odinn [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-06-18 📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-06-18
📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Recently I saw the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JmvkyQyD8w&t=47m58s
Hadn't seen it until just today, although it was done on June 8, 2015.
So this is a bit dated, but to me it was a bit of a stunner to see the
extreme nature of (some) of the views presented in this video.
Let me be blunt, I have serious concerns regarding threats issued by a
developer in this video, and I think that it is entirely possible that
those of you who are core developers have already seen this and have
been discussing it. But I am interested in seeing this resolved here
on this list openly and having it resolved. It's sad and unfortunate
to me, but I feel that it's necessary to do this. Identify what's
happening, address it squarely, have the person who is threatening
others explain his/her behavior, deal with the problem and move on.
This seems to be very important. Please tell me if I am wrong about
this or totally flawed in my perspective here. Go right ahead.
In this video, a particular developer makes the following statement,
stating in part:
"My preferred solution is that Gavin revokes commit access from
everyone else in the project, and then... makes the change himself"
Regardless of how you look at this, and even if we believe that Gavin
will not respond to that developer's request for a so-called
"solution," such a statement (by any developer) is indeed both a
threat and an act of sabotage against the larger bitcoin community.
We should certainly be thankful therefore, for the recent policy
change at bitcoin.org which can be seen here:
https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/61096/8173297/578483f8-1399-1
1e5-8f48-96f33d12b996.png
I firmly believe that any developer who made a statement suggesting
that commit access of others in the project be revoked so that they
can proceed with their personal plan, needs to answer for having made
such a suggestion with a formal apology to this list, followed by an
explanation for why they themselves should not have their commit
access removed.
Overall, however, this sort of bombastic, nuclear suggestion makes me
seriously concerned for the future of bitcoin (as well as any
cryptocurrency which has repositories on Github).
So, you know who you are: Apologize for your statement ("preferred
solution") and explain to the community why you should still have
commit access in light of the threat you have made to all the other
developers (and indeed to all participants of the bitcoin community).
These "nuclear options" are unacceptable to us all.
Respectfully,
- -O
- --
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVgoc3AAoJEGxwq/inSG8C6QYH/1Ag+4ESTSUPkP8PCTj1AJds
J4MmBz4cX7IYsSttTAjyiwd6oTHCU+wAcXtgZYpzr8rWF62bG5/+kAFUfjKwNsGM
WqcdNOR6h8fQulx8niuro8kZF/xOsG5eHtRK2FMCorxj0t6qn4pH5WAQL73J3hXQ
xI831Nt/L7VTa0jlKbr2/VGlqh6CtGrZ9mXp6aV1MBNwHbFryNBJW9ubvUv/IRxZ
GyJ+c3+Br2KKAQTMsyNn3VXMlXJL6kt0pwwk2od3j/+dKE4pAetHvZ5OgIO+qUWd
6R0/AaoW5jk343TaQ5BHaSpNW+OM9Yc1ycZyqE/YV8JwWeA6G/QdmRVYeoLMCZQ=
=zJeO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Recently I saw the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JmvkyQyD8w&t=47m58s
Hadn't seen it until just today, although it was done on June 8, 2015.
So this is a bit dated, but to me it was a bit of a stunner to see the
extreme nature of (some) of the views presented in this video.
Let me be blunt, I have serious concerns regarding threats issued by a
developer in this video, and I think that it is entirely possible that
those of you who are core developers have already seen this and have
been discussing it. But I am interested in seeing this resolved here
on this list openly and having it resolved. It's sad and unfortunate
to me, but I feel that it's necessary to do this. Identify what's
happening, address it squarely, have the person who is threatening
others explain his/her behavior, deal with the problem and move on.
This seems to be very important. Please tell me if I am wrong about
this or totally flawed in my perspective here. Go right ahead.
In this video, a particular developer makes the following statement,
stating in part:
"My preferred solution is that Gavin revokes commit access from
everyone else in the project, and then... makes the change himself"
Regardless of how you look at this, and even if we believe that Gavin
will not respond to that developer's request for a so-called
"solution," such a statement (by any developer) is indeed both a
threat and an act of sabotage against the larger bitcoin community.
We should certainly be thankful therefore, for the recent policy
change at bitcoin.org which can be seen here:
https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/61096/8173297/578483f8-1399-1
1e5-8f48-96f33d12b996.png
I firmly believe that any developer who made a statement suggesting
that commit access of others in the project be revoked so that they
can proceed with their personal plan, needs to answer for having made
such a suggestion with a formal apology to this list, followed by an
explanation for why they themselves should not have their commit
access removed.
Overall, however, this sort of bombastic, nuclear suggestion makes me
seriously concerned for the future of bitcoin (as well as any
cryptocurrency which has repositories on Github).
So, you know who you are: Apologize for your statement ("preferred
solution") and explain to the community why you should still have
commit access in light of the threat you have made to all the other
developers (and indeed to all participants of the bitcoin community).
These "nuclear options" are unacceptable to us all.
Respectfully,
- -O
- --
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVgoc3AAoJEGxwq/inSG8C6QYH/1Ag+4ESTSUPkP8PCTj1AJds
J4MmBz4cX7IYsSttTAjyiwd6oTHCU+wAcXtgZYpzr8rWF62bG5/+kAFUfjKwNsGM
WqcdNOR6h8fQulx8niuro8kZF/xOsG5eHtRK2FMCorxj0t6qn4pH5WAQL73J3hXQ
xI831Nt/L7VTa0jlKbr2/VGlqh6CtGrZ9mXp6aV1MBNwHbFryNBJW9ubvUv/IRxZ
GyJ+c3+Br2KKAQTMsyNn3VXMlXJL6kt0pwwk2od3j/+dKE4pAetHvZ5OgIO+qUWd
6R0/AaoW5jk343TaQ5BHaSpNW+OM9Yc1ycZyqE/YV8JwWeA6G/QdmRVYeoLMCZQ=
=zJeO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----