Proposed list moderation policy and conduct

Proposed list moderation policy and conduct
2015-10-15  0:17 ` Luke Dashjr
  2015-10-15  1:43 ` Justus Ranvier
  
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2015-10-15  0:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin development mailing list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6002 bytes --]

Introduction
-------------------
This mailing list, bitcoin-dev, aim to facilitate constructive discussion
of issues related to technical development of the bitcoin protocol and the
Bitcoin Core reference implementation.  We can achieve this, in part, by
behaving well towards each other, so that the broadest diversity of
participants - both amateur and professional, new and experienced - feel
that the lists are welcoming and useful.

This proposed policy helps maintain that environment by capturing the
conduct we aspire to when we participate in discussions on bitcoin-dev.

We Strive To:
-------------

*Be friendly and patient*

1. Many of us are volunteers, and so a sense of fun is part of why we do
what we do. Be positive and engaging, rather than snarky.
2. If someone asks for help it is because they need it. Politely suggest
specific documentation or more appropriate venues where appropriate. Avoid
aggressive or vague responses.

*Be civil and considerate*

1. Disagreement is no excuse for poor conduct or personal attacks. A
community where people feel uncomfortable is not a productive one.
2. If you would not feel comfortable saying something to a co-worker or
acquaintance, it is probably not appropriate on this list either.

*Assume good faith*

1. Remember that protocol & engineering questions are often very complex
and difficult to assess. If you disagree, please do so politely, by
disputing logical errors and factual premises rather than by attacking
individuals.
2. If something seems outrageous, check that you did not misinterpret it.
Ask for clarification, rather than assuming the worst.
3. For more, read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

*Respect time and attention*

1. List members are often busy people. As a result, we value concision and
clarity. Emails that are brief and to the point take more time to write,
but are repaid many times over when other members of the list make the same
effort.
2. Conversations should remain focused and on-topic. If you must change the
topic, start a new thread by changing the topic line of your emails. Also,
avoid flooding the list with long threads by reading the entire thread
first, instead of responding quickly to many emails in a short period of
time.
3. New members are welcome, but should be careful to respect the time and
energy of long-time list members by doing research in FAQs and with search
engines before asking questions.
4. Off-topic threads will be directed to other venues.

*Disclose potential conflicts*

1. List discussions often involve interested parties. We expect
participants to be aware when they are conflicted due to employment or
other projects they are involved in, and disclose those interests to other
project members.
2. When in doubt, over-disclose. Perceived conflicts of interest are
important to address, so that the lists’ decisions are credible even when
unpopular, difficult or favorable to the interests of one group over
another.



Interpretation
--------------

This policy is not exhaustive or complete. It is not a rulebook; it serves
to distill our common understanding of a collaborative, shared environment
and goals. We expect it to be followed in spirit as much as in the letter.

Enforcement
-----------

Most members of the bitcoin-dev community already comply with this policy,
not because of the existence of the policy, but because they have long
experience participating in open source communities where the conduct
described above is normal and expected. However, failure to observe the
code may be grounds for reprimand, probation, or removal from the lists.

If you have concerns about someone’s conduct:

* *Direct contact*: it is always appropriate to email a list member,
mention that you think their behavior was out of line, and (if necessary)
point them to this document.

* *On-list*: discussing conduct on-list, either as part of another message
or as a standalone thread, is always acceptable. Note, though, that
approaching the person directly can be better, as it tends to make them
less defensive, and it respects the time of other list members, so you
probably want to try direct contact first.

* *Moderators*: You can reach the list moderators through the addresses
they use for on-list communication.


Moderators
----------
The selection of moderators is intended to be a mix from various projects
and roles, and expressly intended to avoid cases where the set of
(moderators) equals the set of (bitcoin core committers) or similar.

TBD
Jeff Garzik
[btcdrak?  Johnathan?   Others were listed in the IRC meeting, but the
bitcoinstats site is down right here]



Further Context
---------------

Other resources, while not formally part of this code of conduct, can
provide useful context and guidance for good behavior.

1. Chapter 6 of Producing OSS, by OSI board member Karl Fogel, describes
common best practices for mailing list participation,
particularly [“You Are What You Write”](
http://producingoss.com/en/communications.html#you-are-what-you-write) and
[“Avoiding Common
Pitfalls"](http://producingoss.com/en/common-pitfalls.html).
2. [RFC 1855](https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt), particularly section
2.1.1 (“User Guidelines for mail”), also provides useful
guidelines for sending good emails.
3. [The Ubuntu Code of Conduct](
http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu/conduct) provides useful
guidance for group leaders.

This policy was inspired by [the GNOME Code of Conduct](
https://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct/), [the Mozilla Community Participation
Guidelines](https://www.mozilla.org/about/policies/participation.html),
[the Ubuntu Code of Conduct](
http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu/conduct), and other codes listed
at [the OpenHatch list of project codes of conduct](
https://openhatch.org/wiki/Project_codes_of_conduct).

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6823 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-10-15  0:02 [bitcoin-dev] Proposed list moderation policy and conduct Jeff Garzik

  2015-10-15  0:40   ` odinn
  2015-10-15  1:43 ` Justus Ranvier
  
From: Luke Dashjr @ 2015-10-15  0:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev, Jeff Garzik

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 12:02:21 AM Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 2. If someone asks for help it is because they need it. Politely suggest
> specific documentation or more appropriate venues where appropriate. Avoid
> aggressive or vague responses.

This could get noisy. Clarification that only *development* help is 
appropriate for the list would improve it.

> 2. Conversations should remain focused and on-topic. If you must change the
> topic, start a new thread by changing the topic line of your emails.

Probably should note that entirely new threads should be new messages, *not* 
merely a reply with a changed topic (as changing the topic does not in fact 
start a new thread).

> 4. Off-topic threads will be directed to other venues.

Threads like this one are off-topic, yet we have no obvious other venue for 
it.. :(

> *Disclose potential conflicts*

IMO this seems like not only a waste of time, but also futile for anyone not 
exclusively associated with a single company/organization.

> If you have concerns about someone’s conduct:
> * *On-list*: discussing conduct on-list, either as part of another message
> or as a standalone thread, is always acceptable.

Please no. This is off-topic noise.

Luke


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-10-15  0:17 ` Luke Dashjr

  
From: odinn @ 2015-10-15  0:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Luke Dashjr, bitcoin-dev, Jeff Garzik

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512


I am concerned that someone will always call "off topic" regardless of
how on-topic something actually is.  There is no objective measure of
on-topicness here (or hasn't been) unless we say it has to do with
bitcoin development.

If you say, "Conversations should remain focused and on-topic," as you
have suggested, then presumably you mean, as has also been suggested
in the proposed list moderation policy and conduct document, that we

"aim to facilitate constructive discussion
of issues related to technical development of the bitcoin protocol and
the Bitcoin Core reference implementation"

and thus, that "on-topic" conversations would necessarily be "related
to technical development of the bitcoin protocol and the Bitcoin Core
reference implementation."

Unfortunately, while that is fairly specific to what this list is
about, I think it still will result in a lot of people shouting "Off
Topic!" whenever someone mentions something that might even be
remotely and slightly off the the range.  Thus, I don't think the
current language in the proposed list moderation policy and conduct
document is really that good, and needs much more discussion and
refinement before, well, anything.  It would be a shame if every time
someone brings up something innovative, new or wonderful, or explores
something on the boundaries, they are shouted down with cries of "Off
Topic!" Which, by the way, I see happening A Lot on this list.

Specifically relating to the subject of Disclosure,
It is suggested that people here
"*Disclose potential conflicts*"

"1. List discussions often involve interested parties. We expect
participants to be aware when they are conflicted due to employment or
other projects they are involved in, and disclose those interests to
other project members.
2. When in doubt, over-disclose. Perceived conflicts of interest are
important to address, so that the lists’ decisions are credible even
when unpopular, difficult or favorable to the interests of one group
over another."

I don't doubt that this is a fine plan, but those who work for three
letter agencies or have simply signed NDAs (as an example) aren't
going to disclose anything, nada ~ but will be here anyway, pushing
their personal interests.  Reality.

Looking forward to discussion.

Cheers,

O

Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev:
> On Thursday, October 15, 2015 12:02:21 AM Jeff Garzik via
> bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> 2. If someone asks for help it is because they need it. Politely
>> suggest specific documentation or more appropriate venues where
>> appropriate. Avoid aggressive or vague responses.
> 
> This could get noisy. Clarification that only *development* help is
>  appropriate for the list would improve it.
> 
>> 2. Conversations should remain focused and on-topic. If you must
>> change the topic, start a new thread by changing the topic line
>> of your emails.
> 
> Probably should note that entirely new threads should be new
> messages, *not* merely a reply with a changed topic (as changing
> the topic does not in fact start a new thread).
> 
>> 4. Off-topic threads will be directed to other venues.
> 
> Threads like this one are off-topic, yet we have no obvious other
> venue for it.. :(
> 
>> *Disclose potential conflicts*
> 
> IMO this seems like not only a waste of time, but also futile for
> anyone not exclusively associated with a single
> company/organization.
> 
>> If you have concerns about someone’s conduct: * *On-list*:
>> discussing conduct on-list, either as part of another message or
>> as a standalone thread, is always acceptable.
> 
> Please no. This is off-topic noise.
> 
> Luke _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev
> mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org 
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> 

- -- 
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-----

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJWHvYPAAoJEGxwq/inSG8C/AgIAKxEOZpQ5O7cdAGcBceE840d
1Jv29kfErv/+vuasCumbF6yCRljJGqeU/t7YmoWcQzSD5jijBbZ7uB7yXBsoJwyg
xELeEAzV2t7v7zLxi569xVKvdaMrIYvwPB2uOQsfmqZ2+PrSlBsRIhcgB9zeuVyK
5Mtb0cHJx7aDmBhhC4r1IQGNfa8zzfdsNU4BqHR2/l6NmH29p9tb7DPC+83O6xY+
ODn6gDRAFsjC+Cy3gsLNf1J4hEvGOkkSVMJIHEmkdJx2gN306rbc7X7DK7CSQX3E
vmhAmDj419dpTvciOEjuiROGDhawPnBsO37UZJIVC/6yWe4sDk5JvQULU2HiyDo=
=T4vL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-10-15  0:02 [bitcoin-dev] Proposed list moderation policy and conduct Jeff Garzik
  2015-10-15  0:17 ` Luke Dashjr

  2015-10-15  8:38   ` odinn
  
From: Justus Ranvier @ 2015-10-15  1:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1759 bytes --]

On 14/10/15 19:02, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> *Disclose potential conflicts*
> 
> 1. List discussions often involve interested parties. We expect
> participants to be aware when they are conflicted due to employment or
> other projects they are involved in, and disclose those interests to other
> project members.
> 2. When in doubt, over-disclose. Perceived conflicts of interest are
> important to address, so that the lists’ decisions are credible even when
> unpopular, difficult or favorable to the interests of one group over
> another.

Even if we assume everybody will try to approach that topic in good
faith, I don't think it's that simple.

A term that's become popular recently is "Bitcoin maximalist", and it's
frequently used as a slur or insult.

I honestly find that to be incomprehensible. If somebody at a Ford board
meeting started talking about how Ford needed to make sure Toyota was
able to sell enough cars, they wouldn't get very far by labelling their
critics as "Ford maximalists".

Anyone who works at Ford and who isn't a Ford maximalist is in the wrong
job.

And yet in Bitcoin, a much development is funded by companies who offer
products which compete with Bitcoin, or at least would be in competition
if Bitcoin were to achieve unlimited success.

I expect this is a minority view on this list, but my position is that
anyone who is not a Bitcoin maximalists has a potential conflict of
interest if they're also involved in Bitcoin development.

I also suspect this issue is a cause of much user dissatisfaction with
Bitcoin development. If Bitcoin users and investors don't trust that the
developers are working toward the unlimited success case, they can and
will revolt.


[-- Attachment #1.2: 0xEAD9E623.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 18729 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-10-15  1:43 ` Justus Ranvier

  
From: odinn @ 2015-10-15  8:38 UTC ( / )
  To: Justus Ranvier, bitcoin-dev

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Another point building on Justus's remarks that I'll make.... (below)

Justus Ranvier via bitcoin-dev:
> On 14/10/15 19:02, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> *Disclose potential conflicts*
>> 
>> 1. List discussions often involve interested parties. We expect 
>> participants to be aware when they are conflicted due to
>> employment or other projects they are involved in, and disclose
>> those interests to other project members. 2. When in doubt,
>> over-disclose. Perceived conflicts of interest are important to
>> address, so that the lists’ decisions are credible even when 
>> unpopular, difficult or favorable to the interests of one group
>> over another.
> 
> Even if we assume everybody will try to approach that topic in
> good faith, I don't think it's that simple.
> 
> A term that's become popular recently is "Bitcoin maximalist", and
> it's frequently used as a slur or insult.
> 
> I honestly find that to be incomprehensible. If somebody at a Ford
> board meeting started talking about how Ford needed to make sure
> Toyota was able to sell enough cars, they wouldn't get very far by
> labelling their critics as "Ford maximalists".
> 
> Anyone who works at Ford and who isn't a Ford maximalist is in the
> wrong job.
> 
> And yet in Bitcoin, a much development is funded by companies who
> offer products which compete with Bitcoin, or at least would be in
> competition if Bitcoin were to achieve unlimited success.


One example that came to mind as I was reading this was, when I
presented an idea that I thought would be good for integration into
Bitcoin Core, explaining in various ways why I felt it would be
worthwhile to explore, I eventually had someone tell me I should go
and develop the idea first as either some sort of independent wallet,
or to demonstrate it would work via an alt.  (This has now occurred,
as a successful implementation of my micro-donations idea has been
demonstrated in an alt.)  I have to wonder, however, when I eventually
bring the micro-donation ideas back in such a form that they could
again be considered in bitcoin-dev, whether or not they would
seriously be considered, in part due to this effect which Justus
Ranvier has described in part ~ that is to say, the effect of people
engaging in the use of "maximalist" or some other label (or labels) as
limiting the extent of discourse which people can engage in.  (I
realize that wasn't exactly where you were going with this Justus, but
I'm just expanding upon the notion of how some labels and categories
can be used to suppress real discussion.)  Or, for example, if people
see me as "conflicted," and someone else doesn't, and I'm confused
about why someone would see me as "conflicted," where does that leave
one?  Quite possibly, stuck in a morass of unproductive commentary (or
maybe just being ignored by moderators who might see quite a few
people as "conflicted").

> 
> I expect this is a minority view on this list, but my position is
> that anyone who is not a Bitcoin maximalists has a potential
> conflict of interest if they're also involved in Bitcoin
> development.
> 
> I also suspect this issue is a cause of much user dissatisfaction
> with Bitcoin development. If Bitcoin users and investors don't
> trust that the developers are working toward the unlimited success
> case, they can and will revolt.
> 

Another thing to consider, although the person(s) proposing the list
moderation policy and conduct document will certainly not want to hear
it, is that the list might be better off without a policy document
that is enforced by moderators.  (An "about" section for what the list
is about, its purpose, and how people are supposed to treat each
other, is probably good... but the enforcement angle that I'm seeing
is probably a bad idea.)  What we stand for here is more than making
people comfortable while technical issues are discussed on a list.
The idea of keeping a protocol free of financial censorship, in
concept, extends to language as well, and thus people should be able
to be free in how they write and speak, even when their peers on the
list don't like what they see in others' expressions.

I recommend removal of the enforcement and moderator sections.
(Technically, there are mods for it already... I suppose... the
question is how you disclose in a "Purpose" or "About" section that
refers to this list who the mods are, or rather, what the roles are of
each person involved in a way that is minimally invasive and lets the
list flow.)

> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing
> list bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org 
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> 

- -- 
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-----

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJWH2YLAAoJEGxwq/inSG8C0aAH/AqYWgZEyRM5d1rAwjt6jNrf
Vqkd+kBCu0+0CQRXHUwJpK07IzFm5CwzSGIwri/VWT+1t/27Lk1Kt9iV4+zxOZhO
RFyo4gmJ6GApZ7N6wlIWD9R2hFdg9Q+taZHgRXiMDMqi8MOJjf5tMAXnYjbMQrSr
ntLY3ESFF0yF3ZGIIptNI4atv6UdhL2po7p+F5GMa7VZp7/e3zw96Uxmd2wkZN0R
3G5VHR2gscn3PooykpH/nhpH4mk0eFsWomuwWXAxfo2JjMhuyIXU0KnUs7ibpfPT
qtOmBW/7DI//IeRJpstAnbc22g6YOqCKrMDgNe0HgVjnmugNpY1/wRh29m+WCpA=
=felI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----