* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity
2015-06-14 10:12 [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity Warren Togami Jr.
@ 2015-06-14 15:15 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-14 16:56 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-15 3:19 ` Warren Togami Jr.
2015-06-14 20:55 ` Andy Schroder
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2015-06-14 15:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Warren Togami Jr.; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6755 bytes --]
* ACK on moving away from SourceForge mailing lists - though only once a
community-welcomed replacement is up and running
* ACK on using LF as a mailing infrastructure provider
* Research secure mailing list models, for bitcoin-security. The list is
not ultra high security - we all use PGP for that - but it would perhaps be
nice to find some spiffy cryptosystem where mailing list participants
individually hold keys & therefore access.
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 6:12 AM, Warren Togami Jr. <wtogami@gmail•com>
wrote:
> Discomfort with Sourceforge
>
> For a while now people have been expressing concern about Sourceforge's
> continued hosting of the bitcoin-dev mailing list. Downloads were moved
> completely to bitcoin.org after the Sept 2014 hacking incident of the SF
> project account. The company's behavior and perceived stability have been
> growing to be increasingly questionable.
>
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/08/gimp_dumps_sourceforge_over_dodgy_ads_and_installer
>
> November 2013: GIMP flees SourceForge over dodgy ads and installer
>
> https://lwn.net/Articles/646118/
>
> May 28th, 2015: SourceForge replacing GIMP Windows downloads
>
> http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/2015/q2/194
>
> June 3rd, 2015: Sourceforge hijacked nmap's old site and downloads.
>
> When this topic came up over the past two years, it seemed that most
> people agreed it would be a good idea to move. Someone always suggests
> Google Groups as the replacement host. Google is quickly shot down as too
> controversial in this community, and it becomes an even more difficult
> question as to who else should host it. Realizing this is not so simple,
> discussion then dies off until the next time somebody brings it up.
>
>
> http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/bitcoin-development/thread/1943127.DBnVxmfOIh%401337h4x0r/#msg34192607
>
> Somebody brought it up again this past week.
>
> It seems logical that an open discussion list is not a big deal to
> continue to be hosted on Sourceforge, as there isn’t much they could do to
> screw it up. I personally think moving it away now would be seen as a
> gesture that we do not consider their behavior to be acceptable. There are
> also some benefits in being hosted elsewhere, at an entity able to
> professionally maintain their infrastructure while also being neutral to
> the content.
>
> Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity
>
> Bitcoin is a global infrastructure development project where it would be
> politically awkward for any of the existing Bitcoin companies or orgs to
> host due to questions it would raise about perceived political control.
> For example, consider a bizarro parallel universe where MtGox was the
> inventor of Bitcoin, where they hosted its development infrastructure and
> dev list under their own name. Even if what they published was 100%
> technically and ideologically equivalent to the Bitcoin we know in our
> dimension, most people wouldn't have trusted it merely due to appearances
> and it would have easily gone nowhere.
>
> I had a similar thought process last week when sidechains code was
> approaching release. Sidechains, like Bitcoin itself, are intended to be a
> generic piece of infrastructure (like ethernet?) that anyone can build upon
> and use. We thought about Google Groups or existing orgs that already host
> various open source infrastructure discussion lists like the IETF or the
> Linux Foundation. Google is too controversial in this community, and the
> IETF is seen as possibly too politically fractured. The Linux Foundation
> hosts a bunch of infrastructure lists
> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo> and it seems that
> nobody in the Open Source industry considers them to be particularly
> objectionable. I talked with LF about the idea of hosting generic
> Bitcoin-related infrastructure development lists. They agreed as OSS
> infrastructure dev is already within their charter, so early this week
> sidechains-dev list began hosting there.
>
> From the perspective of our community, for bitcoin-dev it seems like a
> great fit. Why? While they are interested in supporting general open
> source development, the LF has literally zero stake in this. In addition
> to neutrality, they seem to be suitable as a competent host. They have
> full-time sysadmins maintaining their infrastructure including the Mailman
> server. They are soon upgrading to Mailman 3
> <http://wiki.list.org/Mailman3>, which means mailing lists would benefit
> from the improved archive browser. I am not personally familiar with
> HyperKitty, but the point here is they are a stable non-profit entity who
> will competently maintain and improve things like their Mailman deployment
> (a huge improvement over the stagnant Sourceforge). It seems that LF would
> be competent, neutral place to host dev lists for the long-term.
>
> To be clear, this proposal is only about hosting the discussion list. The
> LF would have no control over the Bitcoin Project, as no single entity
> should.
>
> Proposed Action Plan
>
>
> -
>
> Discuss this openly within this community. Above is one example of a
> great neutral and competent host. If the technical leaders here can agree
> to move to a particular neutral host then we do it.
> -
>
> Migration: The current list admins become the new list admins. We
> import the entire list archive into the new host's archives for user
> convenience.
> -
>
> http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/ Kill bitcoin-list and
> bitcoin-test. Very few people actually use it. Actually, let's delete the
> entire Bitcoin Sourceforge project as its continued existence serves no
> purpose and it only confuses people who find it. By deletion, nobody has
> to monitor it for a repeat of the Sept 2014 hacking incident
> <https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTc4Mzg> or GIMP-type
> hijacking <https://lwn.net/Articles/646118/>?
> -
>
> The toughest question would be the appropriateness of auto-importing
> the subscriber list to another list server, as mass imports have a tendency
> to upset people.
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Warren Togami
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 15209 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity
2015-06-14 15:15 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2015-06-14 16:56 ` Peter Todd
2015-06-15 3:19 ` Warren Togami Jr.
1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Peter Todd @ 2015-06-14 16:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 661 bytes --]
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 11:15:18AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> * ACK on moving away from SourceForge mailing lists - though only once a
> community-welcomed replacement is up and running
>
> * ACK on using LF as a mailing infrastructure provider
>
> * Research secure mailing list models, for bitcoin-security. The list is
> not ultra high security - we all use PGP for that - but it would perhaps be
> nice to find some spiffy cryptosystem where mailing list participants
> individually hold keys & therefore access.
