Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2022 18:44:05 +0000
To: alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <2r9jSI5Ruf_j2Rm4R4a0g33YYhdLq1AQzrWCRLyna1BffMhCqXVBrH7Rll9noJeISH4uRM2ElF06x9FIXZoJh1ylxR-D9GX4s_fWFcqScHI=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <XB9BYeJEzU3l3LRXVwzGf8jSZYC2Uo5IXPCuhtne3V8xXVlkQ7VY0vc11lldZRm52fmniEYWN9AntPbJdJZ8fEeIVVMHUfWsbbvEr8OKwzc=@protonmail.com>
References: <XB9BYeJEzU3l3LRXVwzGf8jSZYC2Uo5IXPCuhtne3V8xXVlkQ7VY0vc11lldZRm52fmniEYWN9AntPbJdJZ8fEeIVVMHUfWsbbvEr8OKwzc=@protonmail.com>
Feedback-ID: 27732268:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Roles and procedures around adding a bitcoin core
	maintainer
Precedence: list

Hi alicexbt

There does seem to be some confusion on this which I'm going to look into. =
I don't think ranting and raving or throwing toys out the pram on the maili=
ng list is the productive way to go though. I'll chat to some people offlin=
e and see what the confusion is and hopefully this can be resolved without =
unnecessary drama. I'll respond in the new year. I don't know if you celebr=
ate but if you do Happy Holidays.

Thanks
Michael

--
Michael Folkson
Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com
Keybase: michaelfolkson
PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3


------- Original Message -------
On Monday, December 19th, 2022 at 23:58, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-=
dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:


> Hi Bitcoin Developers,
>=20
> List of present bitcoin core maintainers:
>=20
> Username
>=20
> Focus Area
>=20
> MarcoFalke
>=20
> General, QA
>=20
> fanquake
>=20
> General, Build
>=20
> hebasto
>=20
> General, UI/UX
>=20
> achow101
>=20
> General, Wallet
>=20
> glozow
>=20
> General, Mempool
>=20
> Last 2 developers that stepped down as bitcoin core maintainer:
>=20
> Username
>=20
> -------------
>=20
> sipa
>=20
> laanwj
>=20
> Process followed in adding last maintainer:
>=20
> 1) fanquake [nominated][0] glowzow as rbf/mempool/validation maintainer.
>=20
> 2) It was discussed in an IRC [meeting][1] and most of the developers agr=
eed to add her as new maintainer except mild NACK from Jeremy Rubin. Some c=
ontributors did not like different opinions being shared in the meeting.
>=20
> 3) A [pull request][2] was opened by glowzow to add keys. There were seve=
ral ACKs, 2 NACKs and 1 meta concept NACK.
>=20
> My NACK: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25524#issuecomment-11725=
18409
>=20
> NACK by jamesob: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25524#issuecomme=
nt-1172570635
>=20
> Meta concept NACK by luke-jr: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/255=
24#issuecomment-1175625779
>=20
> Eventually everyone agreed to add glowzow as maintainer and improve the p=
rocess of adding maintainers. Pull request was merged by MarcoFalke.
>=20
> Initiatives to improve the process and documentation:
>=20
> 1) Jeremy opened a [pull request][3] and there were lot of disagreements =
with the documentation. It was closed since a related PR with less changes =
could be easy to agree upon.
>=20
> 2) Related [pull request][4] with minimal documentation was also closed b=
y Jeremy with a comment that desire to improve docs seems to be missing bas=
ed on reviews.
>=20
> 3) Jeremy opened an [issue][5] with title 'Call for Maintainer: P2P & Net=
working + Privacy' which was changed later and 'Privacy' was removed. He no=
minated jonatack and vasild was already self nominated so mentioned in the =
pull request. Nobody appreciated this effort to nominate self or others for=
 a new maintainer. Later this was closed.
>=20
> 4) I had opened an [issue][6] with title Call for Maintainer: Privacy'. T=
his even involved privacy of contributors and not just bitcoin core. It rec=
eived some comments that made no sense and I eventually closed the issue.
>=20
> Process being followed for adding vasild as maintainer:
>=20
> 1) vasild volunteered to be a new maintainer on [IRC][7]
>=20
> 2) It was discussed in IRC [meeting][8], some developers ACKed it and the=
re were no issues.
>=20
> 3) A [pull request][9] was opened by vasild to add keys which is still op=
en and its been 4 months. There were already some ACKs from the IRC meeting=
 and pull request also received some ACKs (16 until now). fanquake, dergoeg=
ge and JeremyRubin had some disagreements. Jeremy had recently withdrawn al=
l ACK/NACK from bitcoin core repository for some reasons, fanquake has not =
replied yet and dergoegge had some new disagreements although don't mind if=
 the pull request is merged.
>=20
> 4) Earlier disagreements were related to scoping and it was changed by va=
sild
>=20
> 4) There was even a comment that disrespected vasild's contributions in b=
itcoin core and we had to literally share pull requests in which vasild has=
 improved bitcoin core.
>=20
> 5) I tried adding the topic for a bitcoin core dev weekly meeting but did=
 not achieve anything.
>=20
> Since Bitcoin Core is the reference implementation for Bitcoin and used b=
y 90% nodes, what should be the ideal process or changes you would expect i=
n roles, procedures etc.?
>=20
> - 'Call for maintainers' issue should be opened if contributors or mainta=
iners need a new maintainer.
>=20
> - Discussion about nominated contributors in an IRC meeting where everyon=
e is allowed to share their opinion.
>=20
> - One of the nominated contributor that gets most ACKs could open pull re=
quest to add keys. Everyone can ACK/NACK this PR with reasons.
>=20
> - Maintainers should be unbiased in merging these pull requests.
>=20
> - New maintainer should not be funded by the organization that already do=
es it for most of the maintainers.
>=20
> - Long term contributors that are not living in a first world country sho=
uld be encouraged.
>=20
> - Either we should agree every maintainer is a general maintainer that ca=
n merge pull request from different modules or define scope for present and=
 new maintainers. We can't do both.
>=20
> - Self merging pull requests should be avoided.
>=20
> Let me know if you have any thoughts that could improve this process and =
involve less politics.
>=20
> [0]: https://bitcoin-irc.chaincode.com/bitcoin-core-dev/2022-06-28#826651
>=20
> [1]: https://bitcoin-irc.chaincode.com/bitcoin-core-dev/2022-06-30#827695
>=20
> [2]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25524
>=20
> [3]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25560
>=20
> [4]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25839
>=20
> [5]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25870
>=20
> [6]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25875
>=20
> [7]: https://bitcoin-irc.chaincode.com/bitcoin-core-dev/2022-08-12#842847=
;
>=20
> [8]: https://bitcoin-irc.chaincode.com/bitcoin-core-dev/2022-08-18#844523
>=20
> [9]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25871
>=20
> /dev/fd0
>=20
> 'floppy disc guy'
>=20
> Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
>=20
> _______________________________________________
>=20
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>=20
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>=20
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev