On 14/10/15 19:02, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> *Disclose potential conflicts*
> 
> 1. List discussions often involve interested parties. We expect
> participants to be aware when they are conflicted due to employment or
> other projects they are involved in, and disclose those interests to other
> project members.
> 2. When in doubt, over-disclose. Perceived conflicts of interest are
> important to address, so that the lists’ decisions are credible even when
> unpopular, difficult or favorable to the interests of one group over
> another.

Even if we assume everybody will try to approach that topic in good
faith, I don't think it's that simple.

A term that's become popular recently is "Bitcoin maximalist", and it's
frequently used as a slur or insult.

I honestly find that to be incomprehensible. If somebody at a Ford board
meeting started talking about how Ford needed to make sure Toyota was
able to sell enough cars, they wouldn't get very far by labelling their
critics as "Ford maximalists".

Anyone who works at Ford and who isn't a Ford maximalist is in the wrong
job.

And yet in Bitcoin, a much development is funded by companies who offer
products which compete with Bitcoin, or at least would be in competition
if Bitcoin were to achieve unlimited success.

I expect this is a minority view on this list, but my position is that
anyone who is not a Bitcoin maximalists has a potential conflict of
interest if they're also involved in Bitcoin development.

I also suspect this issue is a cause of much user dissatisfaction with
Bitcoin development. If Bitcoin users and investors don't trust that the
developers are working toward the unlimited success case, they can and
will revolt.