ACK to the above as well.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity
2015-06-14 15:15 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-14 16:56 ` Peter Todd
@ 2015-06-15 3:19 ` Warren Togami Jr.
2015-06-15 5:50 ` Andy Schroder
` (2 more replies)
1 sibling, 3 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Warren Togami Jr. @ 2015-06-15 3:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2162 bytes --]
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 5:15 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay•com> wrote:
> * ACK on moving away from SourceForge mailing lists - though only once a
> community-welcomed replacement is up and running
>
> * ACK on using LF as a mailing infrastructure provider
>
> * Research secure mailing list models, for bitcoin-security. The list is
> not ultra high security - we all use PGP for that - but it would perhaps be
> nice to find some spiffy cryptosystem where mailing list participants
> individually hold keys & therefore access.
>
>
While I agree this is a good idea, this should not be a precondition for
moving the public bitcoin-dev list. The security team needs to separately
research/write tools needed for this.
<jgarzik> warren, wanna just go ahead and create bitcoin-development @ LF?
*More Feedback?* As for going ahead, perhaps we should wait to hear from
more of the other technical leaders?
*More Questions*
*List Name?* Would people prefer "bitcoin-development" for he new list
name instead of a shorter name like "bitcoin-dev"? I personally like the
shorter name, but either is fine.
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo currently has
"sidechains-dev", and "lightning-dev" is moving there sometime soon.
*Proposed Cut-Off Date?* Then we also need to agree on a date to cut off
the old list. Their sysadmin said we could have the new list auto-post
from the old list for a short while. I wonder how well that works ... if
that will result in double posting if people write to the new and CC the
old list. Needs a little research how well it would behave to have both
lists operating during a transition period. I think we should announce a
cut-off date when posts to the old list is shut off, July 15th, one month
from now. Thoughts?
*Moderators?* Mailman on the new server allows having separate logins for
admins and moderators. I think the admins of the old SF project are gavin,
jgarzik and sipa... they are kind of busy. Perhaps we should identify
known trusted community members who can help with moderation. Usually this
is dealing with "held" messages that are flagged by the spam filter
Warren Togami
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3122 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity
2015-06-15 3:19 ` Warren Togami Jr.
@ 2015-06-15 5:50 ` Andy Schroder
2015-06-15 9:13 ` odinn
2015-06-17 0:19 ` Warren Togami Jr.
2 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Andy Schroder @ 2015-06-15 5:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Warren Togami Jr., Jeff Garzik; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4829 bytes --]
Andy Schroder
On 06/14/2015 11:19 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 5:15 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay•com
> <mailto:jgarzik@bitpay•com>> wrote:
>
> * ACK on moving away from SourceForge mailing lists - though only
> once a community-welcomed replacement is up and running
>
> * ACK on using LF as a mailing infrastructure provider
>
> * Research secure mailing list models, for bitcoin-security. The
> list is not ultra high security - we all use PGP for that - but it
> would perhaps be nice to find some spiffy cryptosystem where
> mailing list participants individually hold keys & therefore access.
>
>
> While I agree this is a good idea, this should not be a precondition
> for moving the public bitcoin-dev list. The security team needs to
> separately research/write tools needed for this.
>
> <jgarzik> warren, wanna just go ahead and create
> bitcoin-development @ LF?
>
>
> *More Feedback?* As for going ahead, perhaps we should wait to hear
> from more of the other technical leaders?
I'd say just move forward with creating the new list. Once the new list
is created, send an announcement encouraging people to join. The new
list will be an opt in change, so you can encourage a transition date,
but why require it? Maybe monitor the subscriber lists for each list and
provide people regular updates as to what percentage of the people in
the old list have subscribed to the new list. This will help inform
people whether the new list will be adopted or not. People may also miss
a single announcement e-mail. There are too many messages going through
the list right now, and everyone doesn't read the list regularly.
>
> *_More Questions_*
>
> *List Name?* Would people prefer "bitcoin-development" for he new
> list name instead of a shorter name like "bitcoin-dev"? I personally
> like the shorter name, but either is fine.
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo currently has
> "sidechains-dev", and "lightning-dev" is moving there sometime soon.
I vote for "bitcoin-dev", only because of the consistency with the other
projects that you mentioned, as well as the fact that I think there
should be at least some name change to avoid confusion between the new
and old lists.
>
> *Proposed Cut-Off Date?* Then we also need to agree on a date to cut
> off the old list.. Their sysadmin said we could have the new list
> auto-post from the old list for a short while. I wonder how well that
> works ... if that will result in double posting if people write to the
> new and CC the old list.. Needs a little research how well it would
> behave to have both lists operating during a transition period. I
> think we should announce a cut-off date when posts to the old list is
> shut off, July 15th, one month from now. Thoughts?
I'd say move forward with the new list and subscribe it to the old list.
That way the new list starts archiving the messages from here forward.
There may be a little bit of a problem if someone joins the new list but
not the old list, they may not be able to reply to a message sent to the
old list? You probably would get a duplicate delivery if doing this, but
you could encourage users who have joined the new list to turn off
delivery on the old list (this is an option in the mailman settings page).
Once greater than 50% of the members of the old list are members of the
new list, send out an announcement that the old list will be turned into
read only mode in 3 weeks and to use the new list only after that time.
This way you don't have to force use of the new list and a majority
agreement is required before doing so and a technical leader is not
required to enforce a change without a solid commitment from most of the
members. Right before the old list is shut down, send one final
announcement e-mail indicating it is closing and link to the new list
(so that new subscribers will be aware if they are looking at an archive
of some kind).
>
> *Moderators?* Mailman on the new server allows having separate logins
> for admins and moderators. I think the admins of the old SF project
> are gavin, jgarzik and sipa... they are kind of busy. Perhaps we
> should identify known trusted community members who can help with
> moderation. Usually this is dealing with "held" messages that are
> flagged by the spam filter
>
> Warren Togami
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 8809 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 555 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity
2015-06-15 3:19 ` Warren Togami Jr.
