Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2016-01-23 📝 Original message:On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at ...

📅 Original date posted:2016-01-23
📝 Original message:On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 06:33:56AM +0100, xor--- via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> So "+1"ing is OK as long as I provide a technical explanation of why I agree?
> While I still think that this is too much of a restriction because it prevents
> peer-review, I would say that I could live with it as a last resort if you
> don't plan to abolish this rule altogether.
>
> So in that case, to foster peer review, I would recommend you amend the rules
> to clarify this.
> Example: "+1s are not allowed unless you provide an explanation of why you
> agree with something".

I would extend this to say that the technical explanation also should
contribute uniquely to the conversation; a +1 with an explanation
the last +1 gave isn't useful.

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000007e2005be0ce25b3f3de67b2dc35fd810b0ccd77b33eb7be
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160123/7aa2753d/attachment.sig>;