alicexbt [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2023-05-11 📝 Original message: Hi Antoine, > I can say ...
📅 Original date posted:2023-05-11
📝 Original message:
Hi Antoine,
> I can say missing an open-source engineering meeting or being revoked a few Github permissions matters far less than the clear affirmation and respect of the freedom of expression, the presumption of innocence and due process in the Bitcoin common space, all proportions conserved.
This is not acceptable. I will fight with you. Never feel alone.
/devfd0
floppy disk guy
Sent with [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/) secure email.
------- Original Message -------
On Wednesday, May 10th, 2023 at 10:27 PM, Antoine Riard <antoine.riard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Tony,
>
>> Is there a better place to havepubliccommunication? Unfortunately since one off topic email was sent here, it's been a ghost town. It appears that there's many emails being held and only one moderator that checks them once a week.
>
> As I think you're referring to my post of March 21th and as the author of this post, I'll politely refuse the qualification of "off-topic". I had and I still have the concerns of "frivolous legal claims" being used between bitcoin developers/organizations provoking a distortion of the neutrality of the development and a chilling effect of the technical discussions (i.e code we compile and spec we implement). For those reasons, it was my legal right and moral duty to inform the community of what is happening between Chaincode and myself. And here I'm following the recommendation of one of the moderators of the Lightning mailing list himself "If this worries you too, let's make sure we keep each other honest, OK?" [0].
>
> When you think a group of people with open-source responsibilities are in a situation of conflict of interests or "moral hazards", or even the appearance of them, you have the right to expose the wrongdoing, including the _proportional_ revelation of private elements. People have done the "free choice" to conduct a career in open-source, for some even declaring in some context to maintain integrity and accept their actions to be submitted to external accountability [1]. While the exposure of private elements of public personalities might break common courtesy, it's a morally valid practice if you're familiar with the public institutions of US and Europe, and I think this practice has found validity in the history of open-source commons or IETF's protocol development [1].
>
> Beyond, the Bitcoin and Lightning development communication channels constitute a public forum, where by nature the participants are exchanging ideas and defending competing interests. In consequence, the participants' rights and capabilities to contribute and speak their minds in those communication channels should be protected. Those communication channels are not your usual corporate workplace, and in case of conflicting principles, the maintainers of those communication channels should ensure a balance of rights and a proportionality in any restraining measure.
>
> And this new post is not to exonerate myself of any legal responsibility for personal matters that could be recognized as the outcome of a judicial process, respective of both rights of the accusation and rights of the defense. Rather to enlighten the Bitcoin community that the formal separation between private matters and open-source responsibilities, and the adequate check-and-balances to guarantee this separation is somehow what are the underlying stakes for this feud between Chaincode and myself, from my perspective. I can say missing an open-source engineering meeting or being revoked a few Github permissions matters far less than the clear affirmation and respect of the freedom of expression, the presumption of innocence and due process in the Bitcoin common space, all proportions conserved.
>
> I don't blame any party involved in this issue, nor assign "bad intentions''. One position is really a function of your life experiences, knowledge of the legal and cultural framework and access to the factual elements. As all human conflicts it is not binary rather "grey". People can be top executives at a billion-dollar company, having successful ventures with hundreds of folks under management, or have a lot of responsibilities for their relative young age, and still disagree on the set of legal and moral principles to apply in the present case.
>
> Finally, thanks to the Bitcoin friends who have reached out to call for level-headedness and cool-mindness in the public discussion of this complex topic. Like I said to them, in the lack of more suspected wrongdoing from the other side, I won't communicate further on this subject on the Bitcoin and Lightning technical channels. However I still firmly believe the discussion on the principles, abstract in the maximum from its private elements, should still be pursued on other channels. Independently, there is a legal channel opened between Chaincode and myself and good progress is made to find a serene and long-standing resolution to this issue.
>
> Best,
> Antoine
>
> [0] https://rusty-lightning.medium.com/the-corrosion-of-ethics-in-cryptocurrencies-f7ba77e9dfc3
> [1] https://github.com/btrustteam/board-book/blob/main/vision/genesis_principles.md
> [2] https://www.ietf.org/about/administration/policies-procedures/conflict-interest/
>
> Le lun. 8 mai 2023 à 21:26, Tony Giorgio via Lightning-dev <lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> a écrit :
>
>> Is there a better place to have public communication? Unfortunately since one off topic email was sent here, it's been a ghost town. It appears that there's many emails being held and only one moderator that checks them once a week.
>>
>> Would hate to see this list die but wondering if there's a better place for discussions?
>>
>> Tony
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> On Apr 29, 2023, 9:57 PM, niftynei < niftynei at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> When I joined the lightning community a few years ago, I was relatively new to open source software and specification work. Rusty really impressed on me on the importance of holding conversations, as much as possible in public.
>>>
>>> Practically speaking, this encompasses IRC, this mailing list, and github issues/PRs.
>>>
>>> The reason for this is twofold. It helps document the range of options considered for technical decisions and it provides an interface point for new participants to contribute to the discussion.
>>>
>>> Given some recent mails that were posted to this list, now seems like a good time to reiterate the importance and preference of public communication whenever possible, especially for specification or technical discussions.
>>>
>>> ~ nifty
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lightning-dev mailing list
>>> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20230511/a2cad51d/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:
Hi Antoine,
> I can say missing an open-source engineering meeting or being revoked a few Github permissions matters far less than the clear affirmation and respect of the freedom of expression, the presumption of innocence and due process in the Bitcoin common space, all proportions conserved.
This is not acceptable. I will fight with you. Never feel alone.
/devfd0
floppy disk guy
Sent with [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/) secure email.
------- Original Message -------
On Wednesday, May 10th, 2023 at 10:27 PM, Antoine Riard <antoine.riard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Tony,
>
>> Is there a better place to havepubliccommunication? Unfortunately since one off topic email was sent here, it's been a ghost town. It appears that there's many emails being held and only one moderator that checks them once a week.
>
> As I think you're referring to my post of March 21th and as the author of this post, I'll politely refuse the qualification of "off-topic". I had and I still have the concerns of "frivolous legal claims" being used between bitcoin developers/organizations provoking a distortion of the neutrality of the development and a chilling effect of the technical discussions (i.e code we compile and spec we implement). For those reasons, it was my legal right and moral duty to inform the community of what is happening between Chaincode and myself. And here I'm following the recommendation of one of the moderators of the Lightning mailing list himself "If this worries you too, let's make sure we keep each other honest, OK?" [0].
>
> When you think a group of people with open-source responsibilities are in a situation of conflict of interests or "moral hazards", or even the appearance of them, you have the right to expose the wrongdoing, including the _proportional_ revelation of private elements. People have done the "free choice" to conduct a career in open-source, for some even declaring in some context to maintain integrity and accept their actions to be submitted to external accountability [1]. While the exposure of private elements of public personalities might break common courtesy, it's a morally valid practice if you're familiar with the public institutions of US and Europe, and I think this practice has found validity in the history of open-source commons or IETF's protocol development [1].
>
> Beyond, the Bitcoin and Lightning development communication channels constitute a public forum, where by nature the participants are exchanging ideas and defending competing interests. In consequence, the participants' rights and capabilities to contribute and speak their minds in those communication channels should be protected. Those communication channels are not your usual corporate workplace, and in case of conflicting principles, the maintainers of those communication channels should ensure a balance of rights and a proportionality in any restraining measure.
>
> And this new post is not to exonerate myself of any legal responsibility for personal matters that could be recognized as the outcome of a judicial process, respective of both rights of the accusation and rights of the defense. Rather to enlighten the Bitcoin community that the formal separation between private matters and open-source responsibilities, and the adequate check-and-balances to guarantee this separation is somehow what are the underlying stakes for this feud between Chaincode and myself, from my perspective. I can say missing an open-source engineering meeting or being revoked a few Github permissions matters far less than the clear affirmation and respect of the freedom of expression, the presumption of innocence and due process in the Bitcoin common space, all proportions conserved.
>
> I don't blame any party involved in this issue, nor assign "bad intentions''. One position is really a function of your life experiences, knowledge of the legal and cultural framework and access to the factual elements. As all human conflicts it is not binary rather "grey". People can be top executives at a billion-dollar company, having successful ventures with hundreds of folks under management, or have a lot of responsibilities for their relative young age, and still disagree on the set of legal and moral principles to apply in the present case.
>
> Finally, thanks to the Bitcoin friends who have reached out to call for level-headedness and cool-mindness in the public discussion of this complex topic. Like I said to them, in the lack of more suspected wrongdoing from the other side, I won't communicate further on this subject on the Bitcoin and Lightning technical channels. However I still firmly believe the discussion on the principles, abstract in the maximum from its private elements, should still be pursued on other channels. Independently, there is a legal channel opened between Chaincode and myself and good progress is made to find a serene and long-standing resolution to this issue.
>
> Best,
> Antoine
>
> [0] https://rusty-lightning.medium.com/the-corrosion-of-ethics-in-cryptocurrencies-f7ba77e9dfc3
> [1] https://github.com/btrustteam/board-book/blob/main/vision/genesis_principles.md
> [2] https://www.ietf.org/about/administration/policies-procedures/conflict-interest/
>
> Le lun. 8 mai 2023 à 21:26, Tony Giorgio via Lightning-dev <lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> a écrit :
>
>> Is there a better place to have public communication? Unfortunately since one off topic email was sent here, it's been a ghost town. It appears that there's many emails being held and only one moderator that checks them once a week.
>>
>> Would hate to see this list die but wondering if there's a better place for discussions?
>>
>> Tony
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> On Apr 29, 2023, 9:57 PM, niftynei < niftynei at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> When I joined the lightning community a few years ago, I was relatively new to open source software and specification work. Rusty really impressed on me on the importance of holding conversations, as much as possible in public.
>>>
>>> Practically speaking, this encompasses IRC, this mailing list, and github issues/PRs.
>>>
>>> The reason for this is twofold. It helps document the range of options considered for technical decisions and it provides an interface point for new participants to contribute to the discussion.
>>>
>>> Given some recent mails that were posted to this list, now seems like a good time to reiterate the importance and preference of public communication whenever possible, especially for specification or technical discussions.
>>>
>>> ~ nifty
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lightning-dev mailing list
>>> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20230511/a2cad51d/attachment.html>;