2015-06-15 5:50 ` Andy Schroder
@ 2015-06-15 9:13 ` odinn
2015-06-17 0:19 ` Warren Togami Jr.
2 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: odinn @ 2015-06-15 9:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bitcoin-development
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
What about Gittorrent?
http://blog.printf.net/articles/2015/05/29/announcing-gittorrent-a-decen
tralized-github/
On 06/14/2015 08:19 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 5:15 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay•com
> <mailto:jgarzik@bitpay•com>> wrote:
>
> * ACK on moving away from SourceForge mailing lists - though only
> once a community-welcomed replacement is up and running
>
> * ACK on using LF as a mailing infrastructure provider
>
> * Research secure mailing list models, for bitcoin-security. The
> list is not ultra high security - we all use PGP for that - but it
> would perhaps be nice to find some spiffy cryptosystem where
> mailing list participants individually hold keys & therefore
> access.
>
>
> While I agree this is a good idea, this should not be a
> precondition for moving the public bitcoin-dev list. The security
> team needs to separately research/write tools needed for this.
>
> <jgarzik> warren, wanna just go ahead and create
> bitcoin-development @ LF?
>
>
> *More Feedback?* As for going ahead, perhaps we should wait to
> hear from more of the other technical leaders?
>
> *_More Questions_*
>
> *List Name?* Would people prefer "bitcoin-development" for he new
> list name instead of a shorter name like "bitcoin-dev"? I
> personally like the shorter name, but either is fine.
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo currently has
> "sidechains-dev", and "lightning-dev" is moving there sometime
> soon.
>
> *Proposed Cut-Off Date?* Then we also need to agree on a date to
> cut off the old list. Their sysadmin said we could have the new
> list auto-post from the old list for a short while. I wonder how
> well that works ... if that will result in double posting if people
> write to the new and CC the old list. Needs a little research how
> well it would behave to have both lists operating during a
> transition period. I think we should announce a cut-off date when
> posts to the old list is shut off, July 15th, one month from now.
> Thoughts?
>
> *Moderators?* Mailman on the new server allows having separate
> logins for admins and moderators. I think the admins of the old SF
> project are gavin, jgarzik and sipa... they are kind of busy.
> Perhaps we should identify known trusted community members who can
> help with moderation. Usually this is dealing with "held" messages
> that are flagged by the spam filter
>
> Warren Togami
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development
> mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
- --
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVfpcfAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CEdsH+weboFo8SCbwgoe68oZLl6Et
r4JtzZRu8jtw5x6AYcpVMBvUo3CHtbYCWREidBhvSU+TlOUjnxZRU5CjLpjHcc61
QV2hIGD1RUdrcj93PBsnNrvuXkLVHd09sKXCIvldY1d1GqTqy9sVY1skExd7zY2h
LmJhLdmNw7I+gLP/r8Ivl7aDqrpzHXr7pnbFXZZ0hxhthncxXTefi/IV+kAt3ptL
qfSRYGPyyUXWLfXF/XW+/DH+scZm+Iu/SSoSa6xnEo4MgY4HzZM2Uy+9Te9aO6wd
xvdpMetZV5A9Ljr8Ww72DPDkvUprk7u55OMgZZ4Fps53PnqwpNOjt3phIUH4iVE=
=6Fxw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity
2015-06-15 3:19 ` Warren Togami Jr.
2015-06-15 5:50 ` Andy Schroder
2015-06-15 9:13 ` odinn
@ 2015-06-17 0:19 ` Warren Togami Jr.
2015-06-17 1:59 ` grarpamp
2 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Warren Togami Jr. @ 2015-06-17 0:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1585 bytes --]
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Warren Togami Jr. <wtogami@gmail•com>
wrote:
>
> *List Name?* Would people prefer "bitcoin-development" for he new list
> name instead of a shorter name like "bitcoin-dev"? I personally like the
> shorter name, but either is fine.
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo currently has
> "sidechains-dev", and "lightning-dev" is moving there sometime soon.
>
We're going ahead with "bitcoin-dev". A request for creation is now
pending.
>
> *Proposed Cut-Off Date?* Then we also need to agree on a date to cut off
> the old list. Their sysadmin said we could have the new list auto-post
> from the old list for a short while. I wonder how well that works ... if
> that will result in double posting if people write to the new and CC the
> old list. Needs a little research how well it would behave to have both
> lists operating during a transition period. I think we should announce a
> cut-off date when posts to the old list is shut off, July 15th, one month
> from now. Thoughts?
>
Off-list I heard a suggestion to make the cut-off date as short as one week
after the new list is announced and people are given the option to
subscribe. Could people please post feelings about this?
It seems most everyone agreed not to auto-subscribe everyone onto the new
list as that tends to be upsetting.
There is clarity if subscribing the old list to the new list is a good
idea. Is anyone familiar with Mailman, is it smart enough to somehow
prevent double-posts if someone writes to both the old and new address?
Warren Togami
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2463 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity
2015-06-17 0:19 ` Warren Togami Jr.
@ 2015-06-17 1:59 ` grarpamp
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: grarpamp @ 2015-06-17 1:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bitcoin Dev
Please no GoogleGroups. Stick with mailman or some other open
source thing you can move around from place to place as needed.
Also, online third party archives die, their web interfaces suck
ass, they're bloated, don't export, aren't offline capable or
authoritative, etc.
You need to make the raw archives (past and future) downloadable
in mbox format and updated daily, with full unobfuscated headers
for threading and replying, with signatures and attachments.
Commonly for newcomers wishing to seed their own MUA's and archives,
mirrors, search, and so on.
One such breakage of archives by mailman defaults was discussed and
corrected here:
https://cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/
You also need to get rid of the tag in the subject, it wastes
valuable space and mail filters work just the same without it.
Please no "forums" (see suck above). Unless they have bidirectional
realtime message copying between list and forum. Or at least make
available exports of their message database.
Further, when will the crypto P2P communities develop and use
distributed messaging systems... bitmessage, blockchain, etc as
rough examples... to avoid old centralized issues. At some point you
have to start eating your own dog food and make people run the
clients and come to you instead. Disruptive tech is the new good.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity
2015-06-14 10:12 [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity Warren Togami Jr.
2015-06-14 15:15 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2015-06-14 20:55 ` Andy Schroder
2015-06-14 21:59 ` Adam Back
2015-06-14 21:54 ` odinn
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Andy Schroder @ 2015-06-14 20:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Warren Togami Jr., Bitcoin Dev
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7305 bytes --]
Hello,
I'd support moving to a Linux Foundation e-mail list. I am also against
google groups. I agree that the gesture of moving indicates that
SourceForge is not playing nice on other issues and that moving this
list shows their behavior is being acknowledged.
I understand your reason for wanting to delete the Source Forge account
(after reading the links). However, the only problem with that is that
the SourceForge archive is the oldest one I've found with some early
messages from Satoshi. Myself finding Bitcoin after its inception, as
well as this mailing list even later on, it's nice to be able to review
the archives. SourceForge's interface to those archives is pretty bad
though. I'm not sure if there is any way to get older messages archived
on sites like gmane or mail-archive? Does anyone know? You mentioned
importing the list archive as part of the migration plan, but I guess is
this easy to do from SourceForge?
Andy Schroder
On 06/14/2015 06:12 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
>
> Discomfort with Sourceforge
>
> For a while now people have been expressing concern about
> Sourceforge's continued hosting of the bitcoin-dev mailing list.Â
> Downloads were moved completely to bitcoin.org <http://bitcoin.org>
> after the Sept 2014 hacking incident of the SF project account. The
> company's behavior and perceived stability have been growing to be
> increasingly questionable.
>
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/08/gimp_dumps_sourceforge_over_dodgy_ads_and_installer
>
> November 2013: GIMP flees SourceForge over dodgy ads and installer
>
> https://lwn.net/Articles/646118/
>
> May 28th, 2015: SourceForge replacing GIMP Windows downloads
>
> http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/2015/q2/194
>
> June 3rd, 2015: Sourceforge hijacked nmap's old site and downloads.
>
>
> When this topic came up over the past two years, it seemed that most
> people agreed it would be a good idea to move. Someone always
> suggests Google Groups as the replacement host. Google is quickly
> shot down as too controversial in this community, and it becomes an
> even more difficult question as to who else should host it.Â
> Realizing this is not so simple, discussion then dies off until the
> next time somebody brings it up.
>
>
> http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/bitcoin-development/thread/1943127.DBnVxmfOIh%401337h4x0r/#msg34192607
>
> Somebody brought it up again this past week.
>
>
> It seems logical that an open discussion list is not a big deal to
> continue to be hosted on Sourceforge, as there isnâEUR^(TM)t much they
> could do to screw it up. I personally think moving it away now would
> be seen as a gesture that we do not consider their behavior to be
> acceptable. There are also some benefits in being hosted elsewhere,
> at an entity able to professionally maintain their infrastructure
> while also being neutral to the content.
>
>
> Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity
>
>
> Bitcoin is a global infrastructure development project where it would
> be politically awkward for any of the existing Bitcoin companies or
> orgs to host due to questions it would raise about perceived political
> control. For example, consider a bizarro parallel universe where
> MtGox was the inventor of Bitcoin, where they hosted its development
> infrastructure and dev list under their own name. Even if what they
> published was 100% technically and ideologically equivalent to the
> Bitcoin we know in our dimension, most people wouldn't have trusted it
> merely due to appearances and it would have easily gone nowhere.
>
>
> I had a similar thought process last week when sidechains code was
> approaching release. Sidechains, like Bitcoin itself, are intended to
> be a generic piece of infrastructure (like ethernet?) that anyone can
> build upon and use. We thought about Google Groups or existing orgs
> that already host various open source infrastructure discussion lists
> like the IETF or the Linux Foundation. Google is too controversial in
> this community, and the IETF is seen as possibly too politically
> fractured. The Linux Foundation hosts a bunch of infrastructure
> lists <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo>and it seems
> that nobody in the Open Source industry considers them to be
> particularly objectionable. I talked with LF about the idea of
> hosting generic Bitcoin-related infrastructure development lists.Â
> They agreed as OSS infrastructure dev is already within their charter,
> so early this week sidechains-dev list began hosting there.
>
>
> From the perspective of our community, for bitcoin-dev it seems like a
> great fit. Why? While they are interested in supporting general
> open source development, the LF has literally zero stake in this. In
> addition to neutrality, they seem to be suitable as a competenthost.Â
> They have full-time sysadmins maintaining their infrastructure
> including the Mailman server. They are soon upgrading to Mailman 3
> <http://wiki.list.org/Mailman3>, which means mailing lists would
> benefit from the improved archive browser. I am not personally
> familiar with HyperKitty, but the point here is they are a stable
> non-profit entity who will competently maintain and improve things
> like their Mailman deployment (a huge improvement over the stagnant
> Sourceforge). It seems that LF would be competent, neutral place to
> host dev lists for the long-term.
>
>
> To be clear, this proposal is only about hosting the discussion
> list. The LF would have no control over the Bitcoin Project, as no
> single entity should.
>
>
> Proposed Action Plan
>
>
> *
>
> Discuss this openly within this community. Above is one example
> of a great neutral and competent host. If the technical leaders
> here can agree to move to a particular neutral host then we do it.
>
> *
>
> Migration: The current list admins become the new list admins. We
> import the entire list archive into the new host's archives for
> user convenience.
>
> *
>
> http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/ Â Kill bitcoin-list and
> bitcoin-test. Very few people actually use it. Actually, let's
> delete the entire Bitcoin Sourceforge project as its continued
> existence serves no purpose and it only confuses people who find
> it. By deletion, nobody has to monitor it for a repeat of the
> Sept 2014 hacking incident
> <https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTc4Mzg>or
> GIMP-type hijacking <https://lwn.net/Articles/646118/>?
