path: root/7a/90c46ba15eb2baa0d8fa6d5a4c223ac0dee332

Return-Path: <alicexbt@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50AF5C0029
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat,  3 Jun 2023 17:21:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 229E041BA8
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat,  3 Jun 2023 17:21:36 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 229E041BA8
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org;
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com header.i=@protonmail.com
 header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=protonmail3 header.b=lHfX0PO+
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 smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id y-Fy3auW6_gc
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat,  3 Jun 2023 17:21:34 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 4D5F441B9E
Received: from mail-4325.protonmail.ch (mail-4325.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.25])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D5F441B9E
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat,  3 Jun 2023 17:21:34 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2023 17:21:27 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
 s=protonmail3; t=1685812892; x=1686072092;
 bh=9X7gmaz4NcRhOu+N1jdUaAhESL82P8Btwg1qWK6gj8Q=;
 h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:
 Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID:
 Message-ID:BIMI-Selector;
 b=lHfX0PO+Ww1Dsq9RwklUpm4NgaUppHZ/vstHaJ9TuhWJ1muzh8L0AxIcEC4RlbVSy
 OjFDscex2jOTt00knQ6/Rh9EQZt61ZnJDuCoU8p5FtB729usw31D0qNi+N1Hppb/e0
 5C1Sj/dXm8VOXpcjuDd4AZqiZfWZGGsUIgx2v24VI+2t8SXGXvbV0h+UETCZoMC9b3
 XaA2tMBPozjpMtsWGo6gOmOBRtWUn92JQHu4vClqVp2xigQZOXYt9kpUmK3/nH46W/
 YEu6X4/n+hbNNv/0nSoYTNhifDHW44eekh5VRoW4oI7t4sUtzDqOeePFGRky71eelG
 GaA60JO7cCrjw==
To: Dr Maxim Orlovsky <orlovsky@protonmail.com>
From: alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <GTdzPjEl3CPwtXTNPfqssJ5_xBr_Rd0AlI_1V4u7etEmG83LlMz7mR-RNlXSRureAp9_uz2JbQA06Y8grZi1mEC6dAt3w9uv8_tRrA4GQNE=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <eXXv90Zp7BkXLnld8dDksxrZ7tA0rHngfZ2NLwQ3hrt5tBWGmodmDaT7_JzbcyMukDSVSNtbNoV0wxrkFZt29bXW5WyAT6iyL4lFcvlRDI4=@protonmail.com>
References: <eXXv90Zp7BkXLnld8dDksxrZ7tA0rHngfZ2NLwQ3hrt5tBWGmodmDaT7_JzbcyMukDSVSNtbNoV0wxrkFZt29bXW5WyAT6iyL4lFcvlRDI4=@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: Sat, 03 Jun 2023 18:55:43 +0000
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin mail list needs an explicit moderation
	policy
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: Sat, 03 Jun 2023 17:21:36 -0000

Hi Maxim,

> In this regard, I=E2=80=99d like to propose the following:
>=20
> 1.  The bitcoin-dev mail list must have a clear moderation (or pre-public=
ation peer-review policy). It can be proposed and discussed in this mail li=
st and, upon agreement, must become public and obligatory.
> 2.  Bryan Bishop, who was acting for a long time as moderator, must be ap=
preciated for many years of unpaid work, and replaced with the new moderato=
r who should be selected from a list of potential candidates (again in this=
 mail list) using the criteria =E2=80=9Cleast votes against=E2=80=9D.
> 3.  The role of the moderator(s) must be purely executive of the policies=
, without any personal preferences.
> 4.  A dedicated mail list should be created (=E2=80=9Cbitcoin-dev-unmoder=
ated=E2=80=9D) which will publish all submissions without moderation. It ma=
y contain spam and only people interested in the auditing bitcoin-dev main =
mal list non-censorship will be reading it. However, if they will notice th=
at some non-spam e-mails were censored, they can announce that publicly. In=
 this case, the failing moderator(s) should be removed and replaced.
> 5.  The incentive to work as a moderator should be reputation-based.

- I doubt moderation policy would change anything as it could be interprete=
d differently by everyone and misused. We have seen this in [BIPs repositor=
y][0] recently.

