Hi Maxim, > In this regard, I’d like to propose the following: > > 1. The bitcoin-dev mail list must have a clear moderation (or > pre-publication peer-review policy). It can be proposed and discussed in this > mail list and, upon agreement, must become public and obligatory. > 2. Bryan Bishop, who was acting for a long time as moderator, must be > appreciated for many years of unpaid work, and replaced with the new > moderator who should be selected from a list of potential candidates (again > in this mail list) using the criteria “least votes against”. > 3. The role of the moderator(s) must be purely executive of the policies, > without any personal preferences. > 4. A dedicated mail list should be created (“bitcoin-dev-unmoderated”) which > will publish all submissions without moderation. It may contain spam and only > people interested in the auditing bitcoin-dev main mal list non-censorship > will be reading it. However, if they will notice that some non-spam e-mails > were censored, they can announce that publicly. In this case, the failing > moderator(s) should be removed and replaced. > 5. The incentive to work as a moderator should be reputation-based.
- I doubt moderation policy would change anything as it could be interpreted differently by everyone and misused. We have seen this in [BIPs repository][0] recently. - We should change moderators regularly since everyone has their bias and mailing list is important part of discussions related to bitcoin development. - Unmoderated mailing list front end could be created using all the emails from archives and moderated section. Moderated emails have attachments that would need some [EML parser][1]. I don't even know who are the present moderators or people with access to moderation queue. There should be some transparency about it. [0]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1408 [1]: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020213.html /dev/fd0 floppy disk guy Sent with Proton Mail secure email. ------- Original Message ------- On Saturday, June 3rd, 2023 at 5:13 AM, Dr Maxim Orlovsky via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Dear community, > > > I am writing this list to bitcoin-dev mail list, but to prevent potential > censorship I am sending CC to lightning-dev mail list, in order to leave the > current moderator(s) without an option not to publish the letter and not to > leave the topic “under the cover” (sorry Lightning friends for spamming your > list with this off-topic). > > > > A day before yesterday I sent a post to bitcoin-dev referencing the > publication of the new Bitcoin scalability and privacy protocol, which had > already received a broad reaction across the bitcoin community with literally > no critical/negative responses after ~25k of reads [1]. I am not the > first-time writer to the mail list and had developed things like RGB smart > contracts [2], rust lightning implementation named LNP [3], multiple bitcoin > libraries and software [4], [5], during three years was a main contributor to > rust-bitcoin [6] etc, etc. The post was clearly not spam and received support > from known community members like Giacomo Zucco [7]. Bryan Bishop knows me > since 2019 when I was presenting Storm protocol on the stage on Scaling > Bitcoin in Tel Aviv - and he was writing a transcript of it [8]. Thus, I am > not a random unknown guy or a known spammer - and the post can be easily > checked for not containing any scam promotion. > > > > Nevertheless, I next day I see other e-mails getting released to bitcoin-dev, > while mine - was not. It is not a problem, but since we already had an > incident in the past where Bryan reported the failure of his software, me and > my colleagues from LNP/BP Standards Association started asking questions > about whether this post ever got to Bryan. > > > > What happened next was very unexpected. I am giving the core of the > conversation over Twitter after in Annex A - with the purpose to showcase the > problem I’d like to address in this e-mail. From the discussion, it is clear > that bitcoin-dev mail list lacks clear explicit moderation (or peer-review) > policies, which must be applied on a non-selective basis. Also, Bryan Bishop, > as the current moderator, had abused his powers in achieving his agenda based > on personal likes or dislikes. The conversation went nowhere, and the post > got published only after a requirement from Peter Todd [9]. > > > > In this regard, I’d like to propose the following: > > 1. The bitcoin-dev mail list must have a clear moderation (or > pre-publication peer-review policy). It can be proposed and discussed in this > mail list and, upon agreement, must become public and obligatory. > 2. Bryan Bishop, who was acting for a long time as moderator, must be > appreciated for many years of unpaid work, and replaced with the new > moderator who should be selected from a list of potential candidates (again > in this mail list) using the criteria “least votes against”. > 3. The role of the moderator(s) must be purely executive of the policies, > without any personal preferences. > 4. A dedicated mail list should be created (“bitcoin-dev-unmoderated”) which > will publish all submissions without moderation. It may contain spam and only > people interested in the auditing bitcoin-dev main mal list non-censorship > will be reading it. However, if they will notice that some non-spam e-mails > were censored, they can announce that publicly. In this case, the failing > moderator(s) should be removed and replaced. > 5. The incentive to work as a moderator should be reputation-based. > > > > With that, I rest my case. > > > > Kind regards, > > Maxim Orlovsky > > > > [1]: > https://twitter.com/lnp_bp/status/1664329393131364353?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg > > [2]: > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-April/021554.html > > [3]: https://github.com/LNP-WG > > [4]: https://github.com/BP-WG > > [5]: https://github.com/mycitadel > > [6]: > https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/graphs/contributors?from=2018-12-31&to=2022-04-12&type=c > > [7]: > https://twitter.com/giacomozucco/status/1664515543154544645?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg > and > https://twitter.com/giacomozucco/status/1664731504923095041?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg > > [8]: > https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/telaviv2019/wip-storm-layer-2-3-storage-and-messaging > > [9]: > https://twitter.com/peterktodd/status/1664742651835367424?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg > > > > > > Annex A: > > > > - @kanzure just like to check that our submission to bitcoin-dev hasn’t got > to spam > <https://twitter.com/lnp_bp/status/1664649328349069320?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg> > - A few mods are reviewing it > <https://twitter.com/kanzure/status/1664680893548572677?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg> > - Oh, so a peer review is required to get to bitcoin-dev mail list? Never > read about that requirement anywhere > <https://twitter.com/lnp_bp/status/1664695061462777858?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>. > Seems like bitcoin-dev mail list requirements are now specific to the author > :) > <https://twitter.com/dr_orlovsky/status/1664695668475142144?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg> > - Not the greatest email to pull this over. I'll double check but pretty > sure the antagonization is boring me. > <https://twitter.com/kanzure/status/1664705038315409420?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg> > - Not sure I understand what you are saying. Can you please clarify? > <https://twitter.com/dr_orlovsky/status/1664705280393859103?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg> > - You are boring me and these antics don't make me want to go click approve > on your email. > <https://twitter.com/kanzure/status/1664705509147004946?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg> > - Are you the person to approve emails for it? > <https://twitter.com/phyrooo/status/1664732932068589568?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg> > - Yes > <https://twitter.com/kanzure/status/1664733107096899585?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg> > - It appears that people boring @kanzure is going through a dedicated > review procedure on bitcoin-dev mail list. Good moderation! Very clear > policy! > <https://twitter.com/dr_orlovsky/status/1664706165790461959?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg> > - What are you even doing. How does this behavior suppose to get people to > help you? > <https://twitter.com/kanzure/status/1664706931083329536?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg> > - I am not expecting you to help me - and never asked. I expect you to > openly declare moderation (or peer review) policy and follow it. > <https://twitter.com/dr_orlovsky/status/1664719295123685381?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg> > Since “if you get me bored I will not click an accept button” is not a > moderation policy which I expect from bitcoin-dev mail list. Probably not > just me. > <https://twitter.com/dr_orlovsky/status/1664719786633310209?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg> > - Yeah I mean I don't think these tweets are likely to get me to > enthusiastically resolve your problem... I dunno man. What's even going on > here. > <https://twitter.com/kanzure/status/1664735139065208833?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg> > - Bitcoin mail list clearly lacks explicit moderation policy. The same > mistake like with rust-bitcoin 1+ yrs ago. I am fine with peer review. > Moderation. But only explicit - not just “the way I (dis)like this guy” > <https://twitter.com/dr_orlovsky/status/1664736404931321859?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg> > > > > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