>
> *
>
> The toughest question would be the appropriateness of
> auto-importing the subscriber list to another list server, as mass
> imports have a tendency to upset people.
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> Warren Togami
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 19149 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 555 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity
2015-06-14 20:55 ` Andy Schroder
@ 2015-06-14 21:59 ` Adam Back
2015-06-14 22:14 ` Davide Cavion
0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Adam Back @ 2015-06-14 21:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Schroder; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev
It might be as well to keep the archive but disable new posts as
otherwise we create bit-rot for people who linked to posts on
sourceforge.
The list is also archived on mail-archive though.
https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/
Adam
On 14 June 2015 at 22:55, Andy Schroder <info@andyschroder•com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'd support moving to a Linux Foundation e-mail list. I am also against
> google groups. I agree that the gesture of moving indicates that SourceForge
> is not playing nice on other issues and that moving this list shows their
> behavior is being acknowledged.
>
> I understand your reason for wanting to delete the Source Forge account
> (after reading the links). However, the only problem with that is that the
> SourceForge archive is the oldest one I've found with some early messages
> from Satoshi. Myself finding Bitcoin after its inception, as well as this
> mailing list even later on, it's nice to be able to review the archives.
> SourceForge's interface to those archives is pretty bad though. I'm not sure
> if there is any way to get older messages archived on sites like gmane or
> mail-archive? Does anyone know? You mentioned importing the list archive as
> part of the migration plan, but I guess is this easy to do from SourceForge?
>
>
> Andy Schroder
>
> On 06/14/2015 06:12 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
>
> Discomfort with Sourceforge
>
> For a while now people have been expressing concern about Sourceforge's
> continued hosting of the bitcoin-dev mailing list. Downloads were moved
> completely to bitcoin.org after the Sept 2014 hacking incident of the SF
> project account. The company's behavior and perceived stability have been
> growing to be increasingly questionable.
>
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/08/gimp_dumps_sourceforge_over_dodgy_ads_and_installer
>
> November 2013: GIMP flees SourceForge over dodgy ads and installer
>
> https://lwn.net/Articles/646118/
>
> May 28th, 2015: SourceForge replacing GIMP Windows downloads
>
> http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/2015/q2/194
>
> June 3rd, 2015: Sourceforge hijacked nmap's old site and downloads.
>
>
> When this topic came up over the past two years, it seemed that most people
> agreed it would be a good idea to move. Someone always suggests Google
> Groups as the replacement host. Google is quickly shot down as too
> controversial in this community, and it becomes an even more difficult
> question as to who else should host it. Realizing this is not so simple,
> discussion then dies off until the next time somebody brings it up.
>
>
> http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/bitcoin-development/thread/1943127.DBnVxmfOIh%401337h4x0r/#msg34192607
>
> Somebody brought it up again this past week.
>
>
> It seems logical that an open discussion list is not a big deal to continue
> to be hosted on Sourceforge, as there isn’t much they could do to screw it
> up. I personally think moving it away now would be seen as a gesture that
> we do not consider their behavior to be acceptable. There are also some
> benefits in being hosted elsewhere, at an entity able to professionally
> maintain their infrastructure while also being neutral to the content.
>
>
> Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity
>
>
> Bitcoin is a global infrastructure development project where it would be
> politically awkward for any of the existing Bitcoin companies or orgs to
> host due to questions it would raise about perceived political control.Â
> For example, consider a bizarro parallel universe where MtGox was the
> inventor of Bitcoin, where they hosted its development infrastructure and
> dev list under their own name. Even if what they published was 100%
> technically and ideologically equivalent to the Bitcoin we know in our
> dimension, most people wouldn't have trusted it merely due to appearances
> and it would have easily gone nowhere.
>
>
> I had a similar thought process last week when sidechains code was
> approaching release. Sidechains, like Bitcoin itself, are intended to be a
> generic piece of infrastructure (like ethernet?) that anyone can build upon
> and use. We thought about Google Groups or existing orgs that already host
> various open source infrastructure discussion lists like the IETF or the
> Linux Foundation. Google is too controversial in this community, and the
> IETF is seen as possibly too politically fractured. The Linux Foundation
> hosts a bunch of infrastructure lists and it seems that nobody in the Open
> Source industry considers them to be particularly objectionable. I talked
> with LF about the idea of hosting generic Bitcoin-related infrastructure
> development lists. They agreed as OSS infrastructure dev is already within
> their charter, so early this week sidechains-dev list began hosting there.
>
>
> From the perspective of our community, for bitcoin-dev it seems like a great
> fit. Why? While they are interested in supporting general open source
> development, the LF has literally zero stake in this. In addition to
> neutrality, they seem to be suitable as a competent host. They have
> full-time sysadmins maintaining their infrastructure including the Mailman
> server. They are soon upgrading to Mailman 3, which means mailing lists
> would benefit from the improved archive browser. I am not personally
> familiar with HyperKitty, but the point here is they are a stable non-profit
> entity who will competently maintain and improve things like their Mailman
> deployment (a huge improvement over the stagnant Sourceforge). It seems
> that LF would be competent, neutral place to host dev lists for the
> long-term.
>
>
> To be clear, this proposal is only about hosting the discussion list. The
> LF would have no control over the Bitcoin Project, as no single entity
> should.
>
>
> Proposed Action Plan
>
>
> Discuss this openly within this community. Above is one example of a great
> neutral and competent host. If the technical leaders here can agree to
> move to a particular neutral host then we do it.
>
> Migration: The current list admins become the new list admins. We import
> the entire list archive into the new host's archives for user convenience.
>
> http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/ Â Kill bitcoin-list and
> bitcoin-test. Very few people actually use it. Actually, let's delete
> the entire Bitcoin Sourceforge project as its continued existence serves no
> purpose and it only confuses people who find it. By deletion, nobody has
> to monitor it for a repeat of the Sept 2014 hacking incident or GIMP-type
> hijacking?
>
> The toughest question would be the appropriateness of auto-importing the
> subscriber list to another list server, as mass imports have a tendency to
> upset people.
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> Warren Togami
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity
2015-06-14 21:59 ` Adam Back
@ 2015-06-14 22:14 ` Davide Cavion
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Davide Cavion @ 2015-06-14 22:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bitcoin Dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8572 bytes --]
Hi,
I just wanted to let everyone know that every email is also archived at bitcoin-development.narkive.com <http://bitcoin-development.narkive.com/>, where you can find everything since the beginning of the list (June 2011). That should answer to Andy’s concern about the older messages not being archived anywhere but on sourceforge.
Davide
> On 14 Jun 2015, at 23:59, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace•org> wrote:
>
> It might be as well to keep the archive but disable new posts as
> otherwise we create bit-rot for people who linked to posts on
> sourceforge.
>
> The list is also archived on mail-archive though.
> https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/
>
> Adam
>
> On 14 June 2015 at 22:55, Andy Schroder <info@andyschroder•com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'd support moving to a Linux Foundation e-mail list. I am also against
>> google groups. I agree that the gesture of moving indicates that SourceForge
>> is not playing nice on other issues and that moving this list shows their
>> behavior is being acknowledged.
>>
>> I understand your reason for wanting to delete the Source Forge account
>> (after reading the links). However, the only problem with that is that the
>> SourceForge archive is the oldest one I've found with some early messages
>> from Satoshi. Myself finding Bitcoin after its inception, as well as this
>> mailing list even later on, it's nice to be able to review the archives.
>> SourceForge's interface to those archives is pretty bad though. I'm not sure
>> if there is any way to get older messages archived on sites like gmane or
>> mail-archive? Does anyone know? You mentioned importing the list archive as
>> part of the migration plan, but I guess is this easy to do from SourceForge?
>>
>>
>> Andy Schroder
>>
>> On 06/14/2015 06:12 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
>>
>> Discomfort with Sourceforge
>>
>> For a while now people have been expressing concern about Sourceforge's
>> continued hosting of the bitcoin-dev mailing list. Downloads were moved
>> completely to bitcoin.org after the Sept 2014 hacking incident of the SF
>> project account. The company's behavior and perceived stability have been
>> growing to be increasingly questionable.
>>
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/08/gimp_dumps_sourceforge_over_dodgy_ads_and_installer
>>
>> November 2013: GIMP flees SourceForge over dodgy ads and installer
>>
>> https://lwn.net/Articles/646118/
>>
>> May 28th, 2015: SourceForge replacing GIMP Windows downloads
>>
>> http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/2015/q2/194
>>
>> June 3rd, 2015: Sourceforge hijacked nmap's old site and downloads.
>>
>>
>> When this topic came up over the past two years, it seemed that most people
>> agreed it would be a good idea to move. Someone always suggests Google
>> Groups as the replacement host. Google is quickly shot down as too
>> controversial in this community, and it becomes an even more difficult
>> question as to who else should host it. Realizing this is not so simple,
>> discussion then dies off until the next time somebody brings it up.
>>
>>
>> http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/bitcoin-development/thread/1943127.DBnVxmfOIh%401337h4x0r/#msg34192607
>>
>> Somebody brought it up again this past week.
>>
>>
>> It seems logical that an open discussion list is not a big deal to continue
>> to be hosted on Sourceforge, as there isn’t much they could do to screw it
>> up. I personally think moving it away now would be seen as a gesture that
>> we do not consider their behavior to be acceptable. There are also some
>> benefits in being hosted elsewhere, at an entity able to professionally
>> maintain their infrastructure while also being neutral to the content.
>>
>>
>> Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity
>>
>>
>> Bitcoin is a global infrastructure development project where it would be
>> politically awkward for any of the existing Bitcoin companies or orgs to
>> host due to questions it would raise about perceived political control.Â
>> For example, consider a bizarro parallel universe where MtGox was the
>> inventor of Bitcoin, where they hosted its development infrastructure and
>> dev list under their own name. Even if what they published was 100%
>> technically and ideologically equivalent to the Bitcoin we know in our
>> dimension, most people wouldn't have trusted it merely due to appearances
>> and it would have easily gone nowhere.
>>
>>
>> I had a similar thought process last week when sidechains code was
>> approaching release. Sidechains, like Bitcoin itself, are intended to be a
>> generic piece of infrastructure (like ethernet?) that anyone can build upon
>> and use. We thought about Google Groups or existing orgs that already host
>> various open source infrastructure discussion lists like the IETF or the
>> Linux Foundation. Google is too controversial in this community, and the
>> IETF is seen as possibly too politically fractured. The Linux Foundation
>> hosts a bunch of infrastructure lists and it seems that nobody in the Open
>> Source industry considers them to be particularly objectionable. I talked
>> with LF about the idea of hosting generic Bitcoin-related infrastructure
>> development lists. They agreed as OSS infrastructure dev is already within
>> their charter, so early this week sidechains-dev list began hosting there.
>>
>>
>> From the perspective of our community, for bitcoin-dev it seems like a great
>> fit. Why? While they are interested in supporting general open source
>> development, the LF has literally zero stake in this. In addition to
>> neutrality, they seem to be suitable as a competent host. They have
>> full-time sysadmins maintaining their infrastructure including the Mailman
>> server. They are soon upgrading to Mailman 3, which means mailing lists
>> would benefit from the improved archive browser. I am not personally
>> familiar with HyperKitty, but the point here is they are a stable non-profit
>> entity who will competently maintain and improve things like their Mailman
>> deployment (a huge improvement over the stagnant Sourceforge). It seems
>> that LF would be competent, neutral place to host dev lists for the
>> long-term.
>>
>>
>> To be clear, this proposal is only about hosting the discussion list. The
>> LF would have no control over the Bitcoin Project, as no single entity
>> should.
>>
>>
>> Proposed Action Plan
>>
>>
>> Discuss this openly within this community. Above is one example of a great
>> neutral and competent host. If the technical leaders here can agree to
>> move to a particular neutral host then we do it.
>>
>> Migration: The current list admins become the new list admins. We import
>> the entire list archive into the new host's archives for user convenience.
