1 Year bitcoin-dev Moderation Review
4 messages, 9 to 10 Oct 2016. Started by Jeremy Rubin.
Jeremy Rubin, Ryan Grant, Henning Kopp, Dave Scotese
Hi bitcoin-dev,
I'm well aware that discussion of moderation on bitcoin-dev is discouraged*. However, I think that we should, as a year of moderation approaches, discuss openly as a community what the impact of such policy has been. Making such a post now is timely given that people will have the opportunity to discuss in-person as well as online as Scaling Bitcoin is currently underway. On the suggestion of others, I've also CC'd bitcoin-discuss on this message.
Below, I'll share some of my own personal thoughts as a starter, but would love to hear others feelings as well.
For me, the bitcoin-dev mailing list was a place where I started frequenting to learn a lot about bitcoin and the development process and interact with the community. Since moderation has begun, it seems that the messages/day has dropped drastically. This may be a nice outcome overall for our sanity, but I think that it has on the whole made the community less accessible. I've heard from people (a > 1 number, myself included) that they now self-censor because they think they will put a lot of work into their email only for it to get moderated away as trolling/spam. Thus, while we may not observe a high rate of moderated posts, it does mean the "chilling effect" of moderation still manifests -- I think that people not writing emails because they think it may be moderated reduces the rate of people writing emails which is a generally valuable thing as it offers people a vehicle through which they try to think through and communicate their ideas in detail.
Overall, I think that at the time that moderation was added to the list, it was probably the right thing to do. We're in a different place as a community now, so I feel we should attempt to open up this valuable communication channel once again. My sentiment is that we enacted moderation to protect a resource that we all felt was valuable, but in the process, the value of the list was damaged, but not irreparably so.
Best,
Jeremy
* From the email introducing the bitcoin-dev moderation policy, "Generally discouraged: shower thoughts, wild speculation, jokes, +1s, non-technical bitcoin issues, rehashing settled topics without new data, moderation concerns."
Maybe bitcoin-discuss should have been opt-out rather than opt-in.
Dear moderators, what is the subscription count to bitcoin-discuss, and bitcoin-dev?
Hi all,
I totally agree with the assessment of the situation. Previously I learned a lot about bitcoin on this list. There were a lot of great ideas regarding the protocol and the surrounding ecosystem. Now there is mainly talk about code and BIPs, which is the main purpose of a developer list. I do not feel that we should clog bitcoin-dev again with non-development talk but rather find a way to get bitcoin-discuss going. My impression is that bitcoin-discuss has not reached a critical mass of contributors. The question is how we can change that.
All the best Henning
On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 12:26:07PM +0200, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Quoted text (53 lines)
> Hi bitcoin-dev, > > I'm well aware that discussion of moderation on bitcoin-dev is > discouraged*. However, I think that we should, as a year of moderation > approaches, discuss openly as a community what the impact of such policy > has been. Making such a post now is timely given that people will have the > opportunity to discuss in-person as well as online as Scaling Bitcoin is > currently underway. On the suggestion of others, I've also CC'd > bitcoin-discuss on this message. > > Below, I'll share some of my own personal thoughts as a starter, but would > love to hear others feelings as well. > > For me, the bitcoin-dev mailing list was a place where I started > frequenting to learn a lot about bitcoin and the development process and > interact with the community. Since moderation has begun, it seems that the > messages/day has dropped drastically. This may be a nice outcome overall > for our sanity, but I think that it has on the whole made the community > less accessible. I've heard from people (a > 1 number, myself included) > that they now self-censor because they think they will put a lot of work > into their email only for it to get moderated away as trolling/spam. Thus, > while we may not observe a high rate of moderated posts, it does mean the > "chilling effect" of moderation still manifests -- I think that people not > writing emails because they think it may be moderated reduces the rate of > people writing emails which is a generally valuable thing as it offers > people a vehicle through which they try to think through and communicate > their ideas in detail. > > Overall, I think that at the time that moderation was added to the list, it > was probably the right thing to do. We're in a different place as a > community now, so I feel we should attempt to open up this valuable > communication channel once again. My sentiment is that we enacted > moderation to protect a resource that we all felt was valuable, but in the > process, the value of the list was damaged, but not irreparably so. > > Best, > > Jeremy > > > * From the email introducing the bitcoin-dev moderation policy, "Generally > discouraged: shower thoughts, wild speculation, jokes, +1s, non-technical > bitcoin issues, rehashing settled topics without new data, moderation > concerns." > > > -- > @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin> > <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin> > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
I sent my previous email ONLY to bitcoin-discuss@lists•linuxfoundation•org and it waited in the moderation queue. I don't know when moderation was added to this list, but it seems to me that it's a misstep.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Henning Kopp via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (93 lines)
> Hi all, > > I totally agree with the assessment of the situation. Previously I > learned a lot about bitcoin on this list. There were a lot of great > ideas regarding the protocol and the surrounding ecosystem. Now there > is mainly talk about code and BIPs, which is the main purpose of a > developer list. > I do not feel that we should clog bitcoin-dev again with > non-development talk but rather find a way to get bitcoin-discuss > going. My impression is that bitcoin-discuss has not reached a > critical mass of contributors. The question is how we can change that. > > All the best > Henning > > On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 12:26:07PM +0200, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > Hi bitcoin-dev, > > > > I'm well aware that discussion of moderation on bitcoin-dev is > > discouraged*. However, I think that we should, as a year of moderation > > approaches, discuss openly as a community what the impact of such policy > > has been. Making such a post now is timely given that people will have > the > > opportunity to discuss in-person as well as online as Scaling Bitcoin is > > currently underway. On the suggestion of others, I've also CC'd > > bitcoin-discuss on this message. > > > > Below, I'll share some of my own personal thoughts as a starter, but > would > > love to hear others feelings as well. > > > > For me, the bitcoin-dev mailing list was a place where I started > > frequenting to learn a lot about bitcoin and the development process and > > interact with the community. Since moderation has begun, it seems that > the > > messages/day has dropped drastically. This may be a nice outcome overall > > for our sanity, but I think that it has on the whole made the community > > less accessible. I've heard from people (a > 1 number, myself included) > > that they now self-censor because they think they will put a lot of work > > into their email only for it to get moderated away as trolling/spam. > Thus, > > while we may not observe a high rate of moderated posts, it does mean the > > "chilling effect" of moderation still manifests -- I think that people > not > > writing emails because they think it may be moderated reduces the rate of > > people writing emails which is a generally valuable thing as it offers > > people a vehicle through which they try to think through and communicate > > their ideas in detail. > > > > Overall, I think that at the time that moderation was added to the list, > it > > was probably the right thing to do. We're in a different place as a > > community now, so I feel we should attempt to open up this valuable > > communication channel once again. My sentiment is that we enacted > > moderation to protect a resource that we all felt was valuable, but in > the > > process, the value of the list was damaged, but not irreparably so. > > > > Best, > > > > Jeremy > > > > > > * From the email introducing the bitcoin-dev moderation policy, > "Generally > > discouraged: shower thoughts, wild speculation, jokes, +1s, non-technical > > bitcoin issues, rehashing settled topics without new data, moderation > > concerns." > > > > > > -- > > @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin> > > <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin> > > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > -- > Henning Kopp > Institute of Distributed Systems > Ulm University, Germany > > Office: O27 - 3402 > Phone: +49 731 50-24138 > Web: http://www.uni-ulm.de/in/vs/~kopp > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >