Topic: Wallet list at Bitcoin.org (Read 1052 times)
I think OP has a point here. They do need a much greater level of transparency, and I think they are aware of that. The actual point about site control is also a valid one, it doesn't matter how much community input there is, there is still just one person with control of it.
You are over analyzing the phrase "community controlled". Anyone is free to modify the code, but like with any open source project, you have to get acknowledgment from existing developers in order to get your changes merged in. Gavin likely meant that any member of the community can make a pull request and have a say regarding the site's content. What is your version of "community controlled"?
The Foundation sponsors the site and thereby helps keep it online, but that's it. They wouldn't have any luck trying to use that to influence the site's content. A lot of people are suspicious of them, so any proposed change that was seen to favor the Foundation would struggle to get merged in. Even Saivann couldn't get away with merging it in outright.
The Foundation sponsors the site and thereby helps keep it online, but that's it. They wouldn't have any luck trying to use that to influence the site's content. A lot of people are suspicious of them, so any proposed change that was seen to favor the Foundation would struggle to get merged in. Even Saivann couldn't get away with merging it in outright.
I agree. People in the bitcoin community obsess about transparency and/or "community control" without having a clue about what they're talking about. There has to be a decision making process somewhere, even if the decision is made by a few members. The "Community control" part comes in from github pull requests.
Other than that, there's no effective way for something to be "community controlled" as then every single member of the bitcoin community must have a say(bitcoin land is 70% Trolls/Scammers), and absolutely nothing would get down.
Transparency and control are two different things. Considering input and control are also two different things. Nobody said "every single member of the bitcoin community must have a say" and that statement is hyperbole. It is the Foundation that is claiming the site is "community controlled." Everybody involved gets defensive and calls people trolls when questions are asked.
The site should say the content is controlled by a small group of people sponsored by the Foundation but anyone can supply input to be considered. Isn't that what is really happening?
So then how do you think a community controlled website would work? Obviously it would have to be the most adept community members for the job to do the decision making process of what gets added to the site...
You're saying things, but give forth no other solutions.
I am saying they should say what it is instead of claiming something it is not. I have seen where they dismiss perfectly good suggestions with no explanation and do some unusual things, again with no explanation. Under those circumstances I would not get involved in its development. I just object to them claiming it is "community controlled."
I don't like even like the term "community" because it sounds exclusionary. I have never heard of the US Dollar community or the Paypal community, anyone can use those financial instruments. In any case I use Bitcoin and I have no control over that web site and I don't even know who owns it (I know, some anonymous screen name claims to own it but the records are hidden, yada, yada, yada ....)
You are over analyzing the phrase "community controlled". Anyone is free to modify the code, but like with any open source project, you have to get acknowledgment from existing developers in order to get your changes merged in. Gavin likely meant that any member of the community can make a pull request and have a say regarding the site's content. What is your version of "community controlled"?
The Foundation sponsors the site and thereby helps keep it online, but that's it. They wouldn't have any luck trying to use that to influence the site's content. A lot of people are suspicious of them, so any proposed change that was seen to favor the Foundation would struggle to get merged in. Even Saivann couldn't get away with merging it in outright.
The Foundation sponsors the site and thereby helps keep it online, but that's it. They wouldn't have any luck trying to use that to influence the site's content. A lot of people are suspicious of them, so any proposed change that was seen to favor the Foundation would struggle to get merged in. Even Saivann couldn't get away with merging it in outright.
I agree. People in the bitcoin community obsess about transparency and/or "community control" without having a clue about what they're talking about. There has to be a decision making process somewhere, even if the decision is made by a few members. The "Community control" part comes in from github pull requests.
Other than that, there's no effective way for something to be "community controlled" as then every single member of the bitcoin community must have a say(bitcoin land is 70% Trolls/Scammers), and absolutely nothing would get down.
Transparency and control are two different things. Considering input and control are also two different things. Nobody said "every single member of the bitcoin community must have a say" and that statement is hyperbole. It is the Foundation that is claiming the site is "community controlled." Everybody involved gets defensive and calls people trolls when questions are asked.
The site should say the content is controlled by a small group of people sponsored by the Foundation but anyone can supply input to be considered. Isn't that what is really happening?
So then how do you think a community controlled website would work? Obviously it would have to be the most adept community members for the job to do the decision making process of what gets added to the site...
You're saying things, but give forth no other solutions.
You are over analyzing the phrase "community controlled". Anyone is free to modify the code, but like with any open source project, you have to get acknowledgment from existing developers in order to get your changes merged in. Gavin likely meant that any member of the community can make a pull request and have a say regarding the site's content. What is your version of "community controlled"?
The Foundation sponsors the site and thereby helps keep it online, but that's it. They wouldn't have any luck trying to use that to influence the site's content. A lot of people are suspicious of them, so any proposed change that was seen to favor the Foundation would struggle to get merged in. Even Saivann couldn't get away with merging it in outright.
The Foundation sponsors the site and thereby helps keep it online, but that's it. They wouldn't have any luck trying to use that to influence the site's content. A lot of people are suspicious of them, so any proposed change that was seen to favor the Foundation would struggle to get merged in. Even Saivann couldn't get away with merging it in outright.
I agree. People in the bitcoin community obsess about transparency and/or "community control" without having a clue about what they're talking about. There has to be a decision making process somewhere, even if the decision is made by a few members. The "Community control" part comes in from github pull requests.
Other than that, there's no effective way for something to be "community controlled" as then every single member of the bitcoin community must have a say(bitcoin land is 70% Trolls/Scammers), and absolutely nothing would get down.
