IMO trying to "set up a system" in that kind of environment is silly,
The first step is to define the system that is currently in place. There is a system in place but it is just close to the vest and sometimes not discussed in public. This works when Bitcoin has a small number of stakeholder but does not work well as other parties with diverse interests get involved. You can't expect major players to invest large sums when the process is controlled by a tiny group of people where some of those people have rather unusual opinions about things and limited experience outside of technical areas within Bitcoin.
You just don't have enough experience in working on large projects to understand the benefits of the proposal discussed. I suggest you look into into and get some experience instead of posting rants that highlight your inexperience. What is silly is using a process that involves hyperbolic twitter and reddit posts.
Basically such a process does not replace the analysis that is done now, it just makes it transparent and attempts to make it consistent so there is not all this confusion over comparing apples and oranges. Here is link that discusses some of the benefits and limitations of doing this: http://www.jakeman.com.au/media/whats-right-with-risk-matrices.
Russ _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
