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
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 798081157
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 23 Jan 2016 21:00:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail149075.authsmtp.net (outmail149075.authsmtp.net
[62.13.149.75])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4846130
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 23 Jan 2016 21:00:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c232.authsmtp.com (mail-c232.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.232])
by punt20.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u0NKxv7f085470;
Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:59:57 GMT
Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com
[52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u0NKxsQV086877
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:59:55 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8256E400F7;
Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:56:53 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 15:59:53 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: xor@freenetproject.org
Message-ID: <20160123205953.GA22494@muck>
References: <87si1rycux.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <2998879.R5sQRbxZRv@1337h4x0r>
<87powvy20w.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <1736759.DT0dcscznj@1337h4x0r>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1736759.DT0dcscznj@1337h4x0r>
X-Server-Quench: 41819f5f-c214-11e5-829e-00151795d556
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aAdMdAEUElQaAgsB AmAbWVReVVR7XGY7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq
T0pMXVMcUQUWelRC Z3geWh96cAIIfX55 bQhmX3haVRJ/I1su
QE9QCGwHMGJ9YGIW BV1YdwJRcQRDe0tA b1YxNiYHcQ5VPz4z
GA41ejw8IwAXFCRP TwxFCFUUXUZDFD8g TBcDG3AjEFNNYiI/
IgYvNl8bGg4rP1sz PERJ
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1037:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Three Month bitcoin-dev Moderation Review
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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, 23 Jan 2016 21:00:12 -0000
--IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 06:33:56AM +0100, xor--- via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> So "+1"ing is OK as long as I provide a technical explanation of why I ag=
ree?
> While I still think that this is too much of a restriction because it pre=
vents=20
> peer-review, I would say that I could live with it as a last resort if yo=
u=20
> don't plan to abolish this rule altogether.
>=20
> So in that case, to foster peer review, I would recommend you amend the r=
ules=20
> to clarify this.
> Example: "+1s are not allowed unless you provide an explanation of why yo=
u=20
> agree with something".
I would extend this to say that the technical explanation also should
contribute uniquely to the conversation; a +1 with an explanation
the last +1 gave isn't useful.
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000007e2005be0ce25b3f3de67b2dc35fd810b0ccd77b33eb7be
--IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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==
=J/Mo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o--
|
