
