Proposed list moderation policy and conduct

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).

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

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

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.

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