path: root/68/6d6bea9deca8974a0a47519cad562993e7fb0e

Return-Path: <vjudeu@gazeta.pl>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D04EC0029;
 Mon, 12 Jun 2023 05:36:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 049EF4175F;
 Mon, 12 Jun 2023 05:36:45 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 049EF4175F
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org;
 dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gazeta.pl header.i=@gazeta.pl
 header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=2013 header.b=R0+yKEu+
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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,
 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
 SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id CooiNfRrsm47; Mon, 12 Jun 2023 05:36:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:10:00 by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 9DEDB41739
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from smtpo79.poczta.onet.pl (smtpo79.poczta.onet.pl [141.105.16.29])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DEDB41739;
 Mon, 12 Jun 2023 05:36:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pmq2v.m5r2.onet (pmq2v.m5r2.onet [10.174.32.68])
 by smtp.poczta.onet.pl (Onet) with ESMTP id 4QfgCb1MRvz2K25mq;
 Mon, 12 Jun 2023 07:26:35 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gazeta.pl; s=2013;
 t=1686547595; bh=tp2BYSwLHJvhG7drlABP0GUV4g2Y86GYoO3PxwZ5p7Y=;
 h=From:To:In-Reply-To:Date:Subject:From;
 b=R0+yKEu+bazu5Rmx7Bc3B4QAy2pI6UhmeNzm8Us+rmiXBiVGH7YD8lTWXAhZuJvkh
 nD3BcsKoSxxlE1Gk0dOPc0Ynx8sXFEjQe6K7oZSdMMNF6xoNYObAkC07JD9gVUG1Qj
 ilq6KOkNArD++kjkPlaKXUHHhdXcwemE/hEuQlsk=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received: from [5.173.224.115] by pmq2v.m5r2.onet via HTTP id ;
 Mon, 12 Jun 2023 07:26:35 +0200
From: vjudeu@gazeta.pl
X-Priority: 3
To: "Dr Maxim Orlovsky <orlovsky@protonmail.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
 bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
In-Reply-To: <eXXv90Zp7BkXLnld8dDksxrZ7tA0rHngfZ2NLwQ3hrt5tBWGmodmDaT7_JzbcyMukDSVSNtbNoV0wxrkFZt29bXW5WyAT6iyL4lFcvlRDI4=@protonmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 07:26:32 +0200
Message-Id: <173302382-3bf2a2109ad2a5f745cd065c92cca512@pmq2v.m5r2.onet>
X-Mailer: onet.poczta
X-Onet-PMQ: <vjudeu@gazeta.pl>;5.173.224.115;PL;2
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 09:41:00 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin mail list needs an explicit moderation
 policy
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 05:36:45 -0000

> Nevertheless, I next day I see other e-mails getting released to bitcoin-=
dev, while mine - was not.

If you created a new topic, then that is the reason. I noticed an interesti=
ng thing: if the title of your post is just a reply to some existing topic,=
 then there are less strict rules, than if you create a new one. It is hard=
 to start new topics properly, it is not a forum, a lot of effort is needed=
 to create some new discussion, and pass through all moderation filters. Ho=
wever, if you reply to some existing post, then it is all about quotes and =
replies, there are less requirements. In the past, I tried writing two very=
 similar replies, just with a different title, and guess what: the one with=
 "re" was published, but the one with the new title was rejected. The reaso=
n is that people filter messages by title, and some of them read only some =
topics, so if you bring a new one, then they can get angry, if they are not=
 interested in it. However, if you start from existing topic, and you gradu=
ally move the discussion into something else, then the title will be finall=
y changed by some moderator into "Topic Y (was: topic X)", and that approac=
h is much easier than starting from "Topic Y" explicitly.

The main reason for such moderation is this: if you reply for some topic, t=
hen there are rules for the quality of your reply, and nothing else. But if=
 you start a new topic, then there are more sieves: not only your content h=
as to meet some criteria, but also bringing that new particular topic has t=
o be justified. So, rejecting replies is about "your content is spam", but =
rejecting new topic is about "talking about this is spam, no matter of the =
content".



On 2023-06-03 01:48:45 user Dr Maxim Orlovsky via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@=
lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Dear community,
=C2=A0
I am writing this list to bitcoin-dev mail list, but to prevent potential c=
ensorship 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 t=
o=C2=A0leave the topic =E2=80=9Cunder the cover=E2=80=9D (sorry Lightning f=
riends for spamming your list with this off-topic).




A day before yesterday I sent a post to bitcoin-dev referencing the publica=
tion of the new Bitcoin scalability and privacy protocol, which had already=
 received a broad reaction across the bitcoin community with literally no c=
ritical/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 librarie=
s 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 fr=
om known community members like Giacomo Zucco [7]. Bryan Bishop knows me si=
nce 2019 when I was presenting Storm protocol on the stage on Scaling Bitco=
in 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 checke=
d for not containing any scam promotion.




Nevertheless, I next day I see other e-mails getting released to bitcoin-de=
v, while mine - was not. It is not a problem, but since we already had an i=
ncident in the past where Bryan reported the failure of his software, me an=
d 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 convers=
ation over Twitter after in Annex A - with the purpose to showcase the prob=
lem I=E2=80=99d like to address in this e-mail. From the discussion, it is =
clear that bitcoin-dev mail list lacks clear explicit moderation (or peer-r=
eview) policies, which must be applied on a non-selective basis. Also, Brya=
n 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=E2=80=99d like to propose the following:

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.
Bryan Bishop, who was acting for a long time as moderator, must be apprecia=
ted 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 =E2=80=9Cleast votes against=E2=80=9D.
The role of the moderator(s) must be purely executive of the policies, with=
out any personal preferences.
A dedicated mail list should be created (=E2=80=9Cbitcoin-dev-unmoderated=
=E2=80=9D) which will publish all submissions without moderation. It may co=
ntain 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 s=
ome non-spam e-mails were censored, they can announce that publicly. In thi=
s case, the failing moderator(s) should be removed and replaced.
The incentive to work as a moderator should be reputation-based.

=C2=A0

With that, I rest my case.




Kind regards,

Maxim Orlovsky




[1]:=C2=A0https://twitter.com/lnp_bp/status/1664329393131364353?s=3D61&t=3D=
9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg


[2]:=C2=A0https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-Apri=
l/021554.html


[3]:=C2=A0https://github.com/LNP-WG


[4]:=C2=A0https://github.com/BP-WG


[5]:=C2=A0https://github.com/mycitadel


[6]:=C2=A0https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/graphs/contributors?=
from=3D2018-12-31&to=3D2022-04-12&type=3Dc


[7]:=C2=A0https://twitter.com/giacomozucco/status/1664515543154544645?s=3D6=
1&t=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg=C2=A0and=C2=A0https://twitter.com/giacomozucco=
/status/1664731504923095041?s=3D61&t=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg


[8]:=C2=A0https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/telaviv2019/wip-storm-layer=
-2-3-storage-and-messaging


[9]:=C2=A0https://twitter.com/peterktodd/status/1664742651835367424?s=3D61&=
t=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg








Annex A:




@kanzure just like to check that our submission to bitcoin-dev hasn=E2=80=
=99t got to spam <https://twitter.com/lnp_bp/status/1664649328349069320?s=
=3D61&t=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>
A few mods are reviewing it <https://twitter.com/kanzure/status/16646808935=
48572677?s=3D61&t=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>
Oh, so a peer review is required to get to bitcoin-dev mail list? Never rea=
d about that requirement anywhere <https://twitter.com/lnp_bp/status/166469=
5061462777858?s=3D61&t=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>. Seems like bitcoin-dev ma=
il list requirements are now specific to the author :) <https://twitter.com=
/dr_orlovsky/status/1664695668475142144?s=3D61&t=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>
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/16647=
05038315409420?s=3D61&t=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>
Not sure I understand what you are saying. Can you please clarify? <https:/=
/twitter.com/dr_orlovsky/status/1664705280393859103?s=3D61&t=3D9A8uvggqKVKV=
3sT4HPlQyg>
You are boring me and these antics don't make me want to go click approve o=
n your email. <https://twitter.com/kanzure/status/1664705509147004946?s=3D6=
1&t=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>
Are you the person to approve emails for it? <https://twitter.com/phyrooo/s=
tatus/1664732932068589568?s=3D61&t=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>
Yes <https://twitter.com/kanzure/status/1664733107096899585?s=3D61&t=3D9A8u=
vggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>
It appears that people boring @kanzure is going through a dedicated review =
procedure on bitcoin-dev mail list. Good moderation! Very clear policy! <ht=
tps://twitter.com/dr_orlovsky/status/1664706165790461959?s=3D61&t=3D9A8uvgg=
qKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>
What are you even doing. How does this behavior suppose to get people to he=
lp you? <https://twitter.com/kanzure/status/1664706931083329536?s=3D61&t=3D=
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=3D61&t=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQ=
yg> Since =E2=80=9Cif you get me bored I will not click an accept button=E2=
=80=9D is not a moderation policy which I expect from bitcoin-dev mail list=
. Probably not just me. <https://twitter.com/dr_orlovsky/status/16647197866=
33310209?s=3D61&t=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>
Yeah I mean I don't think these tweets are likely to get me to enthusiastic=
ally resolve your problem... I dunno man. What's even going on here. <https=
://twitter.com/kanzure/status/1664735139065208833?s=3D61&t=3D9A8uvggqKVKV3s=
T4HPlQyg>
Bitcoin mail list clearly lacks explicit moderation policy. The same mistak=
e like with rust-bitcoin 1+ yrs ago. I am fine with peer review. Moderation=
. But only explicit - not just =E2=80=9Cthe way I (dis)like this guy=E2=80=
=9D <https://twitter.com/dr_orlovsky/status/1664736404931321859?s=3D61&t=3D=
9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>