From: Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins•info>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process and Votes
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 00:10:46 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <558B7F46.6060106@bitcoins.info> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALohRkj89mgZTYXQxd0a-mB3SVdMjEF6-9jUm75m=D1wLNZSqg@mail.gmail.com>
I am not giving an opinion on the incentive process for developers. I
am just saying it exists and it needs to be taken into account when
developing a process. Pretending it doesn't exist or taking it as some
kind of personal insult does not do anything to advance the process.
The developer incentives feeds into the consensus process.
Depending on some kind of "rough consensus" with unstated
personality-based rules of the game works fine with small projects. As
the project gets larger that does not scale as can be seen with the
recent events. That is just a taste of what will happen in the future
as new issue arise. Developers will end up spending all day tweeting
and making videos instead of writing code.
The current process does not guarantee changes are approved on technical
merit alone and that is part of the problem. Since there is no defined
process people make claims of all sorts of motives that may or may not
exist. The idea is to get a defined process that gives a certain level
of assurance to outsiders that the process is based on things like
technical merit.
Russ
On 6/24/2015 11:42 PM, Gareth Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins•info>
> wrote:
> <snip>
>> Also, the incentive for new
>> developers to come in is that they will be paid by companies who want to
>> influence the code and this should be considered
> <snip>
>> Now you are left with a broken, unwritten/unspoken process.
> Your former statement is a great example of why "rough consensus and
> running code" is superior to design by committee.
> An argument should be assessed on its technical merit alone, not on
> the number of people advancing it -- a process that would be open to
> exactly the type of external manipulation you say you are concerned
> about.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-25 4:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-24 23:41 Raystonn
2015-06-24 23:49 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-25 0:11 ` Bryan Bishop
2015-06-25 0:21 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-25 0:07 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-25 1:50 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-06-25 2:30 ` Alex Morcos
2015-06-25 2:34 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-25 5:07 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-25 5:41 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-25 6:06 ` Pindar Wong
2015-06-25 6:15 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-06-25 6:16 ` Warren Togami Jr.
2015-06-25 6:27 ` Pindar Wong
2015-06-25 7:51 ` cipher anthem
2015-06-25 10:09 ` nxtchg
2015-06-25 12:42 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-25 20:05 ` Tier Nolan
2015-06-26 0:42 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-07-01 22:34 ` odinn
2015-06-25 3:42 ` Gareth Williams
2015-06-25 4:10 ` Milly Bitcoin [this message]
2015-06-25 13:36 ` s7r
2015-06-25 13:41 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-25 13:51 ` s7r
2015-06-25 14:08 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-25 17:03 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-25 17:29 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-25 0:18 Raystonn
2015-06-25 3:00 Raystonn
2015-06-25 3:19 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-26 11:13 ` Jorge Timón
2015-06-26 12:34 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-27 11:28 ` Jorge Timón
2015-06-27 12:50 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-28 12:30 ` Jorge Timón
2015-06-28 13:13 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-28 15:35 ` Jorge Timón
2015-06-28 16:23 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-28 19:05 ` Patrick Murck
2015-06-28 20:10 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-28 20:16 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-06-28 20:26 ` Ricardo Filipe
2015-06-28 21:00 ` Adam Back
2015-06-29 0:13 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-29 0:23 ` Andrew Lapp
2015-06-29 1:11 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-28 23:52 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-28 20:21 ` NxtChg
2015-06-25 19:03 ` Tom Harding
2015-06-25 3:53 Raystonn
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=558B7F46.6060106@bitcoins.info \
--to=milly@bitcoins$(echo .)info \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox