Roger Ver and Jon Matonis pushed aside now that Bitcoin is becoming mainstream

[charleshoskinson]

There is no explanation of how someone gets to be developer or the difference between a developer and a contributor.  Apparently they are nominated by the Foundation but that is not clear.  I have seen many people ask similar questions here over the past few months but they are usually met with disdain and it never gets answered.  Even people who have been on here for a long time often can't explain these things.

Every open sourced project I've ever worked on has a cadre of people who decide who gets to be who. Look at the Ruby project with matz. This things generally work there way out and Gavin is doing a very good job.

[gweedo]

There is no explanation of how someone gets to be developer or the difference between a developer and a contributor.  Apparently they are nominated by the Foundation but that is not clear.  I have seen many people ask similar questions here over the past few months but they are usually met with disdain and it never gets answered.  Even people who have been on here for a long time often can't explain these things.

Fix issues, submit contributions, and then Gavin will see how well you code and ask you to be a core developer. I seen him ask people in threads. They really can't be picky right now since they need all the help they can get.

[sunnankar]

As such, Gavin is the ultimate authority of what stays in the GitHub repository.

Mmm.  And I'm working hard to try to delegate that authority, so can y'all please just work it out?

I doubt the issue will be resolved easily because it is a hard fork in the press strategy. I doubt many, including you, think Saviann should be the one deciding the entire press strategy and I doubt he wants that role anyway. Based on his performance to date I do think he would do an adequate job being just, even though he lacks the training, in applying the strategy.

By analogy the press strategy is like a Statute and the role of applying the strategy is like that of a judge. It is very unfair to Saviann to throw him into the role of legislator or judge when he clearly lacks the authority and is not provided any standards or tests by which to craft legislation or judge based on that legislation; particularly when he does not really possess the jurisdiction to do so anyway.

Theymos has stated where the authority, both subject matter with regards to the strategy that is to be pursued and personal over the actual domain itself, is vested and that is with the Bitcoin-QT development team and Sirius. In my opinion, that authority should be used to clearly and concisely provide guidance on the strategy to be pursued. After the strategy is agreed upon then I think Saviann and the rest of us working on the Press Center can pretty easily develop the standards for inclusion. It is not that hard.

When it comes to strategy, what is at issue in this discussion is whether bitcoin.org should be used as a persuasive resource to convey a particular veneer for the Bitcoin developers who maintain the site OR an objective resource to assist journalists in finding competent and professional sources?

I think there is wide consensus that adequate standards for inclusion should include competency, professionalism and a generally good reputation in the Bitcoin community.

When it comes to a political ideology test then for a persuasive resource it would be essential but for an objective resource it would be irrelevant.

As for why one or the other should be chosen as a strategy; well, I think plenty of those arguments have been made earlier. This is merely an objective analysis of the situation.

[theymos]

The legal owner is listed as "Louhi  Net Oy" in Finland and that is the entity that ultimately has control over the domain.

True, but they are presumably bound by other agreement to do what Sirius says. It would be better for Sirius to have a corporation that's directly listed in the whois.

Now, as far as I can tell, you are saying the Foundation does have ultimate control over what goes up there.

That's not what I said. The Bitcoin-Qt developers have control over the content. The Bitcoin Foundation is not the same as the Bitcoin dev group. They are two totally separate organizations.

[charleshoskinson]

That's not what I said. The Bitcoin-Qt developers have control over the content. The Bitcoin Foundation is not the same as the Bitcoin dev group. They are two totally separate organizations.

Well then let's settle this theymos. Gavin have you been approached by the Foundation and do you feel like they value your input? I'm actually curious about the relationship between both orgs.

[marcus_of_augustus]

I also saw a comment by Gavin that said someone was not a "core developer."  Is there a list of "core developers?"  Who decides who is and who is not a "core developer.?"  That Guardian story/video said those guys living in the abandoned office building were the developers.

It's listed right on the Bitcoin.org site, click developers.

Obviously Satoshi is not so active anymore.

What I don't understand is how you became the arbiter (and instigator) of what is a decidedly divisive debate in the bitcoin community? Are you even equipped to be involved in this decision? Maybe stick to graphics unitl you establish some credentials in the bitcoin world?

tl;dr you've been played for your naivete by some schemers.

Please spare some patience and some courtesy for people who are spending their time trying to improve things. I think he's been doing a good job listening trying to balance various views and he does not deserve the hostility being directed at him in this thread.

There is no explanation of how someone gets to be developer or the difference between a developer and a contributor.  Apparently they are nominated by the Foundation but that is not clear.  I have seen many people ask similar questions here over the past few months but they are usually met with disdain and it never gets answered.  Even people who have been on here for a long time often can't explain these things.

There are no good explanations. It is a decentralised project. You are asking the wrong questions, the framework you are anticipating with your questions just simply doesn't exist. You need to adjust your context to get sensible answers.

People contribute as, when, they like. If the developers like the code contributions they include it. If the users like the software the developers produce they use it.

[theymos]

Therefore, I can conclude the Bitcoin Foundation has ultimate control over the management of bitcoin.org.

Bad logic. Just because Gavin is a member of the Foundation's board doesn't mean that he's obligated to execute its orders in relation to Bitcoin development. (He's not.)

[gmaxwell]

I don't know what the structure is of the Foundation as there is no clear explanation anywhere.

The structure of the foundation is described on the website and the bylaws are online. The foundation is a 501(c)(6) trade organization— like a chamber of commerce— not a charity, which is why they aren't listed on guidestar.  All of this information is readily available online.

Basically The Bitcoin Foundation is a Bitcoin "boosters club" created by businesses and individual members who cooperate to do whatever they like to help and promote Bitcoin.  It doesn't administer or run Bitcoin in any capacity, except to the extent that its participants are part of the Bitcoin ecosystem.  (The separation between Bitcoin.org and the foundation is, in fact, nicely illustrated by this thread).
 

[oakpacific]

The more I read this, the more I believe Satoshi was smart to stay anonymous and vanish early and stay away from all of this, lest he will get all kinds of pleads like "Please, Satoshi, we need someone to make a decision for us, you should stand out..."blahblahblah

[charleshoskinson]

Lol, ok delete my bold claim about Satoshi . But in all honesty we are getting really off topic. Any conclusion to Jon and Roger?

[midnightmagic]

Many of the posts in this thread appear to be designed to be inflammatory. What difference does it really make whether or not someone's name is listed on some website? If the people on the website want calmness and neutrality, and they have control of said website, then so what?

The gnashing of teeth, the wailing, the gesticulation. All these things are irrelevant; when it comes down to it, think closely as to how many people in this thread, and elsewhere, will be keeping their heads up when actual attention is inevitably paid us by the authorities? The moderates. The rest are either socks, or people whose convictions almost always melt under scrutiny. Think about it: out of all the revolutionaries, who else but cosy armchair variety can even afford to participate meaningfully in Bitcoin right now?

Shouting into the seeming wind is a waste of time. Exit the discussion. There doesn't need to be one. You are granting these people the power to object just by engaging them. You are legitimizing their vitriolic attacks.

And for those people whose attacks may actually matter in the press-attention, public forum sense? Well now, they don't really have control of the website, now do they? And, we can safely assume that the people talking about replacing or removing the developers are part of a well-known, unfortunately well-funded echo-chamber. Keep that in mind.

[BCB]

Lol, ok delete my bold claim about Satoshi . But in all honesty we are getting really off topic. Any conclusion to Jon and Roger?

The press are going to talk to them, and they are going to talk to the press, regardless of whether or not they have a name and a photo on the press list.

Everyone has their knickers in a twist over a tempest in a tea cup.

[charleshoskinson]

It is censorship who cares, well guess what, bitcoin isn't about politics and censorship, and I will keep fighting that position.

As I new member of the Bitcoin Foundation, I will fight against censorship in any way, shape or form

[gmaxwell]

This all indicates to me the Foundation does indeed control bitcoin.org and that there is no practical separation between bitcoin.org and the Bitcoin Foundation.

Uh. Right. We decline to list one of the Foundation founders and board members as a press contact, and this proves that there is no separation.  I think this is the point where I'm supposed insert one of those meme images.

[jgarzik]

Jeff Garzik, gmaxwell and Lukejr turned this into an issue by moving to strike Jon Matonis and Roger Ver, two established Bitcoin community members who present themselves competently and articulately, based solely on their political ideas. Now, instead of discussing the topic of strategy and purpose for the Press Center, jgarzik wants to silence any debate. I think that determining the press strategy is very important.

(checks page count)  This is 14 pages of "silenced debate" and counting?  That excludes further silenced debate on reddit and github.

Matonis has a Forbes column.  Silenced and censored?  Posh.

Further, you will also note that I retweet @jonmatonis material, and happily review Ver-owned BitcoinStore purchases.  The world is not as simple as the critics would paint.

