pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @theariard OP 5 Sep \ parent \ on: [Code of Conduct in BOSS] Is Rusty Russell the puppet of Jack Dorsey ? bitcoin

My General View on Open-Source Communications

This is true that this post questioning Rusty Russsell open-source ethics and real independence is more akin to a Reddit flamewar, than a real post engaging the dialogue on sound abstract principles and factual arguments. This is also true that the communication style could be more diplomatic, one's communication style can be always more diplomatic and slow-paced.
On the general communication as a discipline to study I'm 100% agree with you, and for information, that's a field I have of course study in the past. Though one learning is to have real communication happening there is a pre-requisite to have a neutral public forum, where each side in the disputatio can express ideas, arguments, viewpoints and experiences.
That's the problem with open-source, there is no such neutral public forum, and when you're attempting to use the forum or communication channel, which is the most similar to that, i.e Github, very often, the ones who have the administrative permission on it will leverage said permission to cut short the discussion and enforce their viewpoint.
On the wider point, and comparing my style of communication with Jeremy's one. Very deliberately I have always kept my communication style dried and sober. I'm not like Matt Corallo and Rusty Russell, who are constantly spending their time on podcast or Twitter doing a dance of trust to remind their "100% certified open-source devs” and as such that there are necessarily "pure".
On my side, I'm not on Twitter, I'm doing very rarely podcasts and I've never tried to sell a "purity" narrative, but I hope, not always, treaded any other human beings with high standard of ethics and dignity and never used communication technology or the separation due to the screen as a prextet to act differently that I would do in the meatspace. Never say something to someone online, if you're not ready to hold the same discourse eyes in the eyes in person. Simple mantra.
So as an open-source developer, I do think a sobriety in expression driven by a constant search for objective truth should be one's personal ethic of communication.
(— apologies for the formatting of the text messages).
write
preview
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @nout 5 Sep
Thank you for detailed response and thank you for keeping it civil! Very much appreciated and this well summarized perspective.
I know that this tricky, but would you be able to summarize the situation from Matt's and Steve's perspective? Putting yourself into their shoes - what were the main events that they would highlight? What are their top complaints (correct or incorrect)?
(again thank you for taking the time)
reply
77 sats \ 0 replies \ @theariard OP 8 Sep
Thanks for the courteous answer too.
I'll start by bringing more information on the table, as it might highlight and explain why there has been a swarm of codes of conduct suddenly popping up between 2022 to 2024 across Bitcoin Core and Lightning.
This is information which is clearly known to the insiders and veterans of the bitcoin open source stage, though for an outsider and the wider public I don't think it's really known. End of 2021, John Newbery, a prominent and prolific contributor to Bitcoin Core at the time and the co-founder of Brink, was "put in vacation" (i.e fired from its organization Brink) for let's say inter-personal issues.
This is clearly the kind of issues in life which is not black and white, I'll pretend that I don't know what exactly did happen, as after all I'm not directly concerned, though I had the versions from the antagonist parties. John Newbery has a big personality for sure, but if I'm asked my humble viewpoint, I would say some people, who were not formally trained to handle that kind of situation, did panic to take a quick decision rather than slow down and ask concretely and factually what did happen.
Anyway, with that element in mind, early 2022, Spiral, leaded by Steve Lee and who has been previously a financial backer of Brink at the autumn of 2020, started to insert "morality provision" in all their open-source grants.
Moving forward, we're in October 2022, during the TabConf in Atlanta, where I'm present in person for the edition of CoreDev happening ahead of the conference. In the aftermath of CoreDev, during the conference, Steve Lee asked me to have a conversation in private, and we go to have it in the Olympic Park, hidden in the back of a flower bed, as he was fearing to be seen or heard by other people from the conference.
Steve Lee told me he has heard "gossips" on my account related to open-source matters, and he confront me on that. I've known Steve since late 2018, before he joined Spiral (formerly Square Crypto) so coming from him I'm okay to listen to his viewpoint. However, Steve has only a partial and distorded view of the facts at the source of the "gossips", and as I know perfectly what I'm doing and I'm behaving, even in delicate situations, I do ask him concretely what is ethically wrong. Of course, ethics is not like "moral" an absolute, and it's more a matter of degree. Though anyone who knows me a bit in the industry, knows I have rather a very strong sense of ethics - primum non nocere.
Contrary to Steve, I've not done my whole career in the technology field, and even if he's like older than me by few decaces, I do have a wider diversity of professional experience and a more multi-dimensional training. Steve keeps going forward talking about his professional experience at Google. He says litterally to me phrases like "you know when I was at Google, I was dating a lot of women", "you should be careful in the middle of open-source, some people are in a lot of boards" and "when I was at Google, there was a code of professional conduct".
I'm still patienly and calmly listening. I do understand he's expecting me to bow to his viewpoint, but my only answer to him is "concretely what's the problem ?". He stays silent. The conversation is ending on a "thumb your nose" and he mumbles about a "token of good faith". We end up the conversation there.
No discussion on clear principles. No discussion on concrete ethics, all "wiggling your ass" style of conversation from Steve as he gives me the impression that himself he wasn't clear in his own consciousness about the principles that he should abide by.
I'm keeping some business elements for some stuff that was ongoing at Block Inc at the time out of the scope, though in the great lines, I think it's factually correct of what did happen. Apart this disagreement, I must say we had generally very correct professional interactions from 2018 to 2022.
So to resume the Steve Lee's perspective, I think we disagreed on "how do we solve divergence of viewpoints on social or cultural matters ?". But from my perspective, he wasn't free to speak his mind as he was under constraint from Block Inc's corporate rules at all time.
For the Matt's perspective, I do think it's more stupidly stupid. Matt was perfectly aware about what did happen with the John Newbery's thing end of 2021. I do think he has been asked by Block Inc's HR department to put in place a code of conduct in place in rust-lightning / LDK end of 2022. He did so in the most non-transparent and non consensus-based fashion, at the "CoC committee" was opaquely pre-appointed, all staffed by people in direct or indirect financial subordination towards Block Inc.
Where we disagree with Matt, it's clearly that I have no wish to "comply" to a stupid code of conduct only dictated by Block Inc corporate interests, and not more respectful of the other rust-lightning / LDK contributors.
The question is never about guaranting an "inclusive and diverse" community of contributors, whatever this can mean but it's always compliance. I do estimate myself also insulted by the attitude of Matt, as when you know the personal and professional life of Matt, it's a complete joke Matt pretending to make lessons on ethics…
This sounds a bunch of inter-personal issues, though at the same time, I’m very mindful, at the end of the day, it’s the same group of people which is dealing with sensitive issues that might impact in cascade the financial safety and privacy of thousands of users all over the world. I do put the interest of the average end user and bitcoin holder, before the interest of any corporation.
Anyway, that's my viewpoint I could add far more, though I have to go !
reply