š
Original date posted:2016-01-23
š Original message:On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 06:33:56AM +0100, xor--- via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> So "+1"ing is OK as long as I provide a technical explanation of why I agree?
> While I still think that this is too much of a restriction because it prevents
> peer-review, I would say that I could live with it as a last resort if you
> don't plan to abolish this rule altogether.
>
> So in that case, to foster peer review, I would recommend you amend the rules
> to clarify this.
> Example: "+1s are not allowed unless you provide an explanation of why you
> agree with something".
I would extend this to say that the technical explanation also should
contribute uniquely to the conversation; a +1 with an explanation
the last +1 gave isn't useful.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000007e2005be0ce25b3f3de67b2dc35fd810b0ccd77b33eb7be
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160123/7aa2753d/attachment.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2ā¦a2np2
2023-06-07 17:48:04
in reply to nevent1qā¦m50y
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Published at
2023-06-07 17:48:04Event JSON
{
"id": "fbce1a3c7439530bf02d8d18b5ab94d4e2fdb681dac383c897f36e8faa15e433",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686160084,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"443784c79bd2b729932644d0165b92b4b5b6ff7c95c51041a6be521aa013a639",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"47f5c55dd0161812b5a6a64e43c3524a6ceb058dcac5c1860152b3870896f133",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"9d769154ae3981ed1b1ae129497c5226ed13a094fc1d82fc60b4000e54dfeefd"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2016-01-23\nš Original message:On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 06:33:56AM +0100, xor--- via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e So \"+1\"ing is OK as long as I provide a technical explanation of why I agree?\n\u003e While I still think that this is too much of a restriction because it prevents \n\u003e peer-review, I would say that I could live with it as a last resort if you \n\u003e don't plan to abolish this rule altogether.\n\u003e \n\u003e So in that case, to foster peer review, I would recommend you amend the rules \n\u003e to clarify this.\n\u003e Example: \"+1s are not allowed unless you provide an explanation of why you \n\u003e agree with something\".\n\nI would extend this to say that the technical explanation also should\ncontribute uniquely to the conversation; a +1 with an explanation\nthe last +1 gave isn't useful.\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n000000000000000007e2005be0ce25b3f3de67b2dc35fd810b0ccd77b33eb7be\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 650 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160123/7aa2753d/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "6e990bbc32c269a84d47e5f61f2ae537ac4aa2f9349d272618788ddb7ae6bee1deaa11ecbb2a65f3b9dc01bddf16bb7e7bbc3962eb564443528c6b35f05e9a1e"
}