- We should change moderators regularly since everyone has their bias and m=
ailing list is important part of discussions related to bitcoin development=
.

- Unmoderated mailing list front end could be created using all the emails =
from archives and moderated section. Moderated emails have attachments that=
 would need some [EML parser][1].

I don't even know who are the present moderators or people with access to m=
oderation queue. There should be some transparency about it.

[0]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1408
[1]: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020=
213.html

/dev/fd0
floppy disk guy

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

------- Original Message -------
On Saturday, June 3rd, 2023 at 5:13 AM, Dr Maxim Orlovsky via bitcoin-dev <=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:


> Dear community,
>=20
>=20
> I am writing this list to bitcoin-dev mail list, but to prevent potential=
 censorship I am sending CC to lightning-dev mail list, in order to leave t=
he current moderator(s) without an option not to publish the letter and not=
 to=C2=A0leave the topic =E2=80=9Cunder the cover=E2=80=9D (sorry Lightning=
 friends for spamming your list with this off-topic).
>=20
>=20
>=20
> A day before yesterday I sent a post to bitcoin-dev referencing the publi=
cation of the new Bitcoin scalability and privacy protocol, which had alrea=
dy received a broad reaction across the bitcoin community with literally no=
 critical/negative responses after ~25k of reads [1]. I am not the first-ti=
me writer to the mail list and had developed things like RGB smart contract=
s [2], rust lightning implementation named LNP [3], multiple bitcoin librar=
ies and software [4], [5], during three years was a main contributor to rus=
t-bitcoin [6] etc, etc. The post was clearly not spam and received support =
from known community members like Giacomo Zucco [7]. Bryan Bishop knows me =
since 2019 when I was presenting Storm protocol on the stage on Scaling Bit=
coin in Tel Aviv - and he was writing a transcript of it [8]. Thus, I am no=
t a random unknown guy or a known spammer - and the post can be easily chec=
ked for not containing any scam promotion.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Nevertheless, I next day I see other e-mails getting released to bitcoin-=
dev, while mine - was not. It is not a problem, but since we already had an=
 incident in the past where Bryan reported the failure of his software, me =
and my colleagues from LNP/BP Standards Association started asking question=
s about whether this post ever got to Bryan.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> What happened next was very unexpected. I am giving the core of the conve=
rsation over Twitter after in Annex A - with the purpose to showcase the pr=
oblem I=E2=80=99d like to address in this e-mail. From the discussion, it i=
s clear that bitcoin-dev mail list lacks clear explicit moderation (or peer=
-review) policies, which must be applied on a non-selective basis. Also, Br=
yan Bishop, as the current moderator, had abused his powers in achieving hi=
s agenda based on personal likes or dislikes. The conversation went nowhere=
, and the post got published only after a requirement from Peter Todd [9].
>=20
>=20
>=20
> In this regard, I=E2=80=99d like to propose the following:
>=20
> 1.  The bitcoin-dev mail list must have a clear moderation (or pre-public=
ation peer-review policy). It can be proposed and discussed in this mail li=
st and, upon agreement, must become public and obligatory.
> 2.  Bryan Bishop, who was acting for a long time as moderator, must be ap=
preciated for many years of unpaid work, and replaced with the new moderato=
r who should be selected from a list of potential candidates (again in this=
 mail list) using the criteria =E2=80=9Cleast votes against=E2=80=9D.
> 3.  The role of the moderator(s) must be purely executive of the policies=
, without any personal preferences.
> 4.  A dedicated mail list should be created (=E2=80=9Cbitcoin-dev-unmoder=
ated=E2=80=9D) which will publish all submissions without moderation. It ma=
y contain spam and only people interested in the auditing bitcoin-dev main =
mal list non-censorship will be reading it. However, if they will notice th=
at some non-spam e-mails were censored, they can announce that publicly. In=
 this case, the failing moderator(s) should be removed and replaced.
> 5.  The incentive to work as a moderator should be reputation-based.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> With that, I rest my case.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Kind regards,
