Hi Ava, Thanks for the answer and the additional information. I think this is unclear to me if Peter himself was part of the discussion amongst several members of the security list on re-examining if their presence and the ones of others was still worthy on the list, be it online or offline. I fully understrand this is a kind of conversation which certainly does not warrant to be public, and I mostly agree with that. Yet I believe it's ethically bordeline to not invite someome to express its own viewpoint in asking to be removal of its own access, especially in a project that aims to be decentralized and a technnical meritocracy (-- I believe an ideal we aspire all). Beyond, and forgive the expression if it's a bit rude, I believe it's a bit "naive", "short-sighted" as a position of the members of the security list, with whatever level of true consensus such removal has being done (-- and I'm not aware there was operational security emergency that justified such removal). "Naive", as saying this is the _Bitcoin Core_ project list only can only provoke blind spot among the list members if the security issues are either affecting old part of the codebases that younger members have less experiences with (some parts like consensus or block-relay are modified only every 5 years) or novel factors from upstream or downstream (e.g the internet networking stack or implications on deployed contract protocols like lightning). On both the former and latter criterias, I think Peter overly meets the bar. "Short-sighted", as it's making the members of the security list both party and arbiter of appreciating what is an _active_ contributor among themselves (all in a very ethically bordeline fashion). In my experience with lightning over the past years, with discovering more and more issues which in fact that arises from imperfect interfacting with the base-layer, I was progressively lead to spend more and more time on the core side as it was natural to have things fixed thhere (or at least advocate so). Of course, I was in consequence less active on the lighting development day-to-day side. Did it make be less competent to be responsive when issues affected lighting ? I don't believe so (though obviously I'll let other lightning experts corroborate or infirm this self-cogtratulory statement of mine). Same for Peter, if he had make the choices to consencrate its open-source time on more long-term things like transaction denial-of-service vectors or analyzing new consensus changes proposals (whatever the long-erm outcome, R&D is a stochastic process -- his track records with things like bip65 shall give him a positive presumption) I think as a community to give such cultural margin to do so, even if it's as the trade-off of less review on day-to-day core things with a more reduced global scope like the gui or the wallet. When you've big sh*t hitting the fan like inflation bugs or level DB 2013 unexpected fork you prefer have experts with a decade of experience to collaborate with, and sharing the same cultural and ethical norms of the active contributors evaluated by numbers on commits on the last single-digit years. I'll repropose Peter admission on the security list mailing list in the coming weeks by opening an issue on the bitcoin-meta repository, once this current mailing list thread has slowed down a bit, or at least the technical analysis has been dissociated from the proceedings which have all been bundle in a big message. In my very personal opinion, I still trust more Peter competence and experience than some other people I know who are on the security mailing list. All that said I appreciate your answer and I'm satisfied from the personal role you've have played in the matter with, and be reassured I'll keep you among the recipient of future security issues with a potential impact on bitcoin core that I might find or be aware off. Best, Antoine ots hash: db441b51684ad3a6897f67d42c74ccfcb9a4ffed40d4bdbe30a2edd867ccdd54 Le samedi 20 juillet 2024 à 01:50:25 UTC+1, Ava Chow a écrit : > On 07/19/2024 07:58 PM, Antoine Riard wrote: > > As said in one my previous email, I'm still curious about achow101 > > explaining publicly > > why you have been kicked-out of the bitcoin-security mailing list, when > > you were certainly > > more senior than achow101 in matters of base-layer security issues or > > even hard technical > > issues like consensus interactions (e.g bip65). I'll re-iterate my > > respect towards achow101 > > as a maintainer from years of collaboration, though this is a topic > > worthy of an answer. > > I am not the one that removed Peter from the mailing list, nor do I even > have the login(s) to do so. > > There was a discussion amongst several members of the security list > about who was on the list, and who should be on the list. Given that the > security list is the _Bitcoin Core_ security list, we determined that > the people who should be on the list are people who still actively > contribute to the project. As Peter Todd no longer actively contribute > code nor code review to the project, we decided that it didn't make > sense to continue to have him on the list. > > My recollection is that multiple other people were removed from the list > for the same reason at the same time. > > Ava > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/2aa2d6fa-ae72-4aef-9fda-49e2f7c657abn%40googlegroups.com.