Refactored the About page, added a brief mission statement from Linux Foundation

[brighton36]

I certainly understand the politics in the space, but want to genuinely and respectfully improve the relations in our community. A terse and apolitical mission statement would help us all greatly. Take a look, and, hopefully, if there is no objection to the content - merge?

[maflcko]

Is Satoshi Nakamoto confirmed to be singular male, i.e. "he"?

[brighton36]

I believe he presented this way. Yes. And I can probably find that reference, if it's important. But I would politely suggest that since 'he' wasn't a change I submitted, perhaps that's not germane to the PR?

[maflcko]

Hmm, this reads to me like a strong, but empty (as in no meaning) statement with buzzwords such as "blockchain technology", that are commonly associated with ICOs.

[brighton36]

You're not incorrect. I'm happy to add additional meaning, but that gets political. In my experience, less is more on these things. The target demographic is not the highly specialized. And, I would suggest that the intent here is to convey the existence of a purpose, to those who can't read the code, and who would be inclined towards cynicism.

[maflcko]

I wouldn't call this section "Getting started"

[brighton36]

Sure. I can change that. any suggestions? Here's a few: "Our Software", "To Learn More", "Additional Projects", "Additional Repositories",... (need more?)

[harding]

NB: for anyone considering on commenting here, I think it's worth noting that the person opening this PR frequently comments on contemporary Bitcoin issues to a significant audience via social media and YouTube. Before you click the Comment button, I suggest reviewing your remarks for how they could be misinterpreted in the worst case.

---

Regarding this PR directly, I think this:

1. Needs widespread agreement: a mission statement would be representing the goals of everyone who contributes to Bitcoin Core, so I think that choosing one will require this PR to receive either weak approval from a large number of contributors or strong approval with minimal dissent from a smaller (but representative) number of contributors.

2. Isn't important: although I have no objections in general to a mission statement, I don't think adding one to the website is particularly important to the project.

If other contributors also don't think it's important, I think this PR is unlikely to receive the necessary attention it would need to achieve widespread agreement. So my intention here is to leave this open for a couple weeks to see if it goes anywhere, but to close it after that if there's no notable activity.

---

As for concrete suggestions, I think that (if we really need a mission statement) it could be something simple like, "The mission of the Bitcoin Core project is to develop reliable software that helps people and organizations safely use the decentralized Bitcoin system."

[brighton36]

Thank-you @harding ! :) I never know how to respectfully introduce my credentials and expertise. So, yes, I deal with a lot of people. A lot of people. And I'm watching the Bitcoin Core mission statement being defined by others, at our detriment.

I need a place to point to, where the message is clear, so that the uninitiated aren't led to believe in alternative conspiracies.

As marco falke pointed out , these "strong" statements are wildly successful in the space. I don't think I need to produce evidence of efficacy, per his own testimony.

While I understand @marco's skepticism, it's important that we remember that "strong statements", though correlated to nefarious projects, do not necessarily imply nefarious outcomes. After all, these pitchman also speak english, use github, etc.....Well... maybe not github! But you get the idea :)

Perhaps it's that the ICOs don't implement any form of collective consensus that makes them offensive. That's why I appreciate everyone's comments here, and wish to encourage more.

@harding - What is the process of widespread agreement? I chose as banal a meaning as possible, to ensure support from the widest audience. I suspect that any and all objections will be directed towards 'whether' a mission statement is needed, and not the content itself. (More on the 'whether' below)

That being said, I can resubmit a PR with your proposed statement:

The mission of the Bitcoin Core project is to develop reliable software that helps people and organizations safely use the decentralized Bitcoin system.

Respectfully @harding, I find the "isn't important" claim to be a bit disingenous, if it wasn't important, you would ack it alongside a translation PR, without need for comments.

Perhaps you merely wish for politics to be dismissed. And I'm in agreement with you there. However It seems that without a statement, the mob will choose a cynical mission for us. So, perhaps you should consider my credentials and expertise when I politely suggest that this Mission will be chosen by us, or for us.

If other contributors think this isn't important, then they should ACK the PR, as it seems obvious to me that the costs to publish are zero, and the benefits "according to those familiar with the audience", are high.

[harding]

As marco falke pointed out , these "strong" statements are wildly successful in the space. I don't think I need to produce evidence of efficacy, per his own testimony.

I don't think that @MarcoFalke said that mission statements that sound strong but are really vacuous verbiage are wildly successful or effective. I think he just your statement uses some buzzwords commonly used by ICOs (which you seem to think were successful).

What is the process of widespread agreement?

A lot of people known to contribute to Bitcoin Core agreeing. Here's a PR that received widespread agreement, back when Bitcoin Core pages were hosted on another site.

I can resubmit a PR

If you decide to make changes, please update this PR instead. That ensures all conversation about this issue stays together. If you need technical assistance, you know how to contact me on IRC.

if it wasn't important, you would ack it alongside a translation PR, without need for comments.

I don't think it's important to add. I do think it's important (or at least nice) to provide explanations to potential contributors about why we might not accept their proposed contributions.

[brighton36]

It is true that @MarcoFalke didn't say that mission statements are wildly successful. Mea culpa. But I nonetheless maintain that ICOs have been (shockingly, at least to me) successful, and have clearly offered nothing past mere words :)

Is there a threshold or codification by which we can measure the agreement? I was hoping not to politicize this, but if that's what you would ask, obviously I'm happy to do that. Shall I start contacting each of the members of the referenced PR to weigh in?

It seems that if we all agree here in this thread that the mission statement is fairly rote. And if we are striving for a benign meaning. Then, most of the Bitcoin Core team would be reasonably annoyed at having to submit to any procedural distraction.

What was the process to maintain widespread agreement on the other passages in this about us page? It seems to me that accepting the existing interface would be more appropriate here, rather than adopting a new (and frankly annoying) one.

As you suggested earlier, this change is largely 'unimportant'. So I think it's reasonable to assume that asking everyone to ACK this is a greater annoyance to us, than the (I believe) obvious benefits of declaring a benign goal.

[harding]

Shall I start contacting each of the members of the referenced PR to weigh in?

I'd recommend against that. If you do it, it'll likely be considered spamming and you may be banned.

Everyone who would be likely to ACK or otherwise comment on this issue has already received a copy of every comment on this thread in their email because they subscribe to the repository.

You should probably start by getting at least one well-known contributor to ACK. A good way to work towards that goal would be addressing the feedback that has already been provided to you.

What was the process to maintain widespread agreement on the other passages in this about us page?

There have been no content changes to the About page since this site went live in January 2016.

I think it's reasonable to assume that asking everyone to ACK this is a greater annoyance to us, than the (I believe) obvious benefits of declaring a benign goal.

I think you're trying to say it's better to have a vague statement that doesn't really say anything than it is to have a strong statement that does say something but which requires many people agree to it. That may be the case, but there's a third option: no statement at all. Since that's where we are now, it's the default option, and it seems to be working fine IMO. As I mentioned before, that's why I don't think this is important.

Of course, other people may have different opinions, which is why I intend to keep this PR open for a couple weeks to give other people (who are all busy) a chance to comment for themselves. To that end, I'll stop commenting for now. Feel free to PM me on IRC if you need technical assistance updating this PR.

[jnewbery]

I agree with David that this needs widespread agreement, and also that we don't really need a mission statement. Bitcoin Core has over 500 contributors (more if you count contributors to the website, libsecp, etc). Those people have all chosen to contribute without an explicit 'mission statement' published on this website. If we published one now it would need to be so anodyne as to not alienate those contributors, or it would risk putting off those or potential future contributors.

All this is to say I'm a weak concept NACK and weak NACK on the chosen wording. I could be convinced if you could demonstrate that this really would 'improve the relations in our community' and encourage more contributors.

[brighton36]

So, I collected feedback, thought about this overnight, and have reached a few conclusions.

