Alan Reiner [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2012-07-09 📝 Original message:I was originaly for the ...
📅 Original date posted:2012-07-09
📝 Original message:I was originaly for the idea of randomization. Because it is the most
"fair", but "fair" is a relative term. It's fair for client developers who
argue over whose client should be first, and whose is better for various
purposes. But it's not fair for users, to have an inconsistent page, that
sometimes recommends less-developed solutions, or doesn't show what's best *for
the users in the community*.
I think the premise of having a page that is "fair for developers" is its
downfall. Once we agree things have to be fair, we must agree on what fair
means, and then we must accept 30 new recently-started projects that barely
squeak by the requirements for being on the page, despite having
substantial issues/bugs. The premise of being fair is the downfall here.
This *has* to be a subjective list. Someone who is trusted to understand
what is good for users, and who also has familiarity with the programs,
should be the one to decide. People can try to provide input, and make
them aware of stuff they didn't know. But it should be *that
person's*decision, and if it's not "fair" in your world, too bad. At
least we won't
spend the next 3 years arguing on the mailing list about how to compare
programs that are all great in many different dimensions, and failing in
the others.
If it's going to go on the main page, give someone the responsibility to
come up with "what's best for the users of Bitcoin.org", however they
decide to interpret it, and save our breath arguing over more important
things.
-Alan
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Jim <jim618 at fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > RE: The position randomisation - I have to admit I was secretly pleased
> > with the original layout, as MultiBit just happened to have the "eye
> > candy" position of "top and centre". It is only fair to have them
> > switch around.
>
> This ordering wasn't accidental.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120709/8719af66/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:I was originaly for the idea of randomization. Because it is the most
"fair", but "fair" is a relative term. It's fair for client developers who
argue over whose client should be first, and whose is better for various
purposes. But it's not fair for users, to have an inconsistent page, that
sometimes recommends less-developed solutions, or doesn't show what's best *for
the users in the community*.
I think the premise of having a page that is "fair for developers" is its
downfall. Once we agree things have to be fair, we must agree on what fair
means, and then we must accept 30 new recently-started projects that barely
squeak by the requirements for being on the page, despite having
substantial issues/bugs. The premise of being fair is the downfall here.
This *has* to be a subjective list. Someone who is trusted to understand
what is good for users, and who also has familiarity with the programs,
should be the one to decide. People can try to provide input, and make
them aware of stuff they didn't know. But it should be *that
person's*decision, and if it's not "fair" in your world, too bad. At
least we won't
spend the next 3 years arguing on the mailing list about how to compare
programs that are all great in many different dimensions, and failing in
the others.
If it's going to go on the main page, give someone the responsibility to
come up with "what's best for the users of Bitcoin.org", however they
decide to interpret it, and save our breath arguing over more important
things.
-Alan
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Jim <jim618 at fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > RE: The position randomisation - I have to admit I was secretly pleased
> > with the original layout, as MultiBit just happened to have the "eye
> > candy" position of "top and centre". It is only fair to have them
> > switch around.
>
> This ordering wasn't accidental.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120709/8719af66/attachment.html>;