š
Original date posted:2022-09-13
š Original message:On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 2:47 AM Buck O Perley via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> First just wanted to thank you
for taking the initiative to
> put this together. I think that as the community and
> ecosystem continue to grow, it's going to be an important
> part of the process to have groups like this develop. Hopefully
> they allow us to resist the "Tyranny of Structurelessness" without
> resorting to formalized governance processes and systems.
Huh, lots of reading material behind that phrase. I'd heard it
before, but hadn't looked it up.
> > Defining a communication channel is still an open question: IRC, Slack,
> Discord, Discourse, ...
>
> I would vote against Slack. IRC is probably the best but maybe too
> high a barrier to entry? Publishing logs at least would counter
> concerns of it being exclusive. Maybe discord as an alternative.
I found Discord immediately wanted a phone number from me. I think
IRC remains the lowest bar for participants to contribute.
> > About the starting point for regular meetings, I think the good timing is
> somewhere in November, after the upcoming cycle of Bitcoin conferences,
+1
> Maybe as a way to keep these topics separate, it would make sense
> for activation to have its own WG. As norms develop around this one,
> they could inform creating a separate space focused on forwarding
> research and discussion around how to introduce upgrades to bitcoin.
I'd participate in this.
> In general it would be nice to have multiple of these groups
> happening at once, and finding a way that they can operate separate
> from centralized companies. To my mind, there's no good reason why
> a supposedly decentralized protocol should have to be focusing on only
> one set of protocol advancements at a time. The linear way that
> discussions post-Taproot activation took shape ("What do you think the
> next bitcoin softfork should be?") is a sign of weakness in my opinion.
> Definitely a big red flag that we should be concerned with.
Yes.
> * Any thoughts on starting to commit to an in-person meetup to happen
> ~6 months - 1 year after the start of the regular online meetings?
I think that sounds reasonable.
Ryan Grant [ARCHIVE] /
npub19aā¦6mwcl
2023-06-07 23:13:23
in reply to nevent1qā¦4mes
Author Public Key
npub19a2m7qm80t7mzhgqfgunswhm5c3q4fkqt89057ugy7u8jdxncf2q06mwclPublished at
2023-06-07 23:13:23Event JSON
{
"id": "3219cbf4aee0e3d1820dbb179f6a519b98d6a32c8bb90cf51efee29409bad8a9",
"pubkey": "2f55bf03677afdb15d004a39383afba6220aa6c059cafa7b8827b87934d3c254",
"created_at": 1686179603,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"e35298f3a454cb998688d0eb2bc6a4febabc3626fd1f28ccedf66cdab4b6d1df",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"058df283ba8ed88f88b87029c17225f3d73373b24191ef02cf46dcb3ec750816",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"7ca0ea60bd3bea4792668ba6996e5de9a85c1742157c36de1fcfe07e8d38a457"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2022-09-13\nš Original message:On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 2:47 AM Buck O Perley via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e First just wanted to thank you\nfor taking the initiative to\n\u003e put this together. I think that as the community and\n\u003e ecosystem continue to grow, it's going to be an important\n\u003e part of the process to have groups like this develop. Hopefully\n\u003e they allow us to resist the \"Tyranny of Structurelessness\" without\n\u003e resorting to formalized governance processes and systems.\n\nHuh, lots of reading material behind that phrase. I'd heard it\nbefore, but hadn't looked it up.\n\n\u003e \u003e Defining a communication channel is still an open question: IRC, Slack,\n\u003e Discord, Discourse, ...\n\u003e\n\u003e I would vote against Slack. IRC is probably the best but maybe too\n\u003e high a barrier to entry? Publishing logs at least would counter\n\u003e concerns of it being exclusive. Maybe discord as an alternative.\n\nI found Discord immediately wanted a phone number from me. I think\nIRC remains the lowest bar for participants to contribute.\n\n\u003e \u003e About the starting point for regular meetings, I think the good timing is\n\u003e somewhere in November, after the upcoming cycle of Bitcoin conferences,\n\n+1\n\n\u003e Maybe as a way to keep these topics separate, it would make sense\n\u003e for activation to have its own WG. As norms develop around this one,\n\u003e they could inform creating a separate space focused on forwarding\n\u003e research and discussion around how to introduce upgrades to bitcoin.\n\nI'd participate in this.\n\n\u003e In general it would be nice to have multiple of these groups\n\u003e happening at once, and finding a way that they can operate separate\n\u003e from centralized companies. To my mind, there's no good reason why\n\u003e a supposedly decentralized protocol should have to be focusing on only\n\u003e one set of protocol advancements at a time. The linear way that\n\u003e discussions post-Taproot activation took shape (\"What do you think the\n\u003e next bitcoin softfork should be?\") is a sign of weakness in my opinion.\n\u003e Definitely a big red flag that we should be concerned with.\n\nYes.\n\n\u003e * Any thoughts on starting to commit to an in-person meetup to happen\n\u003e ~6 months - 1 year after the start of the regular online meetings?\n\nI think that sounds reasonable.",
"sig": "3aa15c454efd1d75e0b867907029d1b27e13288d21b112c54575d6f15b390418078c74c3a7725a5464d6921b670306e000f717c8245e6099e42df4e46e5370d5"
}