Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94791C002A for ; Thu, 11 May 2023 18:04:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C96083C4D for ; Thu, 11 May 2023 18:04:22 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 7C96083C4D Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20221208 header.b=gZvmPKvf X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qC-Y-oncVv1Y for ; Thu, 11 May 2023 18:04:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 660E783C1B Received: from mail-pj1-x1029.google.com (mail-pj1-x1029.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1029]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 660E783C1B for ; Thu, 11 May 2023 18:04:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pj1-x1029.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-24ddf274039so6195957a91.1 for ; Thu, 11 May 2023 11:04:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1683828260; x=1686420260; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=6Pip6jzzUmFZxdmbAk8DQZCHnaEZdROBa7urWT49bqI=; b=gZvmPKvfH8bY/lqsy2BThtFjGeA1eR9toJHGaoy1FqPlzC13/P3VnF3RC5n4tHR5DK D7nX33LCAgtOKuDZpGhr09XctXfzLYPZIU0+lkjD3cAt0RaRBFxUhXrSgTHcOtHoIfzR RZ+9gSXkVHpAC09liPZDX0maTgPtGsfk3Hw/MIj/nYws9s1ACeNPbTROIg4YRLQ2oaDc tPxCD2r41q+ISO+RstsiaIYrPLD+LTdX83ui1adfIlOP+6GFsor98oIVZwdTb6dX+cy7 2nSDf3YNSRngv6aU2lRKjr1oCkniU/0eJbPmyGPEqxptBMHCTdvyKySIbuL9xYO7mm6J A8Bg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1683828260; x=1686420260; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=6Pip6jzzUmFZxdmbAk8DQZCHnaEZdROBa7urWT49bqI=; b=jT9Z1s/uoN8Xr8dee3Jn1hyBXxhOgyJIqf+3lx8AadVgHpx9MuV27LP6cy6ZYwLRZV KedNFRULx4YkrcTtqzo33AQzmlOisHgkdO/QFAqU+aprYURKyTA0jtg02roQSxoVTXBi B1kKy2v9vJMuaNn+d92/mjGHtXMfGR7wUdt0jtFsjR0t2jeh/m/hHk/CVtXdpat+Ju9/ M9VxxmhUyNQEq0Iuzqw/YAnO952mv2zjq5qzcZfBQOtRa0BrMzBwoDUYiOS8qmt5YR3u fVDe+vJnmDmTQjT7ACKdoJ68r/MoFuXakNPqs6TmIGGE0XJULQEjCgnLfib0YqMz27VO g+NQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDy4r+Z11f2pLaS7iOmtXF02f4l+ZhoCotSWqf5npp17Ei0zfl56 CpWOmNPp9vZIOyK4rNqtMXGIsP00RY8vVOM6BNI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ7aDSdL33W3wbdZsNQzcP0Mc+81KbB2/3cRpy/APKUS0UsuUE9lLl7HH8laRL1Odvzaqg0AvaqCd0/thVzYnhg= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:d30f:b0:250:4847:8d71 with SMTP id p15-20020a17090ad30f00b0025048478d71mr20116388pju.32.1683828259446; Thu, 11 May 2023 11:04:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Steve Lee Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 11:04:08 -0700 Message-ID: To: alicexbt , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000044646b05fb6ed1ca" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 11 May 2023 18:06:00 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core maintainers and communication on merge decisions X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 18:04:22 -0000 --00000000000044646b05fb6ed1ca Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I don't see any reason to be antagonistic in your responses. One piece of advice I'd offer to you and Michael is to consider whether your responses are effective. To persuade other people it takes more than making good points or being right, but you need to find a communication style and communication path that is effective. My observation is that your styles need reflection. On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 10:15=E2=80=AFAM alicexbt via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > We can take a look at how previous maintainers were added to see how this > has played out in the past. > > > Can we learn something from past? > > Bitcoin's initial release was in 2009 with one developer and few others > experimenting with it. It is considered decentralized in 2023 however we > have 99% of nodes using bitcoin core, 5 developers deciding what's merged > or not and this includes some trying to implement their ideas without sof= t > fork using mempool policies. > > We need better process to add maintainers. I am disappointed with the way > last last pull request was merged. It says more about maintainers and > leader Michael Ford. If you are so scared about opinions on a pull reques= t > why not just make him maintainer without pull request? > > Maybe you will understand this if your PR to add maintainer was kept open > for 4 months. > > /dev/fd0 > floppy disk > > > Sent with Proton Mail secure email. > > ------- Original Message ------- > On Thursday, May 11th, 2023 at 2:54 AM, Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On 05/07/23 03:03 AM, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > > The decision process for adding a new maintainer was according to the IRC > meeting that the maintainers decided privately there was a need for a > maintainer =E2=80=9Cwho understood our interfaces and modularization effo= rts well=E2=80=9D > and that ryanofsky was a =E2=80=9Cgood fit for that=E2=80=9D. I don=E2=80= =99t know whether this was > decided in a private IRC channel or was decided at the recent in person > Core Dev meeting. Regardless, many have had no input into the discussion = on > what kind of maintainer the project needs going forward and it seems the > maintainers do not want to discuss that aspect of the decision. > > Since the project began, the decision to seek out and then add a > maintainer has always been made by existing maintainers. When the > maintainers feel that there is a need for additional maintainers, they ma= y > have an open call for volunteers, or may have a candidate already in mind > and suggest that specific person for maintainership. Contributors general= ly > are not consulted in the decision to seek a new maintainer as they would > not know whether there are things that are being overlooked or that there > is maintainership load that needs to be distributed. Even so, it wouldn't > be appropriate to add a maintainer if many contributors disagreed with it= , > just as with any other PR. > > We can take a look at how previous maintainers were added to see how this > has played out in the past. I think our modern concept of maintainers wit= h > nominal scopes began in 2015 with Jonas Schnelli. Both Jonas Schnelli and > Marco Falke were simply announced by Wladimir. There was no public > discussion, and some IRC logs refer to private emails between the them an= d > the current maintainers at that time. After that, meshcollider was added = as > a maintainer after a public "call for maintainers" where a recurring topi= c > for a while was finding a maintainer for the wallet. He had volunteered t= o > do it by contacting Wladimir privately before it was discussed during an > IRC meeting and then on Github. Fanquake was added as a maintainer during= a > CoreDev event in Amsterdam during a discussion initiated and led by the > maintainers. This was also "private" insofar as the discussion was limite= d > to those in attendance, although there was some opportunity for public > discussion in the PR opened on Github. For myself, it was also initially > private as I messaged Wladimir to volunteer for it after meshcollider > stepped down. There was some discussion on IRC and on Github, but it was > also obvious that many already expected me to be the wallet maintainer > after meshcollider. Hebasto was added with basically no fanfare or > discussion - the only mention I can find is the PR itself. My understandi= ng > is that the maintainers asked him he wanted to do it before the PR was > opened. Glozow was nominated to be a maintainer by some of the current > maintainers, and her nomination was really the first time that there was > significant public discussion about it. > > Of the past 7 maintainer additions, 5 were nominations/announcements from > the current maintainers, one was volunteering following an actual "call f= or > maintainer", and one was an obvious successor. It's obvious and common > sense that the maintainers decide when they need help shouldering the loa= d, > and then find somebody to help them. There was and always will be some > level of private communication prior to any public announcement of the > nomination or volunteering of a maintainer. It doesn't make sense to > blindside somebody with a nomination without talking to them beforehand. > The fact that most of these were non-controversial speaks to how well the > maintainers were considering their nominations before publicly announcing > them. > > It's also clear that we have been moving towards more open discussion > about maintainership and who should be maintainers. The process is > fundamentally more public than it was previously. We now have public > discussion with contributors about the merits of a person, even if that > results in said person not becoming a maintainer. Over time, there's been > more public participation in the PRs and on IRC meetings when maintainer > nominations are brought up. We have nominations as topics during meetings > now when they occur. The PRs to add keys are left open for longer to get > more discussion. > > Ultimately, if you disagree with how the project operates, then you are > free to leave and start your own fork that is run in a way that you think > is appropriate. This is open source software, no one is beholden to you, > and no one is required to do anything. > > *** > > Since you are intent on discussing and re-litigating the decision about > Vasil, I will agree that we (the maintainers) could have done a better jo= b > of communicating. However we stand by the decision that was made in the > end, and we did have a chat with him about it during CoreDev. > > It really boils down to three things: 1) we did not ask for a P2P > maintainer, 2) some of those who have reviewed Vasil's work expressed > discomfort with him being a maintainer, and 3) some contributors and > maintainers were uncomfortable with his responses about how he would merg= e > things. You repeatedly insist that it's only the current maintainers who > blocked Vasil, but that is not the case. There were concerns brought up b= y > other contributors that contributed to the decision to ultimately NACK hi= s > nomination. > > One of the justifications for blocking Vasil Dimov as a new maintainer > despite many initial ACKs from maintainers (including Andrew Chow) and lo= ng > term contributors was according to Andrew [2]: > > To be honest, my initial ACK was given without knowing enough information= . > It was given when he was mostly a name that showed up in my notification > emails, and his work had seemed to be fine with me. At that time, I did n= ot > think we had a need for a P2P maintainer, but I also did not think that > having one would be harmful. However I later spoke to a few others > privately who were more familiar with Vasil's work and they had told me > that they were not comfortable with Vasil being P2P maintainer. > > =E2=80=9CMaintainers inherently need to look at the things that everyone = else has > already looked at, if only to give it a final once over before merging (b= ut > hopefully, an actual review, not just looking it over).=E2=80=9D > > > I follow the Bitcoin Core repo pretty closely and I haven=E2=80=99t seen = ryanofsky > do this any more than Vasil does. This is not a criticism of ryanofsky, > just as I wouldn=E2=80=99t use it as a criticism for Vasil. It would get = pretty > annoying if everyone who wasn=E2=80=99t a maintainer posted an ACK once m= any long > term contributors had already ACKed to display supposed =E2=80=9Cdesired = maintainer > traits=E2=80=9D. Especially if you are essentially just ACKing that other= s have > done the work to review the PR and you just want to get your ACK on it to > increase your ACK count without doing a fraction of what previous reviewe= rs > have done. > > This opinion was formed not from observing his behavior towards ACK'ing, > but rather from his responses to questions about reviewing, in addition t= o > thoughts shared by other contributors. > > From having received plenty of reviews from ryanofsky, I can certainly sa= y > that his reviews are in depth. He has pointed out subtle bugs, asks > questions about very low level details, and has well reasoned critiques a= nd > discussions about design decisions. His reviews are high quality, and he'= s > not afraid of being the first person to ACK a pr, the last person to ACK > it, or the person to prevent one from being merged even when it already h= as > a few ACKs. We also had a separate discussion with ryanofsky about his > approaches to reviewing and merging. > > =E2=80=9CI also want to mention that the people who have become maintaine= rs in the > past have had this kind of maintainer attitude towards review prior to > becoming a maintainer=E2=80=9D > > > Assuming ryanofsky hasn=E2=80=99t had this maintainer attitude in the pas= t (again > not a criticism from me at least) does this mean this was a reason to blo= ck > Vasil but not a reason to block ryanofsky? That seems inconsistent to me. > > I don't know why you assume the ryanofsky hasn't had this maintainer > attitude? Your claim of inconsistency stems from this assumption that > ryanofsky doesn't have a maintainer attitude, but I would argue that he > does, as I mentioned above. The idea of adding him as a maintainer has be= en > floated around before, although never really seriously proposed until now= , > AFAIK. > > When you=E2=80=99re anointed you don=E2=80=99t need to meet requirements = but when you=E2=80=99re > blocked these requirements will be used to block your addition as a new > maintainer? > > It seems obvious to me that when the current maintainers approach and > nominate a contributor to be a maintainer that that person already meets > these requirements. I don't know why you would assume bad faith in that > someone who isn't qualified would be nominated by the current maintainers= . > It's quite frustrating that you seem to just jump straight to the negativ= e > conclusion rather than considering that there might be actual reasons bas= ed > on the merits of the person. > > On a more positive note there does seem to be more energy and momentum fo= r > collaboration and open communication on the project since I discussed > communication in a previous post [3]. Hopefully this will continue. It > doesn=E2=80=99t address my concerns on maintainers and ultimately merge d= ecisions > but it definitely seems to me to be a step in a positive direction for th= e > project. > > Don't take credit for what you didn't do. The group-wide effort to move > towards public discussion again is the result of a discussion that was ha= d > at CoreDev. Many cited your behavior as a primary reason to stop discussi= ng > things publicly, with things such as dragging project meta discussions on= to > the mailing list and twitter. These have invited abuse towards maintainer= s > and contributors, which in turn makes them takes those discussions to mor= e > private settings. People feel like they're getting sealioned by you (and = a > few others) when they post publicly, and so they have stopped doing so. > > > Andrew > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --00000000000044646b05fb6ed1ca Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I don't see any reason to be antagonistic=C2=A0in your= responses.=C2=A0

One piece of advice I'd offer= to you and Michael is to consider whether your responses are effective. To= persuade other people it takes more than making good points=C2=A0or being = right, but you need to find a communication style and communication path th= at is effective. My observation is that your styles need reflection.
<= div>

On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 10:15=E2=80=AFAM alicexbt via b= itcoin-dev <bit= coin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Hi Andrew,

We can take a look at how previous = maintainers were added to see how this has played out in the past.=C2= =A0

Can we learn something from past?

Bitcoin's initial release was in 2009= with one developer and few others experimenting with it. It is considered = decentralized in 2023 however we have 99% of nodes using bitcoin core, 5 de= velopers deciding what's merged or not and this includes some trying to= implement their ideas without soft fork using mempool policies.=C2=A0

We need better proces= s to add maintainers. I am disappointed with the way last last pull request= was merged. It says more about maintainers and leader Michael Ford. If you= are so scared about opinions on a pull request why not just make him maint= ainer without pull request?=C2=A0

Maybe you will understand this if your PR to add maintaine= r was kept open for 4 months.=C2=A0

/dev/fd0
floppy disk


=20
=20
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

------- Original Message -------
On Thursday, May 11th, 2023 at 2:54 AM, Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev= <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

=20 On 05/07/23 03:03 AM, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev wrote:
=20

The decision process for adding a new maintainer was according to the IRC meeting that the maintainers decided privately there was a need for a maintainer =E2=80=9Cwho understood our interfaces and modularizat= ion efforts well=E2=80=9D and that ryanofsky was a =E2=80=9Cgood fit = for that=E2=80=9D. I don=E2=80=99t know whether this was decided in a private IRC chan= nel or was decided at the recent in person Core Dev meeting. Regardless, many have had no input into the discussion on what kind of maintainer the project needs going forward and it seems the maintainers do not want to discuss that aspect of the decision.

Since the project began, the decision to seek out and then add a maintainer has always been made by existing maintainers. When the maintainers feel that there is a need for additional maintainers, they may have an open call for volunteers, or may have a candidate already in mind and suggest that specific person for maintainership. Contributors generally are not consulted in the decision to seek a new maintainer as they would not know whether there are things that are being overlooked or that there is maintainership load that needs to be distributed. Even so, it wouldn't be appropriate to add a maintainer if many contributors disagreed with it, just as with any other PR.

We can take a look at how previous maintainers were added to see how this has played out in the past. I think our modern concept of maintainers with nominal scopes began in 2015 with Jonas Schnelli. Both Jonas Schnelli and Marco Falke were simply announced by Wladimir. There was no public discussion, and some IRC logs refer to private emails between the them and the current maintainers at that time. After that, meshcollider was added as a maintainer after a public "call for maintainers" where a recurring topic for a w= hile was finding a maintainer for the wallet. He had volunteered to do it by contacting Wladimir privately before it was discussed during an IRC meeting and then on Github. Fanquake was added as a maintainer during a CoreDev event in Amsterdam during a discussion initiated and led by the maintainers. This was also "private" insofar a= s the discussion was limited to those in attendance, although there was some opportunity for public discussion in the PR opened on Github. For myself, it was also initially private as I messaged Wladimir to volunteer for it after meshcollider stepped down. There was some discussion on IRC and on Github, but it was also obvious that many already expected me to be the wallet maintainer after meshcollider. Hebasto was added with basically no fanfare or discussion - the only mention I can find is the PR itself. My understanding is that the maintainers asked him he wanted to do it before the PR was opened. Glozow was nominated to be a maintainer by some of the current maintainers, and her nomination was really the first time that there was significant public discussion about it.

Of the past 7 maintainer additions, 5 were nominations/announcements from the current maintainers, one was volunteering following an actual "call for maintainer", and one was an obvious successo= r. It's obvious and common sense that the maintainers decide when they need help shouldering the load, and then find somebody to help them. There was and always will be some level of private communication prior to any public announcement of the nomination or volunteering of a maintainer. It doesn't make sense to blindside somebody with a nomination without talking to them beforehand. The fact that most of these were non-controversial speaks to how well the maintainers were considering their nominations before publicly announcing them.

It's also clear that we have been moving towards more open discussion about maintainership and who should be maintainers. The process is fundamentally more public than it was previously. We now have public discussion with contributors about the merits of a person, even if that results in said person not becoming a maintainer. Over time, there's been more public participation in th= e PRs and on IRC meetings when maintainer nominations are brought up. We have nominations as topics during meetings now when they occur. The PRs to add keys are left open for longer to get more discussion.

Ultimately, if you disagree with how the project operates, then you are free to leave and start your own fork that is run in a way that you think is appropriate. This is open source software, no one is beholden to you, and no one is required to do anything.

