Date: Mon, 08 May 2023 09:36:27 +0000
To: "David A. Harding" <dave@dtrt.org>
From: Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <tK-uLnT7l8aprKJgs8SZAuWUfoWiZUnUrkFVNG6E4kaXjRzkK7CMj6xGSYrHoSmsGdzUYY6B6pp-hDtixTohE22yu2PsBi6GDOgKR-u1bzQ=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f2912dbbad28db5139e8df13f52e082d@dtrt.org>
References: <uuq_VbxJp50_-m4ufKpEhJOknhZ0pvK8ioDabCkxtDjBYauO3gLKrj2O2tjS6YIFOnJLyaZg6-LENzom1DyQQ3TyMLIIaGz5IRrzrKB8gRs=@protonmail.com>
 <qLlgx_AotByY1ZZHTCn3BBK7x1spKEYYd3UP4txYq-RceoclKdVAB1E5MJ4FTV7bWVP1Ilsdbmn43dkrOfqw84EUUQAvnkztN9FY1R5oDOA=@protonmail.com>
 <f2912dbbad28db5139e8df13f52e082d@dtrt.org>
Feedback-ID: 27732268:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core maintainers and communication on
	merge decisions
Precedence: list

Hi David

>> Essentially my concern is going forward current maintainers will decide =
which proposed new maintainers to add and which to block.

> This is how a large percentage of organizations are run.  The current mem=
bers of a board or other governance group choose who will become a new boar=
d member.

So long term contributors who aren't maintainers don't get input into the d=
ecision? It is starting to seem like the maintainer role is moving from a j=
anitorial one to where maintainers make decisions without discussing those =
decisions with long term contributors and in some cases even bothering to e=
xplain the rationale for those decisions to a broader audience that include=
s long term contributors. This unfortunately makes the decision on who beco=
mes a maintainer even more important.=20

Decisions have to be made but I was always under the impression that they w=
ould be discussed in open, public IRC meetings with at least other long ter=
m contributors present and then decisions would be made based on the views =
expressed in that meeting. An appointed board or governance group ("the mai=
ntainers") wasn't how I thought the project was run or should be run.

> Finally, I don't think this matter warranted a post to this mailing list.=
  Discussion about internal project decisions, such as who should have merg=
e access and what maintainers should communicate in PRs, belong in communic=
ation channels dedicated to that project.

I have tried. As I said in previous emails in the Vasil maintainer case I a=
sked fanquake, Gloria repeatedly over a period of 5 months why Vasil was be=
ing blocked. They refused to comment. I get called "rude" and "aggressive" =
for asking. So I'd rather post my thoughts and observations here than risk =
being accused of being "rude" and "aggressive" again for asking questions o=
n this topic on IRC. Especially as I expect they'll be ignored anyway as th=
ey were in last week's Core Dev IRC meeting.

Until the Vasil situation I thought that we had a common sense approach of =
any long term contributor who had demonstrated they could add value to the =
project and had shown good temperament could become a maintainer. Blocking =
Vasil as a maintainer was a red flag for me that we no longer have that. An=
d fanquake, Gloria not being willing to discuss why publicly for 5 months w=
as a second red flag. If that is the precedent for merge decisions anything=
 is possible in the future including in the worst case contentious consensu=
s change merges with no justification and no rationale.

Thanks
Michael

--
Michael Folkson
Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com
GPG: A2CF5D71603C92010659818D2A75D601B23FEE0F


Learn about Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/@portofbitcoin


------- Original Message -------
On Sunday, May 7th, 2023 at 18:35, David A. Harding <dave@dtrt.org> wrote:


> On 2023-05-06 21:03, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>=20
> > Essentially my concern is going forward current maintainers will
> > decide which proposed new maintainers to add and which to block.
>=20
>=20
> This is how a large percentage of organizations are run. The current
> members of a board or other governance group choose who will become a
> new board member.
>=20
> One alternative to self-perpetuating governance is membership voting,
> but building and maintaining democratic institutions is hard and not a
> good fit for many types of endeavors---the building of highly technical
> software being one of those cases IMO.
>=20
> I think the questions we want to ask is whether the current set of
> maintainers is capable of moving Bitcoin Core in the direction we want
> and what we can do about it if we conclude that they are ill-suited (or
> malicious). For the first question, I think that's something everyone
> needs to answer for themselves, as we may each have different visions
> for the future of the project. That said, I note that several
> initiatives championed by the current maintainers in the IRC meeting you
> mention received overwhelmingly positive support from a significant
> number of current contributors, which seems like a healthy sign to me.
>=20
> For the second question, I think AJ Towns already answered that quite
> well (though he was talking about a different project):
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-April/021578=
.html
>=20
> Finally, I don't think this matter warranted a post to this mailing
> list. Discussion about internal project decisions, such as who should
> have merge access and what maintainers should communicate in PRs, belong
> in communication channels dedicated to that project.
>=20
> -Dave