<div dir="ltr"><div><div>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."<br><br></div>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.<br><br></div>It is a shame that the moderated messages require so many steps to retrieve. Is it possible to have the "downloadable version" from <a href="https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev-moderation/">https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev-moderation/</a> for each month contain the text of the moderated emails? They do contain the subjects, so that helps.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:25 PM, xor--- via bitcoin-dev <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On Thursday, January 21, 2016 11:20:46 AM Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
> So, what should moderation look like from now on?<br>
<br>
</span>The original mail which announced moderation contains this rule:<br>
> - Generally discouraged: [...], +1s, [...]<br>
<br>
I assume "+1s" means statements such as "I agree with doing X".<br>
<br>
Any sane procedure of deciding something includes asking the involved people<br>
whether they're for or against it.<br>
If there are dozens of proposals on how to solve a particular technical<br>
problem, how else do you want to decide it than having a vote?<br>
It's very strange that this is not allowed - especially if we consider that<br>
the Bitcoin community is in a state of constant dissent currently.<br>
The effect is likely that you push the actual decision-making to IRC, which<br>
less people have access to (since it's difficult to bear the high traffic),<br>
and thus form some kind of "inner circle" - which makes decisions seem even<br>
more as if they're being dictated.<br>
<br>
So please consider allowing people to say whether they agree with something<br>
something or don't.<br>
<br>
<br>
Other than that, thanks for the good latency of moderation, I guess you're<br>
doing hard work there :)<br>_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a 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><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">I like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do you need a techie? <br>I own <a href="http://www.litmocracy.com" target="_blank">Litmocracy</a> and <a href="http://www.memeracing.net" target="_blank">Meme Racing</a> (in alpha). <br>I'm the webmaster for <a href="http://www.voluntaryist.com" target="_blank">The Voluntaryist</a> which now accepts Bitcoin.<br>I also code for <a href="http://dollarvigilante.com/" target="_blank">The Dollar Vigilante</a>.<br>"He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" - Satoshi Nakamoto</div></div>
</div>