<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">These are the kind of silly responses
      you often get when this subject comes up.  Mr. Garzik knows how to
      ignore messages he doesn't want so I see no need for him to use
      the list to attack people he doesn't agree with and/or try to
      interfere with discussions of others on the list. <br>
      He turns it into a personality discussion rather than a discussion
      of Systems Engineering.  He also tries to intimate anyone who
      brings up the discussion and "punish" them as a lesson to anyone
      else who may raise the issue.   <br>
      <br>
      It is interesting that people like that are attracted to a
      decentralized system.   The reply is simply an attempt at
      protecting turf which is why Mr. Garzik's vague replies are never
      taken seriously on the subject of decision-making process for the
      software. <br>
      <br>
      Russ<br>
      <br>
      <br>
      On 6/25/2015 1:07 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CADm_WcZ+5z-7KDsOaNunSWAROoJEsDSEAFZ-d2C6cZBrQTkBcw@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div dir="ltr">Ladies &amp; gents, please do not feed the troll. 
        This has been explained to Milly multiple times in the past, on
        previous mailing list &amp; github with no impact.
        <div><br>
        </div>
      </div>
      <div class="gmail_extra"><br>
        <div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Milly
          Bitcoin <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="mailto:milly@bitcoins.info" target="_blank">milly@bitcoins.info</a>&gt;</span>
          wrote:<br>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
            .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
            <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
              <div>I'm sorry but that is the kind of defensive, cultish
                response everyone gets when they ask that question.  If
                you had a well constructed documented process then you
                would be able to point to it ... but you can't.  While
                there are a few bits and pieces scattered  about in
                different places there is no coherent plan or process.<br>
                <br>
                It is easy to make statements like "consensus must be
                unanimous" but the issue is that you never have true
                100% consensus yet you have to move forward in some
                fashion and everyone has to run software with the same
                consensus rules.  The issue is how you move forward is
                the question that nobody wants to answer because (a) it
                is a hard question to answer and (b) developers see it
                as a threat to their authority/position.  If people just
                keep shutting down the discussion with a bunch of
                cultish stock answers then you are never going to move
                forward with developing some kind of process.  <br>
                <br>
                From what I can see much of the discussion is
                personality-driven and not based on Computer Science or
                and defined process.  The issue is that a personality
                has changed so the process is perceived to be different
                and some people want to hard fork.  Previously, the
                cultish answer is that Bitcoin development is
                decentralized because people can fork the code.  Now
                that some developers want to fork the code suddenly it
                is a big problem.   Is forking the code part of the
                consensus process or is it the work of the devil?   The
                fact that there is so much diverse opinion on this shows
                a defined process has never been fully vetted or
                understood.<br>
                <br>
                I have worked on these processes for many years for
                projects orders of magnitudes larger than Bitcoin.  I
                can absolutely assure you the current mishmash does not
                scale and huge amounts of time are wasted.  That should
                be readily apparent from the recent discussions and the
                recent concern it has caused from people outside the
                developer's inner circle.  <br>
                <br>
                Lack of defined process = high risk and wasted effort.<br>
                <br>
                Russ
                <div>
                  <div class="h5"><br>
                    <br>
                    <br>
                    <br>
                    <br>
                    On 6/24/2015 9:50 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:<br>
                  </div>
                </div>
              </div>
              <div>
                <div class="h5">
                  <blockquote type="cite">
                    <div dir="ltr">
                      <div>
                        <div>
                          <div>I'm sorry but this is absolutely not the
                            case, Milly. The reason that people get
                            defensive is that we have a carefully
                            constructed process that does work (thank
                            you very much!) and is well documented. We
                            talk about it quite often in fact as it is a
                            defining characteristic of how bitcoin is
                            developed which differs in some ways from
                            how other open source software is developed
                            -- although it remains the same in most
                            other ways.<br>
                            <br>
                          </div>
                          Changes to the non-consensus sections of
                          Bitcoin Core tend to get merged when there are
                          a few reviews, tests, and ACKs from recognized
                          developers, there are no outstanding
                          objections, and the maintainer doing the merge
                          makes a subjective judgement that the code is
                          ready.<br>
                          <br>
                        </div>
                        Consensus-changes, on the other hand, get merged
                        into Bitcoin Core only after the above criteria
                        are met AND an extremely long discussion period
                        that has given all the relevant stakeholders a
                        chance to comment, and no significant objections
                        remain. Consensus-code changes are unanimous.
                        They must be.<br>
                        <br>
                      </div>
                      <div>The sort of process that exists in standards
                        bodies for example, with working groups and
                        formal voting procedures, has no place where
                        changes define the nature and validity of other
                        people's money. Who has the right to reach into
                        your pocket and define how you can or cannot
                        spend your coins? The premise of bitcoin is that
                        no one has that right, yet that is very much
                        what we do when consensus code changes are made.
                        That is why when we make a change to the rules
                        governing the nature of bitcoin, we must make
                        sure that everyone is made aware of the change
                        and consents to it.<br>
                        <br>
                      </div>
                      <div>Everyone. Does this work? Does this scale? So
                        far, it does. Uncontroversial changes, such as
                        BIP 66, are deployed without issue. Every
                        indication is that BIP 66 will complete
                        deployment in the very near future, and we
                        intend to repeat this process for more
                        interesting changes such as BIP65:
                        CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY.<br>
                      </div>
                      <div><br>
                      </div>
                      <div>This isn't about no one stepping forward to
                        be the "decider." This is about no one having
                        the right to decide these things on the behalf
                        of others. If a contentious change is proposed
                        and not accepted by the process of consensus,
                        that is because the process is doing its job at
                        rejecting controversial changes. It has nothing
                        to do with personality, and everything to do
                        with the nature of bitcoin itself.<br>
                      </div>
                      <div><br>
                      </div>
                      <div>
                        <div>
                          <div>
                            <div>
                              <div class="gmail_extra"><br>
                                <div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 24,
                                  2015 at 5:07 PM, Milly Bitcoin <span
                                    dir="ltr">&lt;<a
                                      moz-do-not-send="true"
                                      href="mailto:milly@bitcoins.info"
                                      target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:milly@bitcoins.info">milly@bitcoins.info</a></a>&gt;</span>
                                  wrote:<br>
                                  <blockquote class="gmail_quote"
                                    style="margin:0 0 0
                                    .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
                                    solid;padding-left:1ex">I have seen
                                    this question asked many times. 
                                    Most developers become defensive and
                                    they usually give a very vague
                                    1-sentence answer when this question
                                    is asked.  It seems to be it is
                                    based on personalities rather than
                                    any kind of definable process.  To
                                    have that discussion the
                                    personalities must be separated out
                                    and answers like "such-and-such
                                    wouldn't do that" don't really do
                                    much to advance the discussion. 
                                    Also, the incentive for new
                                    developers to come in is that they
                                    will be paid by companies who want
                                    to influence the code and this
                                    should be considered (some
                                    developers take this statement as an
                                    insult when it is just a statement
                                    of the incentive process).<br>
                                    <br>
                                    The other problem you are having is
                                    the lead developer does not want to
                                    be a "decider" when, in fact, he is
                                    a very significant decider.  While
                                    the users have the ultimate choice
                                    in a practical sense the chief
                                    developer is the "decider."  Now
                                    people don't want to get him upset
                                    so nobody wants to push the issue or
                                    fully define the process.  Now you
                                    are left with a broken,
                                    unwritten/unspoken process.  While
                                    this type of thing may work with a
                                    small group of developers
                                    businesses/investors looking in from
                                    the outside will see this as a risk.<br>
                                    <br>
                                    Until you get passed all the
                                    personality-based arguments you are
                                    going to have a tough time defining
                                    a real process.<br>
                                    <br>
                                    Russ
                                    <div>
                                      <div><br>
                                        <br>
                                        <br>
                                        <br>
                                        <br>
                                        <br>
                                        On 6/24/2015 7:41 PM, Raystonn
                                        wrote:<br>
                                        <blockquote class="gmail_quote"
                                          style="margin:0 0 0
                                          .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
                                          solid;padding-left:1ex"> I
                                          would like to start a civil
                                          discussion on an undefined, or
                                          at least unwritten, portion of
                                          the BIP process.  Who should
                                          get to vote on approval to
                                          commit a BIP implementation
                                          into Bitcoin Core?  Is a
                                          simple majority of these
                                          voters sufficient for
                                          approval?  If not, then what
                                          is?<br>
                                          <br>
                                          Raystonn<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
                                          bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
                                          <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                                            href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
                                            target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
                                          <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                                            href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"
                                            rel="noreferrer"
                                            target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
                                          <br>
                                        </blockquote>
                                        <br>
                                        <br>
_______________________________________________<br>
                                        bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
                                        <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                                          href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
                                          target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
                                        <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                                          href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"
                                          rel="noreferrer"
                                          target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
                                      </div>
                                    </div>
                                  </blockquote>
                                </div>
                                <br>
                              </div>
                            </div>
                          </div>
                        </div>
                      </div>
                    </div>
                  </blockquote>
                  <br>
                </div>
              </div>
            </div>
            <br>
            _______________________________________________<br>
            bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
            <a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
            <a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"
              rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
            <br>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
        <br>
      </div>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <br>
      <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>