Transparency and control are two different things. Considering input and control are also two different things. Nobody said "every single member of the bitcoin community must have a say" and that statement is hyperbole. It is the Foundation that is claiming the site is "community controlled." Everybody involved gets defensive and calls people trolls when questions are asked.
The site should say the content is controlled by a small group of people sponsored by the Foundation but anyone can supply input to be considered. Isn't that what is really happening?
You are over analyzing the phrase "community controlled". Anyone is free to modify the code, but like with any open source project, you have to get acknowledgment from existing developers in order to get your changes merged in. Gavin likely meant that any member of the community can make a pull request and have a say regarding the site's content. What is your version of "community controlled"?
The Foundation sponsors the site and thereby helps keep it online, but that's it. They wouldn't have any luck trying to use that to influence the site's content. A lot of people are suspicious of them, so any proposed change that was seen to favor the Foundation would struggle to get merged in. Even Saivann couldn't get away with merging it in outright.
The Foundation sponsors the site and thereby helps keep it online, but that's it. They wouldn't have any luck trying to use that to influence the site's content. A lot of people are suspicious of them, so any proposed change that was seen to favor the Foundation would struggle to get merged in. Even Saivann couldn't get away with merging it in outright.
I agree. People in the bitcoin community obsess about transparency and/or "community control" without having a clue about what they're talking about. There has to be a decision making process somewhere, even if the decision is made by a few members. The "Community control" part comes in from github pull requests.
Other than that, there's no effective way for something to be "community controlled" as then every single member of the bitcoin community must have a say(bitcoin land is 70% Trolls/Scammers), and absolutely nothing would get down.
You are over analyzing the phrase "community controlled". Anyone is free to modify the code, but like with any open source project, you have to get acknowledgment from existing developers in order to get your changes merged in. Gavin likely meant that any member of the community can make a pull request and have a say regarding the site's content. What is your version of "community controlled"?
The Foundation sponsors the site and thereby helps keep it online, but that's it. They wouldn't have any luck trying to use that to influence the site's content. A lot of people are suspicious of them, so any proposed change that was seen to favor the Foundation would struggle to get merged in. Even Saivann couldn't get away with merging it in outright.
The Foundation sponsors the site and thereby helps keep it online, but that's it. They wouldn't have any luck trying to use that to influence the site's content. A lot of people are suspicious of them, so any proposed change that was seen to favor the Foundation would struggle to get merged in. Even Saivann couldn't get away with merging it in outright.
Then the site should say "Saivann decides on the content of this site with input from the public" if that is what is happening. This statement that it is "community ... controlled" is simply not true if Saivann is the sole decider. The site is Saivann-controlled.
The site clearly says it is sponsored by the Foundation so it is perfectly reasonable for people to believe the Foundation is responsible for the content. Until I see something to the contrary that is certainly what I believe. Maybe it is right, but maybe it is wrong but I believe Saivann does what the Foundation wants for the most part. I believe the answers by Gavin are meant to try to claim that is not the case. Of course I don't know what happens behind the scenes at the Foundation or the web site so I can only go by what I see. The Foundation has generated a large number of complaints over this type of lack of transparency.
The site clearly says it is sponsored by the Foundation so it is perfectly reasonable for people to believe the Foundation is responsible for the content. Until I see something to the contrary that is certainly what I believe. Maybe it is right, but maybe it is wrong but I believe Saivann does what the Foundation wants for the most part. I believe the answers by Gavin are meant to try to claim that is not the case. Of course I don't know what happens behind the scenes at the Foundation or the web site so I can only go by what I see. The Foundation has generated a large number of complaints over this type of lack of transparency.
Saivann is known to be in charge of the content. This doesn't mean he can put whatever he likes on the site though, even he has to go through the proper process to get anything that might be controversial merged. But if there's ever a deadlock, he's the one that decides how to proceed. This isn't a secret.
I can't find the source code or pull request to bitcoin.org for this "Pheeva" wallet.
I can't find the source code or pull request to bitcoin.org for this "Pheeva" wallet.
I see the disputes are starting to arise over the content at Bitcoin.org. the latest is the includion of the Pheeva wallet (see http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2g4oqb/why_is_bitcoinorgbitcoin_foundation_shunning_the/)
Gavin of the Bitcoin Foundation posted this unhelpful reply "The Foundation sponsors Bitcoin.org, but has no control over the content-- the content is community-created and controlled." of course this is meaningless statement that does not clarify who exactly has control over the content at Bitcoin.org. I know anyone can submit a request at Github but that does not explain who makes the final decisions about what gets published. Gavin's statement is meant to divert attention from telling everyone who actually makes the decisions concerning what is published. This constant lack of transparency has caused many people to leave the Bitcoin Foundation.
It is about time the people involved tell everybody who decided which wallets get listed, which conventions get promoted, which people are put on the press list and why, and on and on. Nonsense replies that claim some "community" did it are not helping.
Gavin of the Bitcoin Foundation posted this unhelpful reply "The Foundation sponsors Bitcoin.org, but has no control over the content-- the content is community-created and controlled." of course this is meaningless statement that does not clarify who exactly has control over the content at Bitcoin.org. I know anyone can submit a request at Github but that does not explain who makes the final decisions about what gets published. Gavin's statement is meant to divert attention from telling everyone who actually makes the decisions concerning what is published. This constant lack of transparency has caused many people to leave the Bitcoin Foundation.
It is about time the people involved tell everybody who decided which wallets get listed, which conventions get promoted, which people are put on the press list and why, and on and on. Nonsense replies that claim some "community" did it are not helping.
Jump to: