<meta itemprop='datePublished' content='2025-04-19T01:13:47Z'>
        <meta itemprop='articleSection' content='Meta'>
      <meta itemprop='keywords' content=''>
      <div itemprop='publisher' itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Organization">
        <meta itemprop='name' content='Delving Bitcoin'>
      </div>


          <div id='post_1'  class='topic-body crawler-post'>
            <div class='crawler-post-meta'>
              <span class="creator" itemprop="author" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Person">
                <a itemprop="url" rel='nofollow' href='https://delvingbitcoin.org/u/ariard'><span itemprop='name'>ariard</span></a>
                
              </span>

                <link itemprop="mainEntityOfPage" href="https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/some-problems-with-current-bitcoin-core-moderation-md/1616">


              <span class="crawler-post-infos">
                  <time  datetime='2025-04-19T01:13:47Z' class='post-time'>
                    April 19, 2025,  1:13am
                  </time>
                  <meta itemprop='dateModified' content='2025-04-19T01:13:47Z'>
              <span itemprop='position'>1</span>
              </span>
            </div>
            <div class='post' itemprop='text'>
              <p>Following some <a href="https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31989#issuecomment-2702330203">moderation incident</a> on the proposal to add CTV support on bitcoin core, I’ve <a href="https://github.com/bitcoin-core/meta
/pull/15">opened a PR</a> to remove the moderation guidelines (the <code>MODERATION.md</code> floating in the
<code>bitcoin-core-meta</code> repo). I don’t think bitcoin core should have mod guidelines, not concerning consensus rules.</p>
<p>Philosophically, in consideration of bitcoin history with the block size war, there should be no formal governance, or even the gist of some “<em>Impatience led various participants to advocate</em>
<em>models that would privilege high-profile actors and grant them control over the direction of</em>
<em>the protocol</em>”. See the <a href="https://medium.com/@bergealex4/the-tao-of-bitcoin-development-ff093c6155cd">The Tao of Bitcoin Development</a> essay from 2017. Yes you will find the “project management" in the <code>.md</code>, s
o it’s unclear what’s the goal.</p>
<p>Legally, there is something called the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention">Berne Convention of 1886</a>, it’s an IP treatise with 170+ countries are contracting parties. Almost all the historical or active development or organization stakeholders contributing to bitcoin dev are located in those countries. In its <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/7bis.html">article 7bis</a>, it’s protecting what’s called joint authorship. Yes, joint authorship can be applied to open source projects. See <a href="https://ctlj.colorado.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/3-Chestek-6.20.18-FINAL.pdf">A Theory of Jointauthorship for Free and Open Software Projects</a> from some 2017 FSF workshop.</p>
<p>The <code>.md</code> has been acked by <a href="https://github.com/bitcoin-core/meta/pull/13#issuecomment-2748178454">~13 contributors</a> only, with somehow no respect for the hard
contributed work of the ~1200 contributors that can be fetched from bitcoind git log, and as such there eventual right to consent or not to the <code>MODERATION.md</code>.</p>
<p>Legally more, there is a UK judicial ruling of 2023, to which few formers or current maintainer(s) have been defendants (<a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Tulip-v-Van-Der-Laan-judgment-030223.pdf">Tulip Trading Limited v Van Der Laan and ors [2023] EWCA Civ 83</a>). Within, they made the following defense “<em>They contend that they have nothing like the power or control</em>” on the bitcoin network and go to argue “<em>they are part of a very large, and shifting, group of contributors without an organisation or structure</em>” (quote from the judicial ruling). The ruling explicitly considers Github, "<em>with the relevant electronic password for the particular code database on GitHub</em>”.</p>
<p>Now currently, there is a <code>.md</code>, with some specific contributors (“<em>the moderators</em>” and “<em>the maintainers</em>”) that can enforce <a href="https://github.com/bitcoin-core/meta/pull/14#issuecomment-2753889160">behavioral guidelines</a> on other contributors, decide what is “<em>on-topic</em>” / “<em>off-topic</em>”, decide what is related to “<em>project management</em>” and what is related to “<em>technical issues</em>”…I don’t know if it’s “<em>power</em>” or “<em>control</em>", though it doesn’t sound exactly like "<a href="https://bitcoincore.org/en/about/">janitorial roles</a>”…</p>
<p>Somehow, there is a logical problem somewhere.</p>
<p>I care about civility and courtesy in an internet community of contributors spread over the whole world, and treating with fairness and respect any contributor whatever the social background, however I don’t think at all the current <code>MODERATION.md</code> flies very well.</p>
<p>Opening this as a “meta”, as I don’t see why it’s not a meta subject as long as it’s discussed with politeness and kindness. And it’s of interest to everyone in bitcoin.</p>
            </div>

            <div itemprop="interactionStatistic" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/InteractionCounter">
              <meta itemprop="interactionType" content="http://schema.org/LikeAction"/>
              <meta itemprop="userInteractionCount" content="0" />
              <span class='post-likes'></span>
            </div>

          </div>
    </div>
: