Published on: 2016-02-09T23:24:28+00:00
The Bitcoin-dev mailing list recently discussed the importance of providing unique and valuable contributions to conversations. Contributors emphasized that comments should contribute to the discussion with technical details or additional relevant data, rather than simply stating agreement with a proposal. The sentiment expressed was that evidence trumps votes, and comments should provide readers with another thing to consider in favor of something beyond just the number of people who support it.In this context, various members of the mailing list shared their opinions. Dave Scotese suggested that contributors should provide additional evidence in favor of something, while Gavin offered his services as a techie and shared information about his projects Litmocracy and Meme Racing. Peter Todd and another member stressed that comments should contribute uniquely to the discussion and not simply repeat what has already been said. They proposed using a "+1" vote with an explanation that provides unique insights to the conversation.Another member, Xor, suggested allowing "+1" votes as long as a technical explanation is provided for why the person agrees. However, Peter Todd disagreed, stating that the explanation should also contribute uniquely to the conversation. Rusty Russell expressed his view that "+1s" on a list are not useful unless they carry additional information. He recommended amending the rules to clarify that "+1s" are not allowed without an explanation.In addition to discussing comments, the mailing list also addressed other issues. Dave Scotese expressed disappointment at the difficulty in accessing moderated messages and suggested having a downloadable version of these messages on the ozlabs website. Rusty Russell explained that the difficulty arises because the messages are forwarded to the bitcoin-dev-moderation mailing list, which strips them out as attachments. Rusty called for volunteers to help develop a filter to address this issue.Furthermore, Rusty Russell raised the question of what moderation should look like going forward. Xor pointed out that the original announcement of moderation had discouraged the use of "+1s" without additional information. Rusty clarified that statements like "I prefer proposal X over Y because..." or "I dislike X because..." carry more weight than simply saying "+1." The discussion highlighted the need for moderation to be information-rich and not solely focused on managing a process of indicating agreement or disagreement.Overall, the Bitcoin-dev mailing list engaged in a thoughtful discussion about the value of comments, the importance of providing unique contributions, and potential improvements to the moderation system.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T17:36:07.470670+00:00