1. We have a mission statement.
   But, because we delegated that responsibility to 'the mob', the mission statement is largely cynical and obtuse.

@harding, respectfully, you have stated that we have a "no statement at all" option. But I don't think that's true. Nor do I think it's "working fine".

Here, I collected a random anecdotal sample of self identified bitcoiners to tell us our mission. The results are unsurprising to me, but of course, it's my job to know these things: https://twitter.com/derose/status/1024329086938882048
Note the cynicism and certainty, in the void of clarity.

2. We haven't delegated hard decisions to the mob thus far...
   So, I don't know why we would here. Leadership takes courage. And speaking for 'us' is a job we all want and need. I don't accept that the many contributors to bitcoin don't aspire to see the community derisked, in a reasonable and easy way. If the null hypothesis is cynicism and resentment, then, it's reasonable that a non-divisive declaration is preferable to the status quo of chaos.

3. Bitcoin Core is released under the terms of the MIT license
   That should make consensus much easier than I think is perceived. We've all agreed that the BSD license is an accepted governing authority on matters of leadership. This means we can cull a mission from our agreed upon MIT enclave, and not have to bear the responsibility of unilateral action.

4. So, let's just use the pre-existing, consensus Mission Statement
   Referenced on our README is a link to the BSD license on opensource.org. And if you click the 'About' page on opensource.org, you will see the following:

Mission
The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a non-profit corporation with global scope formed to educate about and advocate for the benefits of open source and to build bridges among different constituencies in the open source community.

Perhaps we can embrace this objective standard:

Bitcoin Core is a decentralized coalition with global scope, formed to educate about and advocate for the benefits of Bitcoin and to build bridges among different constituencies in the Bitcoin community.

5. If we leverage an existing standard, we can justly cite internal cohesion
   This is how social form manifests, and takes a greater structure. When a objection occurs, it is handled by way of pointing at a consensus view. This is what objectivity strives to be. This is the nobility of the scientific method. It's even how blockchain works.

I chose the linux foundation because when the 50+ people replying to my tweet asks us "Why did you choose this mission" we can respond with "We are beholden. We went with the standard. Mea Culpa. Take it up with linux."

Bitcoin has a mission. So, either we derisk that concern for our people, or they revolt. Per my specialization, and in my specialized opinion, Bitcoiners are ready and enthusiastic about being led by a just authority. By declaring the mission, the community unites around a common cause. For bitcoin core to deny that responsibility, is a choice to delegate that responsibility to others. It seems highly irresponsible for us, and on behalf of our contributors, to delegate this authority to the intolerant.

[etscrivner]

Some random comments from someone who typically just lurks in these threads. I may be missing something, but I don't fully understand the answers to a first principles of analysis of this PR:

• What are the reasons that make this necessary?
• What are the perceived positive outcomes of having such a statement?
• What are the perceived negative outcomes of having such a statement?
• Do the positives clearly and unambiguously outweigh the negatives?
• Why is doing nothing at all perceived by the author as not being an option?

The proposed statements are so anodyne as to be nearly meaningless so its not clear to me what benefits having them at all would provide. Would love to get a better sense from the author of how he analyzed the above questions and came to the conclusion this was necessary.

[bbspooker]

I think that bitcoin core should not be political, it is out of line for one person to get mad at bitcoin-cobra and the next day core does not link to bitcoin.org in my opinion.

[jnewbery]

@bbspooker - off-topic (and factually incorrect).

[harding]

The author of this PR was previously warned in this thread that directly contacting Bitcoin Core contributors about this issue could be considered spamming---everyone who wants to read about this website's concerns has subscribed to the repository or will otherwise check on their own. Yet he has now begun annoying people with such contacts, including asking random people on Twitter to annoy someone who specifically indicated they didn't want to receive further contacts from him.

I'm going to close this PR and lock the conversation. Members of the project will still be able to comment and request that it be reopened if they think it's important (or reopen it directly).

@brighton36 if you continue attempting to contact people who have made it clear that they don't want to hear from you, you will be banned from this repository.