But bitcoin is growing up.  The number of non-anarchists in this world vastly outnumbers the anarchists, and a truly global, inclusive currency needs to appeal to all.

The fundamental nature of bitcoin is. It is what it is today, and nobody is trying to the change the engineering.  You want true monetary freedom?  Get bitcoin into as many peoples' hands on this planet as possible.

[jgarzik]

On the contrary. While it is true that my interest in Bitcoin is for the purpose of furthering the Tonal system, I don't pretend that Bitcoin's reason for existence is to promote Tonal.

Tonal is a pointless waste of brain space.

[jgarzik]

The Bitcoin Foundation is not the same as the Bitcoin dev group. They are two totally separate organizations.

But the members of the Bitcoin Foundation include the bitcoin dev group, and one of the board members is Gavin Lead developer. You can't believe that they are really two separate organizations.

Yes, you can, because they are.

Frankly, I do not think bitcoin would work, or be useful to anybody, if it was "controlled" by the Bitcoin Foundation.

At that point, even if the code is available for download, I would not really call it open source.

Moving on to terminology.

"core developer" tends to be strictly defined as anybody with push privs to github/bitcoin/bitcoin.git -- but we must admit that that term becomes less relevant over time, as other implementations and other non-bitcoind developers start contributing BIPs and other major, impactful changes.

i.e. should we consider the Armory dev a core developer?  etothepi has written BIPs and certainly contributes to the wallet side of things.  Mike Hearn (TD) and Matt C worked on the bloom filter feature, which revolutionizes the network-sync time for lightweight bitcoin clients.

The bloom filter feature alone is huge.  An embedded, low resource bitcoin client that is truly decentralized and P2P may be built -- as we see from the current Bitcoin Wallet on the Android market.  Is that not a far better solution than more centralized, hackable, DDoS-able websites?

So are they "core developers"?  In the less strict sense, I'd answer "yes"  Their changes are certainly trusted by the community at large, in addition to the yahoos on the bitcoin/bitcoin.git commit list.

[sunnankar]

"core developer" tends to be strictly defined as anybody with push privs to github/bitcoin/bitcoin.git -- but we must admit that that term becomes less relevant over time, as other implementations and other non-bitcoind developers start contributing BIPs and other major, impactful changes.

i.e. should we consider the Armory dev a core developer?  etothepi has written BIPs and certainly contributes to the wallet side of things.  Mike Hearn (TD) and Matt C worked on the bloom filter feature, which revolutionizes the network-sync time for lightweight bitcoin clients.

...

So are they "core developers"?  In the less strict sense, I'd answer "yes"  Their changes are certainly trusted by the community at large, in addition to the yahoos on the bitcoin/bitcoin.git commit list.

This may be a significant issue to distinguish on bitcoin.org.

I think those who make 'substantial and material' contributions should be considered 'developers' instead of just 'contributors'. I think it should be left to the developers to determine which of their colleagues have substantially and materially contributed. Perhaps have a current developer nominate and 3-4 other current developers concur. This type of recognition system will help VCs know where to look for talent. 

For example, Mike Hearn has (3), etothepi has no recognition, etc. and they may personally want some. VCs who are looking for talent may have a difficult time doing so. Additionally, I think you should get explicit permission from any individuals you do decide to list.

Perhaps this language would help inform the public about the differences:

A developer is someone who has made substantial and material contributions to Bitcoin code or via Bitcoin applications as determined by other developers. Developers with an * indicate those with push privileges to the Github repository. Contributors have also made contributions included in releases but the amount of significance does not arise to the same degree as developers.

[muyuu]

I think a diversity of views is good, as long as the people expressing their views are honest, trustworthy, and respectable.

I still think Luke causes more trouble and strife than he is worth. And I wish people would stop implying he is part of the core development team.

I wish people would stop implying that Bitcoin, rather than its "standard" client or "standard" daemon, has a core development team.

Because it it has, there goes decentralisation.

[marcus_of_augustus]

As much as I respect jgarzik for the great work he does with the bitcoin s/ware and the very level-headed comments he provides in most public forums, it makes me uncomfortable when I read him actively denigrating (borderline slandering) the subjects of this discussion, Roger Ver and Jon Matonis. Especially since they would be competing voices on the page in question that he is already listed on.

In all fairness he should be recusing himself from the discussion since he could be seen to be conflicted, not saying that he is but it should be above that level.