Add MODERATION-GUIDELINES #1208
Conversation
|
To be very clear on my intent, if the other moderation rules proposal is adopted (i.e #1207), I'll go from the usual 6 to 9 months as a no-disclosure embargo policy about Lightning-wide vulnerabilities to only 2 weeks. Same rule whatever the cc @TheBlueMatt as you're currently censoring the other thread. |
|
Supersceded by #1207. |
|
@TheBlueMatt Dude, your complete incapacity to answer with substantial arguments in #1207 tells a lot…If you really think your viewpoint is justified it would be easy for you to come with arguments and have a rational conversation among adults on the cultural norms that would favor civility and courtesy among the lightning community…as people did on the bitcoin core side. At the end of the day this has nothing to do with yours or mine romantic relationships in this industry, the real divergence among us is about ethics and principles. Sad to see you will never grow up, that’s your primary motivation in life will be always to secure a comfortable bitcoin employe job at whatever big corporate will pay you the most (google, blockckstream, block), that all your cypherpunk rhetoric is more likely to be empty words and that being accountable for your actions will be never a motivation of yours. If I did mistake in the past, it was not to fork rust-lightning and go on my own end of 2020, when I more or less come to realization that actually you were very woke (and not just liberal or anarchist on twitter, to be clear I don’t really care about the left/right politics, I judge people on their actions and ethos). I was confused if the situation was linked to the pandemic or another contingency. People change very little in life and yes it’s logic that one’s beliefs at some point create barriers to build together. Still appreciated the 2018, 2019 years building rust-lightning together, those ones were full of learning. Beyond, there is nothing more to say, and builders build. |
This is another proposal to have moderation rules on Lightning communication channels. This proposal is a direct copycat of the moderation rules that have been adopted in the bitcoin core space recently (https://github.com/bitcoin-core/meta/blob/main/MODERATION-GUIDELINES.md) and this a counter-proposal to #1207.
I think they have the notable advantage to be far more consistent, neutral and bright rather than the “code of conduct” proposal. Notably this is this proposal is far less tainted by one cultural perspective.
There are few TODOS left, notably adding side public repository as it has been done for bitcoin core project.
For the nomination of the first batch of moderators, of which I’m not candidate, I think the following nomination heuristics could be the following:
For the non-affiliated moderators, I don’t know what is a fitting nomination process ? Like people who wish to take up the task, at the condition they have substantially contributed in the past to the specification or Lightning protocol in a technical fashion, can comment on this PR or another issue. And then we can have a +1 by github profile from regular contributors to cast the moderated. It’s possible to do the +1 process in a more private fashion too if we assign throwaway pgp keys to everyone for this purpose.
I’ll strongly advocate that it’s better to have such trust-minimized moderation rules as it’s an open-source effort among many stakeholders and developers. Does Lightning Labs trust Blockstream ? Does Acinq trust Spiral ? Does Spiral trust Lightning Labs ? I believe history of lightning protocol development has answered with a clear no to those questions.
edited: corrected some not syntactically correct english sentences.