📅 Original date posted:2015-06-25
📝 Original message:I am not giving an opinion on the incentive process for developers. I
am just saying it exists and it needs to be taken into account when
developing a process. Pretending it doesn't exist or taking it as some
kind of personal insult does not do anything to advance the process.
The developer incentives feeds into the consensus process.
Depending on some kind of "rough consensus" with unstated
personality-based rules of the game works fine with small projects. As
the project gets larger that does not scale as can be seen with the
recent events. That is just a taste of what will happen in the future
as new issue arise. Developers will end up spending all day tweeting
and making videos instead of writing code.
The current process does not guarantee changes are approved on technical
merit alone and that is part of the problem. Since there is no defined
process people make claims of all sorts of motives that may or may not
exist. The idea is to get a defined process that gives a certain level
of assurance to outsiders that the process is based on things like
technical merit.
Russ
On 6/24/2015 11:42 PM, Gareth Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Milly Bitcoin <milly at bitcoins.info>
> wrote:
> <snip>
>> Also, the incentive for new
>> developers to come in is that they will be paid by companies who want to
>> influence the code and this should be considered
> <snip>
>> Now you are left with a broken, unwritten/unspoken process.
> Your former statement is a great example of why "rough consensus and
> running code" is superior to design by committee.
> An argument should be assessed on its technical merit alone, not on
> the number of people advancing it -- a process that would be open to
> exactly the type of external manipulation you say you are concerned
> about.
>
Milly Bitcoin [ARCHIVE] /
npub1rv…hc5wt
2023-06-07 15:40:12
in reply to nevent1q…p6s6
Author Public Key
npub1rv5ajnhgrc0wq3ulrk6tcjkgsaq8h4rs5rtsvrnklz4j0lw40egqphc5wtSeen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 15:40:12Event JSON
{
"id": "5a373cfdf4b6c5597780901b1f059872bd8621b5f208f8f00d3bc7b58e0b1262",
"pubkey": "1b29d94ee81e1ee0479f1db4bc4ac887407bd470a0d7060e76f8ab27fdd57e50",
"created_at": 1686152412,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3fe09b8bc3b13f27e42579b8ab63a325ab25d17e0571ce6b5f141d69b2abe4bf",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"0a2468d573f6dd4cf99f566126ea6debd5861f0d3ec4fd3dddb05578f900b05d",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"959a9c23e3a17ee9df362d7f12c50fbdefd93d94208519d2110bc65e3e9ed411"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-25\n📝 Original message:I am not giving an opinion on the incentive process for developers. I \nam just saying it exists and it needs to be taken into account when \ndeveloping a process. Pretending it doesn't exist or taking it as some \nkind of personal insult does not do anything to advance the process. \nThe developer incentives feeds into the consensus process.\n\nDepending on some kind of \"rough consensus\" with unstated \npersonality-based rules of the game works fine with small projects. As \nthe project gets larger that does not scale as can be seen with the \nrecent events. That is just a taste of what will happen in the future \nas new issue arise. Developers will end up spending all day tweeting \nand making videos instead of writing code.\n\nThe current process does not guarantee changes are approved on technical \nmerit alone and that is part of the problem. Since there is no defined \nprocess people make claims of all sorts of motives that may or may not \nexist. The idea is to get a defined process that gives a certain level \nof assurance to outsiders that the process is based on things like \ntechnical merit.\n\nRuss\n\n\nOn 6/24/2015 11:42 PM, Gareth Williams wrote:\n\u003e On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Milly Bitcoin \u003cmilly at bitcoins.info\u003e\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003csnip\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Also, the incentive for new\n\u003e\u003e developers to come in is that they will be paid by companies who want to\n\u003e\u003e influence the code and this should be considered\n\u003e \u003csnip\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Now you are left with a broken, unwritten/unspoken process.\n\u003e Your former statement is a great example of why \"rough consensus and\n\u003e running code\" is superior to design by committee.\n\u003e An argument should be assessed on its technical merit alone, not on\n\u003e the number of people advancing it -- a process that would be open to\n\u003e exactly the type of external manipulation you say you are concerned\n\u003e about.\n\u003e",
"sig": "0d45cf7a4c72f0b173f589c520fceb7985f4951ce41271c7741196b401d26222dc2a76aa0f87a801444cc3960e6f02cd499f2ce881ee0e8bfe45786b3a798f4b"
}