vjudeu at gazeta.pl [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2023-06-12 🗒️ Summary of this message: A developer ...
đź“… Original date posted:2023-06-12
🗒️ Summary of this message: A developer experienced in contributing to Bitcoin-related projects expressed frustration over their post not being published on the Bitcoin-dev mailing list, speculating that strict moderation rules may be the cause. They noted that starting a new topic requires more effort and justification than replying to an existing one, and that rejection of a new topic is not necessarily due to the content, but rather the topic itself being deemed irrelevant or spam.
đź“ť Original message:
> 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 interesting 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. However, 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 reason 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 gradually move the discussion into something else, then the title will be finally changed by some moderator into "Topic Y (was: topic X)", and that approach is much easier than starting from "Topic Y" explicitly.
The main reason for such moderation is this: if you reply for some topic, then 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 has to meet some criteria, but also bringing that new particular topic has to 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Dear community,
Â
I am writing this list to bitcoin-dev mail list, but to prevent potential censorship 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 to leave the topic “under the cover” (sorry Lightning friends for spamming your list with this off-topic).
A day before yesterday I sent a post to bitcoin-dev referencing the publication of the new Bitcoin scalability and privacy protocol, which had already received a broad reaction across the bitcoin community with literally no critical/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 libraries 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 from known community members like Giacomo Zucco [7]. Bryan Bishop knows me since 2019 when I was presenting Storm protocol on the stage on Scaling Bitcoin 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 checked for not containing any scam promotion.
Nevertheless, I next day I see other e-mails getting released to bitcoin-dev, while mine - was not. It is not a problem, but since we already had an incident in the past where Bryan reported the failure of his software, me and 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 conversation over Twitter after in Annex A - with the purpose to showcase the problem I’d like to address in this e-mail. From the discussion, it is clear that bitcoin-dev mail list lacks clear explicit moderation (or peer-review) policies, which must be applied on a non-selective basis. Also, Bryan 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’d 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 appreciated 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 “least votes against”.
The role of the moderator(s) must be purely executive of the policies, without any personal preferences.
A dedicated mail list should be created (“bitcoin-dev-unmoderated”) which will publish all submissions without moderation. It may contain 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 some non-spam e-mails were censored, they can announce that publicly. In this case, the failing moderator(s) should be removed and replaced.
The incentive to work as a moderator should be reputation-based.
Â
With that, I rest my case.
Kind regards,
Maxim Orlovsky
[1]:Â https://twitter.com/lnp_bp/status/1664329393131364353?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg
[2]:Â https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-April/021554.html
[3]:Â https://github.com/LNP-WG
[4]:Â https://github.com/BP-WG
[5]:Â https://github.com/mycitadel
[6]:Â https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/graphs/contributors?from=2018-12-31&to=2022-04-12&type=c
[7]: https://twitter.com/giacomozucco/status/1664515543154544645?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg and https://twitter.com/giacomozucco/status/1664731504923095041?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg
[8]:Â https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/telaviv2019/wip-storm-layer-2-3-storage-and-messaging
[9]:Â https://twitter.com/peterktodd/status/1664742651835367424?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg
Annex A:
@kanzure just like to check that our submission to bitcoin-dev hasn’t got to spam <https://twitter.com/lnp_bp/status/1664649328349069320?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>;
A few mods are reviewing it <https://twitter.com/kanzure/status/1664680893548572677?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>;
Oh, so a peer review is required to get to bitcoin-dev mail list? Never read about that requirement anywhere <https://twitter.com/lnp_bp/status/1664695061462777858?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>;. Seems like bitcoin-dev mail list requirements are now specific to the author :) <https://twitter.com/dr_orlovsky/status/1664695668475142144?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>;
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/1664705038315409420?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>;
Not sure I understand what you are saying. Can you please clarify? <https://twitter.com/dr_orlovsky/status/1664705280393859103?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>;
You are boring me and these antics don't make me want to go click approve on your email. <https://twitter.com/kanzure/status/1664705509147004946?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>;
Are you the person to approve emails for it? <https://twitter.com/phyrooo/status/1664732932068589568?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>;
Yes <https://twitter.com/kanzure/status/1664733107096899585?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>;
It appears that people boring @kanzure is going through a dedicated review procedure on bitcoin-dev mail list. Good moderation! Very clear policy! <https://twitter.com/dr_orlovsky/status/1664706165790461959?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>;
What are you even doing. How does this behavior suppose to get people to help you? <https://twitter.com/kanzure/status/1664706931083329536?s=61&t=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=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>; Since “if you get me bored I will not click an accept button” is not a moderation policy which I expect from bitcoin-dev mail list. Probably not just me. <https://twitter.com/dr_orlovsky/status/1664719786633310209?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>;
Yeah I mean I don't think these tweets are likely to get me to enthusiastically resolve your problem... I dunno man. What's even going on here. <https://twitter.com/kanzure/status/1664735139065208833?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>;
Bitcoin mail list clearly lacks explicit moderation policy. The same mistake like with rust-bitcoin 1+ yrs ago. I am fine with peer review. Moderation. But only explicit - not just “the way I (dis)like this guy” <https://twitter.com/dr_orlovsky/status/1664736404931321859?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>;
🗒️ Summary of this message: A developer experienced in contributing to Bitcoin-related projects expressed frustration over their post not being published on the Bitcoin-dev mailing list, speculating that strict moderation rules may be the cause. They noted that starting a new topic requires more effort and justification than replying to an existing one, and that rejection of a new topic is not necessarily due to the content, but rather the topic itself being deemed irrelevant or spam.
đź“ť Original message:
> 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 interesting 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. However, 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 reason 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 gradually move the discussion into something else, then the title will be finally changed by some moderator into "Topic Y (was: topic X)", and that approach is much easier than starting from "Topic Y" explicitly.
The main reason for such moderation is this: if you reply for some topic, then 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 has to meet some criteria, but also bringing that new particular topic has to 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Dear community,
Â
I am writing this list to bitcoin-dev mail list, but to prevent potential censorship 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 to leave the topic “under the cover” (sorry Lightning friends for spamming your list with this off-topic).
A day before yesterday I sent a post to bitcoin-dev referencing the publication of the new Bitcoin scalability and privacy protocol, which had already received a broad reaction across the bitcoin community with literally no critical/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 libraries 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 from known community members like Giacomo Zucco [7]. Bryan Bishop knows me since 2019 when I was presenting Storm protocol on the stage on Scaling Bitcoin 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 checked for not containing any scam promotion.
Nevertheless, I next day I see other e-mails getting released to bitcoin-dev, while mine - was not. It is not a problem, but since we already had an incident in the past where Bryan reported the failure of his software, me and 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 conversation over Twitter after in Annex A - with the purpose to showcase the problem I’d like to address in this e-mail. From the discussion, it is clear that bitcoin-dev mail list lacks clear explicit moderation (or peer-review) policies, which must be applied on a non-selective basis. Also, Bryan 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’d 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 appreciated 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 “least votes against”.
The role of the moderator(s) must be purely executive of the policies, without any personal preferences.
A dedicated mail list should be created (“bitcoin-dev-unmoderated”) which will publish all submissions without moderation. It may contain 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 some non-spam e-mails were censored, they can announce that publicly. In this case, the failing moderator(s) should be removed and replaced.
The incentive to work as a moderator should be reputation-based.
Â
With that, I rest my case.
Kind regards,
Maxim Orlovsky
[1]:Â https://twitter.com/lnp_bp/status/1664329393131364353?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg
[2]:Â https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-April/021554.html
[3]:Â https://github.com/LNP-WG
[4]:Â https://github.com/BP-WG
[5]:Â https://github.com/mycitadel
[6]:Â https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/graphs/contributors?from=2018-12-31&to=2022-04-12&type=c
[7]: https://twitter.com/giacomozucco/status/1664515543154544645?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg and https://twitter.com/giacomozucco/status/1664731504923095041?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg
[8]:Â https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/telaviv2019/wip-storm-layer-2-3-storage-and-messaging
[9]:Â https://twitter.com/peterktodd/status/1664742651835367424?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg
Annex A:
@kanzure just like to check that our submission to bitcoin-dev hasn’t got to spam <https://twitter.com/lnp_bp/status/1664649328349069320?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>;
A few mods are reviewing it <https://twitter.com/kanzure/status/1664680893548572677?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>;
Oh, so a peer review is required to get to bitcoin-dev mail list? Never read about that requirement anywhere <https://twitter.com/lnp_bp/status/1664695061462777858?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>;. Seems like bitcoin-dev mail list requirements are now specific to the author :) <https://twitter.com/dr_orlovsky/status/1664695668475142144?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>;
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/1664705038315409420?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>;
Not sure I understand what you are saying. Can you please clarify? <https://twitter.com/dr_orlovsky/status/1664705280393859103?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>;
You are boring me and these antics don't make me want to go click approve on your email. <https://twitter.com/kanzure/status/1664705509147004946?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>;
Are you the person to approve emails for it? <https://twitter.com/phyrooo/status/1664732932068589568?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>;
Yes <https://twitter.com/kanzure/status/1664733107096899585?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>;
It appears that people boring @kanzure is going through a dedicated review procedure on bitcoin-dev mail list. Good moderation! Very clear policy! <https://twitter.com/dr_orlovsky/status/1664706165790461959?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>;
What are you even doing. How does this behavior suppose to get people to help you? <https://twitter.com/kanzure/status/1664706931083329536?s=61&t=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=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>; Since “if you get me bored I will not click an accept button” is not a moderation policy which I expect from bitcoin-dev mail list. Probably not just me. <https://twitter.com/dr_orlovsky/status/1664719786633310209?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>;
Yeah I mean I don't think these tweets are likely to get me to enthusiastically resolve your problem... I dunno man. What's even going on here. <https://twitter.com/kanzure/status/1664735139065208833?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>;
Bitcoin mail list clearly lacks explicit moderation policy. The same mistake like with rust-bitcoin 1+ yrs ago. I am fine with peer review. Moderation. But only explicit - not just “the way I (dis)like this guy” <https://twitter.com/dr_orlovsky/status/1664736404931321859?s=61&t=9A8uvggqKVKV3sT4HPlQyg>;