>>
>> http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/ Â Kill bitcoin-list and
>> bitcoin-test. Very few people actually use it. Actually, let's delete
>> the entire Bitcoin Sourceforge project as its continued existence serves no
>> purpose and it only confuses people who find it. By deletion, nobody has
>> to monitor it for a repeat of the Sept 2014 hacking incident or GIMP-type
>> hijacking?
>>
>> The toughest question would be the appropriateness of auto-importing the
>> subscriber list to another list server, as mass imports have a tendency to
>> upset people.
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>> Warren Togami
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 10845 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity
2015-06-14 10:12 [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity Warren Togami Jr.
2015-06-14 15:15 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-14 20:55 ` Andy Schroder
@ 2015-06-14 21:54 ` odinn
2015-06-14 22:38 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-06-15 10:13 ` Mike Hearn
4 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: odinn @ 2015-06-14 21:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bitcoin-development
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I fully agree and support this idea.
Some recent discussion on social media which touches on this very
subject of bitcoin and sourceforge.... (I include nmap and gittorrent
as well because those seem relevant, imho)
https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/607750046021357568
https://twitter.com/nmap/status/608418994236891137
https://twitter.com/ktorn/status/607818378531631106
https://twitter.com/ktorn/status/607822900331020288
On 06/14/2015 03:12 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
> Discomfort with Sourceforge
>
> For a while now people have been expressing concern about
> Sourceforge's continued hosting of the bitcoin-dev mailing list.
> Downloads were moved completely to bitcoin.org <http://bitcoin.org>
> after the Sept 2014 hacking incident of the SF project account.
> The company's behavior and perceived stability have been growing to
> be increasingly questionable.
>
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/08/gimp_dumps_sourceforge_over_do
dgy_ads_and_installer
>
> November 2013: GIMP flees SourceForge over dodgy ads and
> installer
>
> https://lwn.net/Articles/646118/
>
> May 28th, 2015: SourceForge replacing GIMP Windows downloads
>
> http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/2015/q2/194
>
> June 3rd, 2015: Sourceforge hijacked nmap's old site and
> downloads.
>
>
> When this topic came up over the past two years, it seemed that
> most people agreed it would be a good idea to move. Someone always
> suggests Google Groups as the replacement host. Google is quickly
> shot down as too controversial in this community, and it becomes an
> even more difficult question as to who else should host it.
> Realizing this is not so simple, discussion then dies off until the
> next time somebody brings it up.
>
>
> http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/bitcoin-development/thread/19
43127.DBnVxmfOIh%401337h4x0r/#msg34192607
>
> Somebody brought it up again this past week.
>
>
> It seems logical that an open discussion list is not a big deal to
> continue to be hosted on Sourceforge, as there isn’t much they
> could do to screw it up. I personally think moving it away now
> would be seen as a gesture that we do not consider their behavior
> to be acceptable. There are also some benefits in being hosted
> elsewhere, at an entity able to professionally maintain their
> infrastructure while also being neutral to the content.
>
>
> Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity
>
>
> Bitcoin is a global infrastructure development project where it
> would be politically awkward for any of the existing Bitcoin
> companies or orgs to host due to questions it would raise about
> perceived political control. For example, consider a bizarro
> parallel universe where MtGox was the inventor of Bitcoin, where
> they hosted its development infrastructure and dev list under their
> own name. Even if what they published was 100% technically and
> ideologically equivalent to the Bitcoin we know in our dimension,
> most people wouldn't have trusted it merely due to appearances and
> it would have easily gone nowhere.
>
>
> I had a similar thought process last week when sidechains code was
> approaching release. Sidechains, like Bitcoin itself, are intended
> to be a generic piece of infrastructure (like ethernet?) that
> anyone can build upon and use. We thought about Google Groups or
> existing orgs that already host various open source infrastructure
> discussion lists like the IETF or the Linux Foundation. Google is
> too controversial in this community, and the IETF is seen as
> possibly too politically fractured. The Linux Foundation hosts a
> bunch of infrastructure lists
> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo>and it seems
> that nobody in the Open Source industry considers them to be
> particularly objectionable. I talked with LF about the idea of
> hosting generic Bitcoin-related infrastructure development lists.
> They agreed as OSS infrastructure dev is already within their
> charter, so early this week sidechains-dev list began hosting
> there.
>
>
> From the perspective of our community, for bitcoin-dev it seems
> like a great fit. Why? While they are interested in supporting
> general open source development, the LF has literally zero stake in
> this. In addition to neutrality, they seem to be suitable as a
> competenthost. They have full-time sysadmins maintaining their
> infrastructure including the Mailman server. They are soon
> upgrading to Mailman 3 <http://wiki.list.org/Mailman3>, which means
> mailing lists would benefit from the improved archive browser. I
> am not personally familiar with HyperKitty, but the point here is
> they are a stable non-profit entity who will competently maintain
> and improve things like their Mailman deployment (a huge
> improvement over the stagnant Sourceforge). It seems that LF would
> be competent, neutral place to host dev lists for the long-term.
>
>
> To be clear, this proposal is only about hosting the discussion
> list. The LF would have no control over the Bitcoin Project, as no
> single entity should.
>
>
> Proposed Action Plan
>
>
> *
>
> Discuss this openly within this community. Above is one example
> of a great neutral and competent host. If the technical leaders
> here can agree to move to a particular neutral host then we do it.
>
> *
>
> Migration: The current list admins become the new list admins. We
> import the entire list archive into the new host's archives for
> user convenience.
>
> *
>
> http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/ Kill bitcoin-list and
> bitcoin-test. Very few people actually use it. Actually, let's
> delete the entire Bitcoin Sourceforge project as its continued
> existence serves no purpose and it only confuses people who find
> it. By deletion, nobody has to monitor it for a repeat of the
> Sept 2014 hacking incident
> <https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTc4Mzg>or
> GIMP-type hijacking <https://lwn.net/Articles/646118/>?
