📅 Original date posted:2016-01-21
📝 Original message:On Thursday, January 21, 2016 11:20:46 AM Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> So, what should moderation look like from now on?
The original mail which announced moderation contains this rule:
> - Generally discouraged: [...], +1s, [...]
I assume "+1s" means statements such as "I agree with doing X".
Any sane procedure of deciding something includes asking the involved people
whether they're for or against it.
If there are dozens of proposals on how to solve a particular technical
problem, how else do you want to decide it than having a vote?
It's very strange that this is not allowed - especially if we consider that
the Bitcoin community is in a state of constant dissent currently.
The effect is likely that you push the actual decision-making to IRC, which
less people have access to (since it's difficult to bear the high traffic),
and thus form some kind of "inner circle" - which makes decisions seem even
more as if they're being dictated.
So please consider allowing people to say whether they agree with something
something or don't.
Other than that, thanks for the good latency of moderation, I guess you're
doing hard work there :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160121/aee4edba/attachment.sig>;
xor at freenetproject.org [ARCHIVE] /
npub1n4…t6mlq
2023-06-07 17:48:02
in reply to nevent1q…uf96
Author Public Key
npub1n4mfz49w8xq76xc6uy55jlzjymk38gy5lswc9lrqksqqu4xlam7sft6mlqPublished at
2023-06-07 17:48:02Event JSON
{
"id": "5e4a7691492bf6b42db239cac8920f2f4fa73df92f4f1e7ef63b05e58f3ea6eb",
"pubkey": "9d769154ae3981ed1b1ae129497c5226ed13a094fc1d82fc60b4000e54dfeefd",
"created_at": 1686160082,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"443784c79bd2b729932644d0165b92b4b5b6ff7c95c51041a6be521aa013a639",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"1feca7fcb061f860d51ae7e33522367527c6c2392113de85d4236adf7d6a9ff8",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"13bd8c1c5e3b3508a07c92598647160b11ab0deef4c452098e223e443c1ca425"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-01-21\n📝 Original message:On Thursday, January 21, 2016 11:20:46 AM Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e So, what should moderation look like from now on?\n\nThe original mail which announced moderation contains this rule:\n\u003e - Generally discouraged: [...], +1s, [...]\n\nI assume \"+1s\" means statements such as \"I agree with doing X\".\n\nAny sane procedure of deciding something includes asking the involved people \nwhether they're for or against it.\nIf there are dozens of proposals on how to solve a particular technical \nproblem, how else do you want to decide it than having a vote?\nIt's very strange that this is not allowed - especially if we consider that \nthe Bitcoin community is in a state of constant dissent currently.\nThe effect is likely that you push the actual decision-making to IRC, which \nless people have access to (since it's difficult to bear the high traffic), \nand thus form some kind of \"inner circle\" - which makes decisions seem even \nmore as if they're being dictated.\n\nSo please consider allowing people to say whether they agree with something \nsomething or don't.\n\n\nOther than that, thanks for the good latency of moderation, I guess you're \ndoing hard work there :)\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 836 bytes\nDesc: This is a digitally signed message part.\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160121/aee4edba/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "538cc6ce0b65a6066fcfeaaa421131c5f64147135d4bc4589481ca837e5f32edf8a2c83ee8ac2c58dc5a62b8f8c28533208d93d82b2bf08e3945623020a90a39"
}