***

Since you are intent on discussing and re-litigating the decision about Vasil, I will agree that we (the maintainers) could have done a better job of communicating. However we stand by the decision that was made in the end, and we did have a chat with him about it during CoreDev.

It really boils down to three things: 1) we did not ask for a P2P maintainer, 2) some of those who have reviewed Vasil's work expressed discomfort with him being a maintainer, and 3) some contributors and maintainers were uncomfortable with his responses about how he would merge things. You repeatedly insist that it's only the current maintainers who blocked Vasil, but that is not the case. There were concerns brought up by other contributors that contributed to the decision to ultimately NACK his nomination.

One of the justifications for blocking Vasil Dimov as a new maintainer despite many initial ACKs from maintainers (including Andrew Chow) and long term contributors was according to Andrew [2]:

To be honest, my initial ACK was given without knowing enough information. It was given when he was mostly a name that showed up in my notification emails, and his work had seemed to be fine with me. At that time, I did not think we had a need for a P2P maintainer, but I also did not think that having one would be harmful. However I later spoke to a few others privately who were more familiar with Vasil's work and they had told me that they were not comfortable with Vasil being P2P maintainer.

=E2=80=9CMaintainers inherently need to look at the things that everyone else has already looked at, if only to give it a final once over before merging (but hopefully, an actual review, not just looking it over).=E2=80=9D


I follow the Bitcoin Core repo pretty closely and I haven=E2=80=99t seen ryanofsky do = this any more than Vasil does. This is not a criticism of ryanofsky, just as I wouldn=E2=80=99t use it as a criticism for V= asil. It would get pretty annoying if everyone who wasn=E2=80=99t a maintainer posted an ACK once many long term contributors had already ACKed to display supposed =E2=80=9Cdesired maintainer tra= its=E2=80=9D. Especially if you are essentially just ACKing that others have done the work to review the PR and you just want to get your ACK on it to increase your ACK count without doing a fraction of what previous reviewers have done.

This opinion was formed not from observing his behavior towards ACK'ing, but rather from his responses to questions about reviewing= , in addition to thoughts shared by other contributors.

From having received plenty of reviews from ryanofsky, I can certainly say that his reviews are in depth. He has pointed out subtle bugs, asks questions about very low level details, and has well reasoned critiques and discussions about design decisions. His reviews are high quality, and he's not afraid of being the first person to ACK a pr, the last person to ACK it, or the person to prevent one from being merged even when it already has a few ACKs. We also had a separate discussion with ryanofsky about his approaches to reviewing and merging.

=E2=80=9CI also want to mention that the people who have become maintainers in the past have had this kind of maintainer attitude towards review prior to becoming a maintainer=E2=80=9D


Assuming ryanofsky hasn=E2=80=99t had this maintainer attitude in the past (again no= t a criticism from me at least) does this mean this was a reason to block Vasil but not a reason to block ryanofsky? That seems inconsistent to me.

I don't know why you assume the ryanofsky hasn't had this maint= ainer attitude? Your claim of inconsistency stems from this assumption that ryanofsky doesn't have a maintainer attitude, but I would argu= e that he does, as I mentioned above. The idea of adding him as a maintainer has been floated around before, although never really seriously proposed until now, AFAIK.

When you=E2=80=99re ano= inted you don=E2=80=99t need to meet requirements but when you=E2=80=99= re blocked these requirements will be used to block your addition as a new maintainer?

It seems obvious to me that when the current maintainers approach and nominate a contributor to be a maintainer that that person already meets these requirements. I don't know why you would assume bad faith in that someone who isn't qualified would be nominated by the current maintainers. It's quite frustrating that you seem to just jump straight to the negative conclusion rather than considering that there might be actual reasons based on the merits of the person.

On a more positive note there does seem to be more energy and momentum for collaboration and open communication on the project since I discussed communication in a previous post [3]. Hopefully this will continue. It doesn=E2=80=99t address my concerns on maintain= ers and ultimately merge decisions but it definitely seems to me to be a step in a positive direction for the project.

Don't take credit for what you didn't do. The group-wide effort= to move towards public discussion again is the result of a discussion that was had at CoreDev. Many cited your behavior as a primary reason to stop discussing things publicly, with things such as dragging project meta discussions onto the mailing list and twitter. These have invited abuse towards maintainers and contributors, which in turn makes them takes those discussions to more private settings. People feel like they're getting sealioned by you (and a few others= ) when they post publicly, and so they have stopped doing so.


Andrew

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--00000000000044646b05fb6ed1ca--