Published on: 2023-05-11T18:48:39+00:00
Bitcoin Core is currently facing challenges with its decision-making process for adding or blocking new maintainers. There are concerns that the current maintainers have too much power in deciding who can join the project. Some contributors argue that Bitcoin Core should function as a volunteer project where independent contributors merge different pull requests or patches. They believe that the controls on GitHub are simply because of the platform's structure. Additionally, there is confusion between Bitcoin Core and the bitcoin protocol itself. Several articles are provided to help understand the decentralized nature of Bitcoin governance.Michael Folkson raised his concerns about the decision-making process for new maintainers in an email to David A. Harding. He worried that long-term contributors might be excluded from important discussions and decision-making processes. He also questioned the transparency and justification behind blocking certain individuals. David responded by explaining that many organizations have their current members choose new members, highlighting the need to evaluate whether the current maintainers are capable of moving Bitcoin Core in the desired direction.The discussion also touched on the need for clear governance structures in open-source projects like Bitcoin Core. It was suggested that criteria should be established for selecting new maintainers in order to maintain the decentralized nature of the project and prevent power consolidation. The lack of transparent and consistent criteria could lead to contentious consensus changes without justification or rationale.Another issue raised in the context is the communication challenges within the Bitcoin Core project. Maintainers often merge pull requests without providing commentary, leading to frustration and confusion among contributors. The high number of open pull requests and issues makes it difficult to keep up with all the activity in the repository. Some contributors argue that maintainers do not need to provide commentary on every merge, as it becomes self-evident when the code is ready to be merged based on the number of acknowledgments (ACKs) from contributors.There are concerns about the transparency and accountability of the maintainers in Bitcoin Core, as they sometimes refuse to discuss merge decisions. This lack of communication can create problems and lead to confusion among casual observers. However, it is acknowledged that there is also a need to prevent malicious interference with the project.The Bitcoin Core project has also faced challenges with its communication process and maintainers stepping down. The lack of commentary on merges by maintainers has been attributed to their belief that it is self-evident when the code is ready for merging based on the number of ACKs from contributors. With several long-time maintainers stepping away, there may be delays in merging pull requests as the remaining maintainers may be less familiar with certain parts of the codebase.The concerns about communication and maintainers' decision-making process have prompted discussions on the need for more transparency, accountability, and clear governance structures within the Bitcoin Core project. It is suggested that dedicated communication channels be used for internal project decisions, and criteria be established for selecting new maintainers. Maintainers are encouraged to provide more commentary on merges to improve transparency and understanding among contributors.Overall, the Bitcoin Core project is grappling with issues related to the decision-making process for new maintainers, communication challenges, and the need for transparent and consistent criteria. The discussions highlight the importance of maintaining the decentralized nature of the project and ensuring clear governance structures in open-source projects.Merge decisions within Bitcoin Core have also come under scrutiny, with concerns about transparency and accountability. The author argues that if the transparency and accountability of merge decisions are not improved, it is unlikely to be better on the default signet. They suggest that the lack of transparency and justification in merge/non-merge decisions could lead to investing more heavily in consensus-compatible forks of Core or treating Core as a proprietary "open-source" project where merge decisions are not explained or justified openly.Michael Folkson emphasizes the importance of communication and transparency in the development process. He mentions that maintaining a pull request for an extended period without any commentary can be frustrating for the author. He emphasizes the need for openness and discussion around merge decisions, while acknowledging that not every pull request requires commentary for merging if it has received enough reviews, ACKs, and lacks controversy.The perception that the bitcoin-inquisition/default signet is seen as the only staging ground for consensus changes is also raised as a concern. The author warns that this perception could be dangerous if the maintainer(s) of that project have the same inclinations as a subset of the Core maintainers. To counter this, they suggest the possibility of creating a custom signet with more reviews, testing, and regular updates to challenge this perception.In summary, the email thread discusses the communication challenges within Bitcoin Core, particularly regarding pull requests and maintainer decisions. Michael Folkson expresses frustration with the lack of commentary provided by maintainers when merging pull requests and the prolonged periods without resolution. He argues for more transparency, accountability, and open discussion around merge decisions to avoid misunderstandings and contentious activations. Folkson also raises concerns about the perception of the default signet as the sole staging ground for consensus changes, suggesting alternatives to challenge this perception.
Updated on: 2023-08-02T09:18:07.628839+00:00