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

2016-02-09 Thread David Vorick via bitcoin-dev
I do like that the volume of emails has been reduced substantially. I used to delete hordes of dev emails because I couldn't keep up. At least now I feel like I'm able to skim most things that look interesting and I get to assume that if the subject seems relevant to me the content is worthwhile.

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

2016-01-23 Thread Dave Scotese via bitcoin-dev
+1 The distinction we are making importantly requires that contributors provide readers with another thing to say in favor of something - another thing which is different than "X people support this instead of only X-1 people." Evidence trumps votes. On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Gavin via bit

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

2016-01-23 Thread Gavin via bitcoin-dev
> On Jan 23, 2016, at 3:59 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > I would extend this to say that the technical explanation also should > contribute uniquely to the conversation; a +1 with an explanation > the last +1 gave isn't useful. Yes, comments should contribute to the discussion, w

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

2016-01-23 Thread Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 06:33:56AM +0100, xor--- via bitcoin-dev wrote: > So "+1"ing is OK as long as I provide a technical explanation of why I agree? > While I still think that this is too much of a restriction because it > prevents > peer-review, I would say that I could live with it as a last

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

2016-01-23 Thread xor--- via bitcoin-dev
On Thursday, January 21, 2016 03:14:47 PM Rusty Russell wrote: > +1s here means simpling say "+1" or "me too" that carries no additional > information. ie. if you like an idea, that's great, but it's not worth > interruping the entire list for. > > If you say "I prefer proposal X over Y because "

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

2016-01-20 Thread Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev
Dave Scotese via bitcoin-dev writes: > 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? The

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

2016-01-20 Thread Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev
xor--- via bitcoin-dev writes: > 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"

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

2016-01-20 Thread Dave Scotese via bitcoin-dev
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

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

2016-01-20 Thread xor--- via bitcoin-dev
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 do

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

2016-01-20 Thread Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev
Hi all! As planned, this is the three month review[1]: discussion of how moderation should change is encouraged in this thread. First, thanks to everyone for the restraint shown in sending (and responding to!) inflammatory or sand-in-the-gears mails, and being tolerant with our mi