>
> *
>
> The toughest question would be the appropriateness of
> auto-importing the subscriber list to another list server, as mass
> imports have a tendency to upset people.
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> Warren Togami
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development
> mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
- --
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVffgcAAoJEGxwq/inSG8COOsH/jC5TAjec1ridg9Ww/1+SW26
QvTaZ79PrK4+/5rvt3qXtCicOidGLTGpk/ixrgVN64nOiquaQm8JM/BrOrtZbYN0
/lXjhR6N8AEKYYvtjCQdD/JjNZ8Z0QvRZ4+XKUblBagm4BkRt4OtaVkctechscbM
WiMh+SfUPPlGiuucotiBFliF4TprFTCw0w/+WY521yKE5qgTPc6ZKBHI5TzYROoF
aAz7i6GlAZR0qlbV91IzakszZWF/Im6KHG30CYbU4eTb6Ic9tVHogC2EuW2zePd3
NxRXE4M0FunnVX61Eg3Bglm73h6SuzsL9x79Ckp0UXpZ8sJ7+mYCDKTZSUEWeJs=
=Xje2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity
2015-06-14 10:12 [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity Warren Togami Jr.
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2015-06-14 21:54 ` odinn
@ 2015-06-14 22:38 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-06-15 10:13 ` Mike Hearn
4 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Gregory Maxwell @ 2015-06-14 22:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Warren Togami Jr.; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Warren Togami Jr. <wtogami@gmail•com> wrote:
> From the perspective of our community, for bitcoin-dev it seems like a great
> fit. Why? While they are interested in supporting general open source
> development, the LF has literally zero stake in this. In addition to
> neutrality, they seem to be suitable as a competent host. They have
I support this proposal.
But for clarity sake, we should recognize that Linux Foundation isn't
a charity chartered to act in the public good, is a trade organization
which acts in the commercial interest of it's membership.
I do not think this presents a problem: LF's membership's interests
are not at odds with ours currently, and aren't likely to become so
(doubly so with sourceforge as the comparison point). We are, after
all, just talking about a development mailing list; in the unlikely
case that there were issues in the future it could be changed, and
they've demonstrated considerable competence at this kind of operation
as well, and I would be grateful to have their support. I mention it
only because the 'foundation' name sometimes carries the charity
confusion, and to be clear that I think the stakes on this matter are
small enough that it doesn't require a careful weighing of interests.
These concerns may matter for other initiatives but as you note, LF
has zero stake beyond the general support of the open source
ecosystem.
I do not believe it would be wise to delete the SF account, at least
while there are many active links to it. As it might well be recreated
to 'mirror' things as a 'service' to those following the old links.
I also agree with Jeff's comments wrt, bitcoin-security.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity
2015-06-14 10:12 [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity Warren Togami Jr.
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2015-06-14 22:38 ` Gregory Maxwell
@ 2015-06-15 10:13 ` Mike Hearn
2015-06-15 19:45 ` Adam Weiss
4 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Mike Hearn @ 2015-06-15 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Warren Togami Jr.; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1114 bytes --]
Bear in mind the problem that stops Jeff's messages getting through is that
mailman 1.0 doesn't know how to handle DKIM properly. Switching to a
different mailman provider won't fix that.
Does mailman 3.0 even fix this? I found it difficult to tell from their
website. There's a big page on the mailman wiki that suggests they "fixed"
it by simply deleting the signatures entirely, which won't work. DMARC
policies state that mail *must* be signed and unsigned/incorrectly signed
message should be discarded.
The user documentation for mailman 3 doesn't seem to exist? The links on
the website are docs for 2.1, perhaps they released mailman 3 without
refreshing the docs.
Google Groups may be "controversial" but if I recall correctly the main
issue was the question of whether you needed a Google account or not. I'm
pretty sure you can just send an email to
groupname+subscribe@googlegroups•com even if you don't have a Google
account. But of course this is a bizarre standard to hold mailing list
software to: mailman asks users to create an account for each listserv in
order to manage a subscription too!
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1512 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity
2015-06-15 10:13 ` Mike Hearn
@ 2015-06-15 19:45 ` Adam Weiss
2015-06-15 20:50 ` Pieter Wuille
0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Adam Weiss @ 2015-06-15 19:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mike Hearn; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2476 bytes --]
Recent versions of mailman strip DKIM signatures, rewrite the envelope-from
to use an address at the list's domain and set reply-to to the original
authors address to resolve the DMARC issue. I'm on several lists that do
this and it works just fine.
+1 on moving the list. Given the fact that the mails are archived in
public, it's not really a huge deal how it takes place. One month sounds
reasonable (although I think it could be done on a shorter timescale). I'd
setup the new list to allow subscriptions, but keep it moderated to keep
discussion from moving until the cut, send lots of warnings and then on the
big day unmoderate one and moderate the other.
It's a great opportunity to hardfork something in Bitcoin without risk of
breakage, losses or entertaining melodrama. : )
--adam
ps. I think SF will let project admins download mbox archives of the list,
the new admins should be able to import them to keep archive consistency in
one place.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:
> Bear in mind the problem that stops Jeff's messages getting through is
> that mailman 1.0 doesn't know how to handle DKIM properly. Switching to a
> different mailman provider won't fix that.
>
> Does mailman 3.0 even fix this? I found it difficult to tell from their
> website. There's a big page on the mailman wiki that suggests they "fixed"
> it by simply deleting the signatures entirely, which won't work. DMARC
> policies state that mail *must* be signed and unsigned/incorrectly signed
> message should be discarded.
>
> The user documentation for mailman 3 doesn't seem to exist? The links on
> the website are docs for 2.1, perhaps they released mailman 3 without
> refreshing the docs.
>
> Google Groups may be "controversial" but if I recall correctly the main
> issue was the question of whether you needed a Google account or not. I'm
> pretty sure you can just send an email to
> groupname+subscribe@googlegroups•com even if you don't have a Google
> account. But of course this is a bizarre standard to hold mailing list
> software to: mailman asks users to create an account for each listserv in
> order to manage a subscription too!
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3480 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread