Re: [bitcoin-dev] Three Month bitcoin-dev Moderation Review

From: Dave Scotese <dscotese@litmocracy•com>
To: xor@freenetproject•org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Three Month bitcoin-dev Moderation Review
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 20:35:39 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGLBAhd7DCcRiJ6SZvJ9hEBWvBnmgRWKLL00yxaeiGSEbNKNwQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2998879.R5sQRbxZRv@1337h4x0r>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2725 bytes --]

I agree with the prohibition of +1s.  The core competency of those who
provide this list are moderation and technology, not managing a process
through which "involved people [indicate] whether they're for or against
it."

That is certainly an excellent function, but it can be offered by anyone
who wants to run a system for collecting and displaying those indications.
The email list itself is intended to be information rich, and such
"approval voting" is not information-rich enough in my view.

It is a shame that the moderated messages require so many steps to
retrieve.  Is it possible to have the "downloadable version" from
https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev-moderation/ for each month
contain the text of the moderated emails?  They do contain the subjects, so
that helps.

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:25 PM, xor--- via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Thursday, January 21, 2016 11:20:46 AM Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > So, what should moderation look like from now on?
>
> The original mail which announced moderation contains this rule:
> > - Generally discouraged: [...], +1s, [...]
>
> I assume "+1s" means statements such as "I agree with doing X".
>
> Any sane procedure of deciding something includes asking the involved
> people
> whether they're for or against it.
> If there are dozens of proposals on how to solve a particular technical
> problem, how else do you want to decide it than having a vote?
> It's very strange that this is not allowed - especially if we consider that
> the Bitcoin community is in a state of constant dissent currently.
> The effect is likely that you push the actual decision-making to IRC, which
> less people have access to (since it's difficult to bear the high traffic),
> and thus form some kind of "inner circle" - which makes decisions seem even
> more as if they're being dictated.
>
> So please consider allowing people to say whether they agree with something
> something or don't.
>
>
> Other than that, thanks for the good latency of moderation, I guess you're
> doing hard work there :)
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

-- 
I like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do you need a
techie?
I own Litmocracy <http://www.litmocracy.com> and Meme Racing
<http://www.memeracing.net> (in alpha).
I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist <http://www.voluntaryist.com> which
now accepts Bitcoin.
I also code for The Dollar Vigilante <http://dollarvigilante.com/>.
"He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" - Satoshi
Nakamoto

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3744 bytes --]