<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 & gents, please do not feed the troll.
This has been explained to Milly multiple times in the past, on
previous mailing list & 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"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:milly@bitcoins.info" target="_blank">milly@bitcoins.info</a>></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"><<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>></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>