Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity
Please no GoogleGroups. Stick with mailman or some other open source thing you can move around from place to place as needed. Also, online third party archives die, their web interfaces suck ass, they're bloated, don't export, aren't offline capable or authoritative, etc. You need to make the raw archives (past and future) downloadable in mbox format and updated daily, with full unobfuscated headers for threading and replying, with signatures and attachments. Commonly for newcomers wishing to seed their own MUA's and archives, mirrors, search, and so on. One such breakage of archives by mailman defaults was discussed and corrected here: https://cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/ You also need to get rid of the tag in the subject, it wastes valuable space and mail filters work just the same without it. Please no forums (see suck above). Unless they have bidirectional realtime message copying between list and forum. Or at least make available exports of their message database. Further, when will the crypto P2P communities develop and use distributed messaging systems... bitmessage, blockchain, etc as rough examples... to avoid old centralized issues. At some point you have to start eating your own dog food and make people run the clients and come to you instead. Disruptive tech is the new good. -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity
Recent versions of mailman strip DKIM signatures, rewrite the envelope-from to use an address at the list's domain and set reply-to to the original authors address to resolve the DMARC issue. I'm on several lists that do this and it works just fine. +1 on moving the list. Given the fact that the mails are archived in public, it's not really a huge deal how it takes place. One month sounds reasonable (although I think it could be done on a shorter timescale). I'd setup the new list to allow subscriptions, but keep it moderated to keep discussion from moving until the cut, send lots of warnings and then on the big day unmoderate one and moderate the other. It's a great opportunity to hardfork something in Bitcoin without risk of breakage, losses or entertaining melodrama. : ) --adam ps. I think SF will let project admins download mbox archives of the list, the new admins should be able to import them to keep archive consistency in one place. On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: Bear in mind the problem that stops Jeff's messages getting through is that mailman 1.0 doesn't know how to handle DKIM properly. Switching to a different mailman provider won't fix that. Does mailman 3.0 even fix this? I found it difficult to tell from their website. There's a big page on the mailman wiki that suggests they fixed it by simply deleting the signatures entirely, which won't work. DMARC policies state that mail *must* be signed and unsigned/incorrectly signed message should be discarded. The user documentation for mailman 3 doesn't seem to exist? The links on the website are docs for 2.1, perhaps they released mailman 3 without refreshing the docs. Google Groups may be controversial but if I recall correctly the main issue was the question of whether you needed a Google account or not. I'm pretty sure you can just send an email to groupname+subscr...@googlegroups.com even if you don't have a Google account. But of course this is a bizarre standard to hold mailing list software to: mailman asks users to create an account for each listserv in order to manage a subscription too! -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
[Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity
Discomfort with Sourceforge For a while now people have been expressing concern about Sourceforge's continued hosting of the bitcoin-dev mailing list. Downloads were moved completely to bitcoin.org after the Sept 2014 hacking incident of the SF project account. The company's behavior and perceived stability have been growing to be increasingly questionable. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/08/gimp_dumps_sourceforge_over_dodgy_ads_and_installer November 2013: GIMP flees SourceForge over dodgy ads and installer https://lwn.net/Articles/646118/ May 28th, 2015: SourceForge replacing GIMP Windows downloads http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/2015/q2/194 June 3rd, 2015: Sourceforge hijacked nmap's old site and downloads. When this topic came up over the past two years, it seemed that most people agreed it would be a good idea to move. Someone always suggests Google Groups as the replacement host. Google is quickly shot down as too controversial in this community, and it becomes an even more difficult question as to who else should host it. Realizing this is not so simple, discussion then dies off until the next time somebody brings it up. http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/bitcoin-development/thread/1943127.DBnVxmfOIh%401337h4x0r/#msg34192607 Somebody brought it up again this past week. It seems logical that an open discussion list is not a big deal to continue to be hosted on Sourceforge, as there isn’t much they could do to screw it up. I personally think moving it away now would be seen as a gesture that we do not consider their behavior to be acceptable. There are also some benefits in being hosted elsewhere, at an entity able to professionally maintain their infrastructure while also being neutral to the content. Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity Bitcoin is a global infrastructure development project where it would be politically awkward for any of the existing Bitcoin companies or orgs to host due to questions it would raise about perceived political control. For example, consider a bizarro parallel universe where MtGox was the inventor of Bitcoin, where they hosted its development infrastructure and dev list under their own name. Even if what they published was 100% technically and ideologically equivalent to the Bitcoin we know in our dimension, most people wouldn't have trusted it merely due to appearances and it would have easily gone nowhere. I had a similar thought process last week when sidechains code was approaching release. Sidechains, like Bitcoin itself, are intended to be a generic piece of infrastructure (like ethernet?) that anyone can build upon and use. We thought about Google Groups or existing orgs that already host various open source infrastructure discussion lists like the IETF or the Linux Foundation. Google is too controversial in this community, and the IETF is seen as possibly too politically fractured. The Linux Foundation hosts a bunch of infrastructure lists https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo and it seems that nobody in the Open Source industry considers them to be particularly objectionable. I talked with LF about the idea of hosting generic Bitcoin-related infrastructure development lists. They agreed as OSS infrastructure dev is already within their charter, so early this week sidechains-dev list began hosting there. From the perspective of our community, for bitcoin-dev it seems like a great fit. Why? While they are interested in supporting general open source development, the LF has literally zero stake in this. In addition to neutrality, they seem to be suitable as a competent host. They have full-time sysadmins maintaining their infrastructure including the Mailman server. They are soon upgrading to Mailman 3 http://wiki.list.org/Mailman3, which means mailing lists would benefit from the improved archive browser. I am not personally familiar with HyperKitty, but the point here is they are a stable non-profit entity who will competently maintain and improve things like their Mailman deployment (a huge improvement over the stagnant Sourceforge). It seems that LF would be competent, neutral place to host dev lists for the long-term. To be clear, this proposal is only about hosting the discussion list. The LF would have no control over the Bitcoin Project, as no single entity should. Proposed Action Plan - Discuss this openly within this community. Above is one example of a great neutral and competent host. If the technical leaders here can agree to move to a particular neutral host then we do it. - Migration: The current list admins become the new list admins. We import the entire list archive into the new host's archives for user convenience. - http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/ Kill bitcoin-list and bitcoin-test. Very few people actually use it. Actually, let's delete the entire Bitcoin Sourceforge project as its continued existence
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity
It might be as well to keep the archive but disable new posts as otherwise we create bit-rot for people who linked to posts on sourceforge. The list is also archived on mail-archive though. https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/ Adam On 14 June 2015 at 22:55, Andy Schroder i...@andyschroder.com wrote: Hello, I'd support moving to a Linux Foundation e-mail list. I am also against google groups. I agree that the gesture of moving indicates that SourceForge is not playing nice on other issues and that moving this list shows their behavior is being acknowledged. I understand your reason for wanting to delete the Source Forge account (after reading the links). However, the only problem with that is that the SourceForge archive is the oldest one I've found with some early messages from Satoshi. Myself finding Bitcoin after its inception, as well as this mailing list even later on, it's nice to be able to review the archives. SourceForge's interface to those archives is pretty bad though. I'm not sure if there is any way to get older messages archived on sites like gmane or mail-archive? Does anyone know? You mentioned importing the list archive as part of the migration plan, but I guess is this easy to do from SourceForge? Andy Schroder On 06/14/2015 06:12 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: Discomfort with Sourceforge For a while now people have been expressing concern about Sourceforge's continued hosting of the bitcoin-dev mailing list. Downloads were moved completely to bitcoin.org after the Sept 2014 hacking incident of the SF project account. The company's behavior and perceived stability have been growing to be increasingly questionable. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/08/gimp_dumps_sourceforge_over_dodgy_ads_and_installer November 2013: GIMP flees SourceForge over dodgy ads and installer https://lwn.net/Articles/646118/ May 28th, 2015: SourceForge replacing GIMP Windows downloads http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/2015/q2/194 June 3rd, 2015: Sourceforge hijacked nmap's old site and downloads. When this topic came up over the past two years, it seemed that most people agreed it would be a good idea to move. Someone always suggests Google Groups as the replacement host. Google is quickly shot down as too controversial in this community, and it becomes an even more difficult question as to who else should host it. Realizing this is not so simple, discussion then dies off until the next time somebody brings it up. http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/bitcoin-development/thread/1943127.DBnVxmfOIh%401337h4x0r/#msg34192607 Somebody brought it up again this past week. It seems logical that an open discussion list is not a big deal to continue to be hosted on Sourceforge, as there isn’t much they could do to screw it up. I personally think moving it away now would be seen as a gesture that we do not consider their behavior to be acceptable. There are also some benefits in being hosted elsewhere, at an entity able to professionally maintain their infrastructure while also being neutral to the content. Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity Bitcoin is a global infrastructure development project where it would be politically awkward for any of the existing Bitcoin companies or orgs to host due to questions it would raise about perceived political control. For example, consider a bizarro parallel universe where MtGox was the inventor of Bitcoin, where they hosted its development infrastructure and dev list under their own name. Even if what they published was 100% technically and ideologically equivalent to the Bitcoin we know in our dimension, most people wouldn't have trusted it merely due to appearances and it would have easily gone nowhere. I had a similar thought process last week when sidechains code was approaching release. Sidechains, like Bitcoin itself, are intended to be a generic piece of infrastructure (like ethernet?) that anyone can build upon and use. We thought about Google Groups or existing orgs that already host various open source infrastructure discussion lists like the IETF or the Linux Foundation. Google is too controversial in this community, and the IETF is seen as possibly too politically fractured. The Linux Foundation hosts a bunch of infrastructure lists and it seems that nobody in the Open Source industry considers them to be particularly objectionable. I talked with LF about the idea of hosting generic Bitcoin-related infrastructure development lists. They agreed as OSS infrastructure dev is already within their charter, so early this week sidechains-dev list began hosting there. From the perspective of our community, for bitcoin-dev it seems like a great fit. Why? While they are interested in supporting general open source development, the LF has literally zero stake in this. In addition to
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I fully agree and support this idea. Some recent discussion on social media which touches on this very subject of bitcoin and sourceforge (I include nmap and gittorrent as well because those seem relevant, imho) https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/607750046021357568 https://twitter.com/nmap/status/608418994236891137 https://twitter.com/ktorn/status/607818378531631106 https://twitter.com/ktorn/status/607822900331020288 On 06/14/2015 03:12 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: Discomfort with Sourceforge For a while now people have been expressing concern about Sourceforge's continued hosting of the bitcoin-dev mailing list. Downloads were moved completely to bitcoin.org http://bitcoin.org after the Sept 2014 hacking incident of the SF project account. The company's behavior and perceived stability have been growing to be increasingly questionable. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/08/gimp_dumps_sourceforge_over_do dgy_ads_and_installer November 2013: GIMP flees SourceForge over dodgy ads and installer https://lwn.net/Articles/646118/ May 28th, 2015: SourceForge replacing GIMP Windows downloads http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/2015/q2/194 June 3rd, 2015: Sourceforge hijacked nmap's old site and downloads. When this topic came up over the past two years, it seemed that most people agreed it would be a good idea to move. Someone always suggests Google Groups as the replacement host. Google is quickly shot down as too controversial in this community, and it becomes an even more difficult question as to who else should host it. Realizing this is not so simple, discussion then dies off until the next time somebody brings it up. http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/bitcoin-development/thread/19 43127.DBnVxmfOIh%401337h4x0r/#msg34192607 Somebody brought it up again this past week. It seems logical that an open discussion list is not a big deal to continue to be hosted on Sourceforge, as there isn’t much they could do to screw it up. I personally think moving it away now would be seen as a gesture that we do not consider their behavior to be acceptable. There are also some benefits in being hosted elsewhere, at an entity able to professionally maintain their infrastructure while also being neutral to the content. Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity Bitcoin is a global infrastructure development project where it would be politically awkward for any of the existing Bitcoin companies or orgs to host due to questions it would raise about perceived political control. For example, consider a bizarro parallel universe where MtGox was the inventor of Bitcoin, where they hosted its development infrastructure and dev list under their own name. Even if what they published was 100% technically and ideologically equivalent to the Bitcoin we know in our dimension, most people wouldn't have trusted it merely due to appearances and it would have easily gone nowhere. I had a similar thought process last week when sidechains code was approaching release. Sidechains, like Bitcoin itself, are intended to be a generic piece of infrastructure (like ethernet?) that anyone can build upon and use. We thought about Google Groups or existing orgs that already host various open source infrastructure discussion lists like the IETF or the Linux Foundation. Google is too controversial in this community, and the IETF is seen as possibly too politically fractured. The Linux Foundation hosts a bunch of infrastructure lists https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfoand it seems that nobody in the Open Source industry considers them to be particularly objectionable. I talked with LF about the idea of hosting generic Bitcoin-related infrastructure development lists. They agreed as OSS infrastructure dev is already within their charter, so early this week sidechains-dev list began hosting there. From the perspective of our community, for bitcoin-dev it seems like a great fit. Why? While they are interested in supporting general open source development, the LF has literally zero stake in this. In addition to neutrality, they seem to be suitable as a competenthost. They have full-time sysadmins maintaining their infrastructure including the Mailman server. They are soon upgrading to Mailman 3 http://wiki.list.org/Mailman3, which means mailing lists would benefit from the improved archive browser. I am not personally familiar with HyperKitty, but the point here is they are a stable non-profit entity who will competently maintain and improve things like their Mailman deployment (a huge improvement over the stagnant Sourceforge). It seems that LF would be competent, neutral place to host dev lists for the long-term. To be clear, this proposal is only about hosting the discussion list. The LF would have no control over the Bitcoin Project,
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity
Hi, I just wanted to let everyone know that every email is also archived at bitcoin-development.narkive.com http://bitcoin-development.narkive.com/, where you can find everything since the beginning of the list (June 2011). That should answer to Andy’s concern about the older messages not being archived anywhere but on sourceforge. Davide On 14 Jun 2015, at 23:59, Adam Back a...@cypherspace.org wrote: It might be as well to keep the archive but disable new posts as otherwise we create bit-rot for people who linked to posts on sourceforge. The list is also archived on mail-archive though. https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/ Adam On 14 June 2015 at 22:55, Andy Schroder i...@andyschroder.com wrote: Hello, I'd support moving to a Linux Foundation e-mail list. I am also against google groups. I agree that the gesture of moving indicates that SourceForge is not playing nice on other issues and that moving this list shows their behavior is being acknowledged. I understand your reason for wanting to delete the Source Forge account (after reading the links). However, the only problem with that is that the SourceForge archive is the oldest one I've found with some early messages from Satoshi. Myself finding Bitcoin after its inception, as well as this mailing list even later on, it's nice to be able to review the archives. SourceForge's interface to those archives is pretty bad though. I'm not sure if there is any way to get older messages archived on sites like gmane or mail-archive? Does anyone know? You mentioned importing the list archive as part of the migration plan, but I guess is this easy to do from SourceForge? Andy Schroder On 06/14/2015 06:12 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: Discomfort with Sourceforge For a while now people have been expressing concern about Sourceforge's continued hosting of the bitcoin-dev mailing list. Downloads were moved completely to bitcoin.org after the Sept 2014 hacking incident of the SF project account. The company's behavior and perceived stability have been growing to be increasingly questionable. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/08/gimp_dumps_sourceforge_over_dodgy_ads_and_installer November 2013: GIMP flees SourceForge over dodgy ads and installer https://lwn.net/Articles/646118/ May 28th, 2015: SourceForge replacing GIMP Windows downloads http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/2015/q2/194 June 3rd, 2015: Sourceforge hijacked nmap's old site and downloads. When this topic came up over the past two years, it seemed that most people agreed it would be a good idea to move. Someone always suggests Google Groups as the replacement host. Google is quickly shot down as too controversial in this community, and it becomes an even more difficult question as to who else should host it. Realizing this is not so simple, discussion then dies off until the next time somebody brings it up. http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/bitcoin-development/thread/1943127.DBnVxmfOIh%401337h4x0r/#msg34192607 Somebody brought it up again this past week. It seems logical that an open discussion list is not a big deal to continue to be hosted on Sourceforge, as there isn’t much they could do to screw it up. I personally think moving it away now would be seen as a gesture that we do not consider their behavior to be acceptable. There are also some benefits in being hosted elsewhere, at an entity able to professionally maintain their infrastructure while also being neutral to the content. Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity Bitcoin is a global infrastructure development project where it would be politically awkward for any of the existing Bitcoin companies or orgs to host due to questions it would raise about perceived political control. For example, consider a bizarro parallel universe where MtGox was the inventor of Bitcoin, where they hosted its development infrastructure and dev list under their own name. Even if what they published was 100% technically and ideologically equivalent to the Bitcoin we know in our dimension, most people wouldn't have trusted it merely due to appearances and it would have easily gone nowhere. I had a similar thought process last week when sidechains code was approaching release. Sidechains, like Bitcoin itself, are intended to be a generic piece of infrastructure (like ethernet?) that anyone can build upon and use. We thought about Google Groups or existing orgs that already host various open source infrastructure discussion lists like the IETF or the Linux Foundation. Google is too controversial in this community, and the IETF is seen as possibly too politically fractured. The Linux Foundation hosts a bunch of infrastructure lists and it seems that nobody in the Open Source industry considers them to be particularly objectionable. I talked with LF
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Move Bitcoin Dev List to a Neutral Competent Entity
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wtog...@gmail.com wrote: From the perspective of our community, for bitcoin-dev it seems like a great fit. Why? While they are interested in supporting general open source development, the LF has literally zero stake in this. In addition to neutrality, they seem to be suitable as a competent host. They have I support this proposal. But for clarity sake, we should recognize that Linux Foundation isn't a charity chartered to act in the public good, is a trade organization which acts in the commercial interest of it's membership. I do not think this presents a problem: LF's membership's interests are not at odds with ours currently, and aren't likely to become so (doubly so with sourceforge as the comparison point). We are, after all, just talking about a development mailing list; in the unlikely case that there were issues in the future it could be changed, and they've demonstrated considerable competence at this kind of operation as well, and I would be grateful to have their support. I mention it only because the 'foundation' name sometimes carries the charity confusion, and to be clear that I think the stakes on this matter are small enough that it doesn't require a careful weighing of interests. These concerns may matter for other initiatives but as you note, LF has zero stake beyond the general support of the open source ecosystem. I do not believe it would be wise to delete the SF account, at least while there are many active links to it. As it might well be recreated to 'mirror' things as a 'service' to those following the old links. I also agree with Jeff's comments wrt, bitcoin-security. -- ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
