pull down to refresh

300 sats \ 1 reply \ @Murch 30 Apr \ parent \ on: Mom and Dad are Fighting....Again (Re: Bitcoin Core OP_RETURN Restrictions) bitcoin
However I can't help but feel that the spirit of CONTRIBUTING.md and the spirit of what you're saying above
Yes, the repository is, quite literally, our workplace
are a bit different. Specifically this:
First, in terms of structure, there is no particular concept of "Bitcoin Core
developers" in the sense of privileged people. Open source often naturally
revolves around a meritocracy where contributors earn trust from the developer
community over time. Nevertheless, some hierarchy is necessary for practical
purposes. As such, there are repository maintainers who are responsible for
merging pull requests, the [release cycle](/doc/release-process.md), and
moderation.
The way I read it is: it's everyone's workplace that wishes to contribute (after all it's the integration tree?) but for practical reasons, not to protect the workplace of maintainers, maintainers/moderators are needed.
Sorry, but it’s a bit unfair to get hung up on just the first sentence when I wrote three that belong together:
Yes, the repository is, quite literally, our workplace. We encourage other people to also make it their workplace. We are happy for people to follow along or constructively contribute, but people that don’t work there are guests.
Maybe I should have said that the repository is a place where work is being done, but either way, I think it’s accurate. People are free to demonstrate in the street in front of a business, but if the rally is in the business’s office, it’s crossing a line.
Maybe. But look at meta#18 once more, and now read it as your own future ban report instead of that of someone you really dislike. How much of it would you say is precise and fair interpretations in rationale? And how much is a stretch?
Let’s just agree to disagree on this one. I don’t think that the bans were due to the position of the posters, but due to their behavior. Overall, the pull request is a magnitude more readable than last year’s iteration, so I would say moderation is quite the win.
Most of the people I asked to read the drama think among the lines of "there's something fishy going on here".
To be honest, it often seems to me that most bitcoiners are a tad too paranoid, especially when they perceive a party as "the man". And I guess to many Bitcoiners "Bitcoin Core" is now the man in some contexts. :shrug: We have been getting this sort of animosity for years as thanks for our contributions to Bitcoin Core.
Bottom line, I truly don't intend to shoot the messenger here, nor do I want to escalate this towards you personally. Therefore, thanks for hearing me out. I hope that this will be discussed much more and that you will be granted a lot more (hopefully at least a bit constructive) feedback than just my walls of text.
I appreciate the levelheaded conversation.
write
preview
142 sats \ 0 replies \ @endothermicdev 30 Apr
I appreciate your contributions Murch! Zero moderation is not practically feasible without a tragedy of the commons situation. I'm sorry that the alternative inevitably puts every action under a microscope for public airing of the grievances. We're all just passionate about the project.
reply