pull down to refresh

Should Bitcoin Core's Repo on Github be Moderated?
705 sats \ 10k boost \ 10 comments \ @unschooled 7h bitcoin
No preface here.
Should discussions in pull requests, issues, etc, on the Bitcoin Core repository be moderated, whereby certain people have privilege to hide/block participants?
Simple "ye"s or "no" poll. Discuss in comments.
Yes44.4%
No55.6%
36 votes \ 7 days left
write
preview
related posts
185 sats \ 2 replies \ @south_korea_ln 5h
I'd say yes. Incessant and unproductive noise from certain people can sap other people's ability to focus on work. But that's probably because I've read about the preface you've omitted here. I know some of the context. And I'm thus probably biased in my answer. In an ideal world, I'd likely have said "no, one should not silence people on a project that has no central authority". Then again, Bitcoin core is just one implementation of the project (albeit the only one seriously being used), nothing keeps dissidents from starting their own implementation and try to get it adopted by the majority of people. One can moderate within a certain implementation, in theory, its effect does not reach outside of this specific implementation. Any company can refuse service to someone else, that does not infringe on someone's freedom of speech. But due to the very specific nature of Bitcoin core, it's hard to really decide on yes or no.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @unschooled OP 5h
Ofc the context is certainly important here. I've chosen not to include it so that others can explain, as you have done. By now, I feel I've weighed in on SN about my pov, so I don't want to dilute the discussion any more with whatever my bias may be.1
I'd encourage everyone to seek out reliable information critically before making snap judgements. That being said, there probably is at least some value in knowing how outsiders do make snap judgements about this question (if it is done appropriately - hence the poll).
But due to the very specific nature of Bitcoin core, it's hard to really decide on yes or no.
Do you think maybe the solution is a pay 2 post model?

Footnotes

  1. #965828 ↩
reply
42 sats \ 0 replies \ @Artilektt 4h
Pay 2 Post could be a good idea
reply
101 sats \ 1 reply \ @gbks 5h
The answer is obviously yes to anyone who has managed a public project or community. A code repository is for code-related things and some very deep work happens there. The mailing list and other avenues exist for other types of conversation.
reply
42 sats \ 0 replies \ @SevenOfNine 3h
100%. Though, good luck trying to express that nuance to individuals responding with "No".
reply
42 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 3h
Yes. Because without at least a minimum amount of moderation... anyone could spam the discussion or add reasonably unhelpful comments that don't further a discussion based on merits.
reply
42 sats \ 0 replies \ @kristapsk 5h
Yes, there are from time to time scam posts or some nonsense pull requests by people who don't know how to use GitHub properly.
reply
5 sats \ 0 replies \ @_Bubble_2009 6h
Let's say that the moderator could delete some spam, but there is a discourse of freedom of opinion. There are the maintainers who take care of closing the useless pulls. Here we have @Daniela who is maintainer of a GitHub that can tell how much time it spends closing useless Pull Requests.
(Daniela, I apologize if the term maintainer is incorrect)
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @itsrealfake 4h
GITHUB IS NOT THE ANSWER.
WE SHOULD GET CORE INTO Nostr-based GIT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BITC0IN 2h
Yes., But...
Feedback on that moderation is inevitable. It's somewhat important for Moderators to be open to that feedback, since some of it may be valid to consider.
reply