Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SoIiU-000187-Jw for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 18:29:50 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmx.de designates 213.165.64.22 as permitted sender) client-ip=213.165.64.22; envelope-from=thomasV1@gmx.de; helo=mailout-de.gmx.net; Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.22]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with smtp (Exim 4.76) id 1SoIiT-0000CW-Ln for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 18:29:50 +0000 Received: (qmail 19252 invoked by uid 0); 9 Jul 2012 18:29:43 -0000 Received: from 84.101.32.141 by www025.gmx.net with HTTP; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 20:29:43 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 20:29:43 +0200 From: thomasV1@gmx.de In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20120709182943.257650@gmx.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1341849295.94710.YahooMailNeo@web121003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1341850157.18601.YahooMailNeo@web121006.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Authenticated: #19670841 X-Flags: 0001 X-Mailer: WWW-Mail 6100 (Global Message Exchange) X-Priority: 3 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+TH55WItuTQ2UabFsGVN4gDyDK9IxzszB9kFxwqa kaoKI8cE34WtJSbzMQZFh/Qi7F/8NKgSqiOA== Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-GMX-UID: QEaJb8EFeSEqXlhER3Uh9M5+IGRvb4CC X-Spam-Score: -1.2 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [213.165.64.22 listed in list.dnswl.org] -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (thomasv1[at]gmx.de) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (thomasv1[at]gmx.de) X-Headers-End: 1SoIiT-0000CW-Ln Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Random order for clients page X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 18:29:50 -0000 I agree with Alan. I too am happy to see my client listed on bitcoin.org, and I don't mind Bitcoin-Qt being listed first. I have no problem with a "czar" approach if it can solve conflicts. I believe that it is useful to keep the 'clients' page on bitcoin.org, because it contributes to clarifying the difference between the Bitcoin client and Bitcoin as a protocol/network/ecosystem. It shows that Bitcoin is much more than its original implementation. It is a sign of health. Thomas -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Datum: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 14:03:55 -0400 > Von: Alan Reiner > An: Gregory Maxwell > CC: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" > Betreff: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Random order for clients page > I generally agree with Greg. I don't see anything he's said or done as > anti-alt-client. > > As an alt-client developer, I'm happy to see my client on the main page, > but I'm also happy if that "clients" page is simply an acknowledgement > that > there's more to the Bitcoin world than just the Bitcoin-Qt client, and a > link of where to find more information (i.e. the wiki). I would still * > prefer* to have the page the way it is, because I think alt clients should > be more accessible and word will spread better where it is now -- but I > also recognize the inherent difficulty of gaining any kind of consensus of > how it should be organized, what goes on the list, etc, and no matter how > you do it, someone will complain about it being unfair or not right. > > We either have to have a "czar" who is trusted to make responsible > decisions, and complaints of being unfair or recommendations for > improvements can go through that person, but ultimately it is that person > who makes the call. Or we just move it to another page that is less > strictly controlled and where these things matter less. Trying to gain > consensus among an amalgamation of developers all with competing > priorities > and "products" is a terrible way to try to agree on stuff. > > -Alan > > > >