>=20
> Maxim Orlovsky
>=20
>=20
>=20
> [1]:=C2=A0https://twitter.com/lnp_bp/status/1664329393131364353?s=3D61&t=
=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg
>=20
> [2]:=C2=A0https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-Ap=
ril/021554.html
>=20
> [3]:=C2=A0https://github.com/LNP-WG
>=20
> [4]:=C2=A0https://github.com/BP-WG
>=20
> [5]:=C2=A0https://github.com/mycitadel
>=20
> [6]:=C2=A0https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/graphs/contributor=
s?from=3D2018-12-31&to=3D2022-04-12&type=3Dc
>=20
> [7]:=C2=A0https://twitter.com/giacomozucco/status/1664515543154544645?s=
=3D61&t=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg=C2=A0and=C2=A0https://twitter.com/giacomoz=
ucco/status/1664731504923095041?s=3D61&t=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg
>=20
> [8]:=C2=A0https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/telaviv2019/wip-storm-lay=
er-2-3-storage-and-messaging
>=20
> [9]:=C2=A0https://twitter.com/peterktodd/status/1664742651835367424?s=3D6=
1&t=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Annex A:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -   @kanzure just like to check that our submission to bitcoin-dev hasn=
=E2=80=99t got to spam <https://twitter.com/lnp_bp/status/16646493283490693=
20?s=3D61&t=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>
> -   A few mods are reviewing it <https://twitter.com/kanzure/status/16646=
80893548572677?s=3D61&t=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>
> -   Oh, so a peer review is required to get to bitcoin-dev mail list? Nev=
er read about that requirement anywhere <https://twitter.com/lnp_bp/status/=
1664695061462777858?s=3D61&t=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>. Seems like bitcoin-=
dev mail list requirements are now specific to the author :) <https://twitt=
er.com/dr_orlovsky/status/1664695668475142144?s=3D61&t=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HP=
lQyg>
> -   Not the greatest email to pull this over. I'll double check but prett=
y sure the antagonization is boring me. <https://twitter.com/kanzure/status=
/1664705038315409420?s=3D61&t=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>
> -   Not sure I understand what you are saying. Can you please clarify? <h=
ttps://twitter.com/dr_orlovsky/status/1664705280393859103?s=3D61&t=3D9A8uvg=
gqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>
> -   You are boring me and these antics don't make me want to go click app=
rove on your email. <https://twitter.com/kanzure/status/1664705509147004946=
?s=3D61&t=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>
> -   Are you the person to approve emails for it? <https://twitter.com/phy=
rooo/status/1664732932068589568?s=3D61&t=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>
> -   Yes <https://twitter.com/kanzure/status/1664733107096899585?s=3D61&t=
=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>
> -   It appears that people boring @kanzure is going through a dedicated r=
eview procedure on bitcoin-dev mail list. Good moderation! Very clear polic=
y! <https://twitter.com/dr_orlovsky/status/1664706165790461959?s=3D61&t=3D9=
A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>
> -   What are you even doing. How does this behavior suppose to get people=
 to help you? <https://twitter.com/kanzure/status/1664706931083329536?s=3D6=
1&t=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>
> -   I am not expecting you to help me - and never asked. I expect you to =
openly declare moderation (or peer review) policy and follow it. <https://t=
witter.com/dr_orlovsky/status/1664719295123685381?s=3D61&t=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3s=
T4HPlQyg> Since =E2=80=9Cif you get me bored I will not click an accept but=
ton=E2=80=9D is not a moderation policy which I expect from bitcoin-dev mai=
l list. Probably not just me. <https://twitter.com/dr_orlovsky/status/16647=
19786633310209?s=3D61&t=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>
> -   Yeah I mean I don't think these tweets are likely to get me to enthus=
iastically resolve your problem... I dunno man. What's even going on here. =
<https://twitter.com/kanzure/status/1664735139065208833?s=3D61&t=3D9A8uvggq=
KVKV3sT4HPlQyg>
> -   Bitcoin mail list clearly lacks explicit moderation policy. The same =
mistake like with rust-bitcoin 1+ yrs ago. I am fine with peer review. Mode=
ration. But only explicit - not just =E2=80=9Cthe way I (dis)like this guy=
=E2=80=9D <https://twitter.com/dr_orlovsky/status/1664736404931321859?s=3D6=
1&t=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>
>=20
>=20
>=20
>