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
|
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 <etotheipi@gmail.com>) 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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
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: <CAAS2fgT_i59LROJr6KWXJ_LQZp7OLowzd05vCoDASsjgzt_SkQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1341860082.19764.140661099832829.0B000C71@webmail.messagingengine.com>
<CAAS2fgT_i59LROJr6KWXJ_LQZp7OLowzd05vCoDASsjgzt_SkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 15:14:51 -0400
Message-ID: <CALf2ePyzxF6D8yiOm7Lk1X4u4WO3XRHtKXBwaELA0zx8i7u0mg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
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 <jim618@fastmail.co.uk>
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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=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 <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Jim <jim618@fastmail.co.uk> 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 <i>for the users in the community</i>=
.=A0<div>
<br></div><div>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</div>
<div><br></div><div>This <i>has</i>=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 <i>that person's</i> 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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>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</div>
<div><br></div><div>-Alan</div><div><div><div><br></div><div><br><br><div c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Gregory Maxwell <span =
dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:gmaxwell@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gma=
xwell@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"im">On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 2:5=
4 PM, Jim <<a href=3D"mailto:jim618@fastmail.co.uk">jim618@fastmail.co.u=
k</a>> wrote:<br>
> RE: The position randomisation - I have to admit I was secretly please=
d<br>
> with the original layout, as MultiBit just happened to have the "=
eye<br>
> candy" position of "top and centre". =A0It is only fair=
to have them<br>
> switch around.<br>
<br>
</div>This ordering wasn't accidental.<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---<br>
Live Security Virtual Conference<br>
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and<br>
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions<b=
r>
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware<b=
r>
threats. <a href=3D"http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/5012226=
3/" target=3D"_blank">http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122=
263/</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
--f46d04182578a3d47504c46a6d8a--
|
