📅 Original date posted:2015-09-03
📝 Original message:On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Andy Chase via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I wrote the BIP mostly to stir the pot on ideas of governance
Some quick comments:
I have some objects that I am not ready to put into words, but I do
think there are easily some major objections to committee design. If I
vanish and never respond with my objections, perhaps there's an IETF
RFC about this already....
Something that may mitigate my possible objections would be some
mandatory requirement about ecosystem echo-chambers making many
attempts and efforts at steelman representations of alternative
viewpoints. Understanding objections at a fundamental level, enough to
make strong steelman statements, is very important to ensure that the
competing opinions are not censored from consideration. Pathological
integration and internalization of these steelman arguments can be
very useful, even if the process looks unusual.
Your process does not have to replace any particular BIP process
as-is, but rather could be an alternative that proceeds on its own
perhaps indefinitely without replacement. I don't think too many BIP
processes are necessarily incompatible except by namespace collision.
https://gist.github.com/andychase/dddb83c294295879308b#gistcomment-1566432
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
Bryan Bishop [ARCHIVE] /
npub1vt…jsjpg
2023-06-07 17:39:35
in reply to nevent1q…nxkp
Author Public Key
npub1vtwuk4rjyj6zrq3tv2z9lvdm6a7g8zujf0gz9q2vljlztdaqw36sjjsjpgPublished at
2023-06-07 17:39:35Event JSON
{
"id": "a7d258d3d2b4ff4fc61ba85c896f14ed440746a715beef45f6456629df8bcbff",
"pubkey": "62ddcb547224b421822b62845fb1bbd77c838b924bd022814cfcbe25b7a07475",
"created_at": 1686159575,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"9c96b271d28066e4cb9eb50131a2ba9c23f5c1ad1af3e01fa5e76e13c28699d2",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"aab2e5658797600aa491b894f28f5d2fe293363da6cbe90b6e82891d66968db4",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"ba04f4d1170f593a978aba85df5755615cf525b48d666a395a387ee1bf42efe3"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-09-03\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Andy Chase via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e I wrote the BIP mostly to stir the pot on ideas of governance\n\nSome quick comments:\n\nI have some objects that I am not ready to put into words, but I do\nthink there are easily some major objections to committee design. If I\nvanish and never respond with my objections, perhaps there's an IETF\nRFC about this already....\n\nSomething that may mitigate my possible objections would be some\nmandatory requirement about ecosystem echo-chambers making many\nattempts and efforts at steelman representations of alternative\nviewpoints. Understanding objections at a fundamental level, enough to\nmake strong steelman statements, is very important to ensure that the\ncompeting opinions are not censored from consideration. Pathological\nintegration and internalization of these steelman arguments can be\nvery useful, even if the process looks unusual.\n\nYour process does not have to replace any particular BIP process\nas-is, but rather could be an alternative that proceeds on its own\nperhaps indefinitely without replacement. I don't think too many BIP\nprocesses are necessarily incompatible except by namespace collision.\n\nhttps://gist.github.com/andychase/dddb83c294295879308b#gistcomment-1566432\n\n- Bryan\nhttp://heybryan.org/\n1 512 203 0507",
"sig": "0339504ea03e2c85e91dd48f1cbaa7887697120e6295469621f701b1fa360f9dfe3705711be960ce3e4152b1b16a48e49ce9c3f34b5bb306491b570ca57f13be"
}