Maybe we can learn something from the IETF. Bitcoin is special, but maybe it’s not thaaat special that we can’t learn from our past:
The IETF has had a long tradition of doing its technical work through a consensus process, taking into account the different views among IETF participants and coming to (at least rough) consensus on technical matters. In particular, the IETF is supposed not to be run by a "majority rule" philosophy. This is why we engage in rituals like "humming" instead of voting. However, more and more of our actions are now indistinguishable from voting, and quite often we are letting the majority win the day without consideration of minority concerns. This document explains some features of rough consensus, what is not rough consensus, how we have gotten away from it, how we might think about it differently, and the things we can do in order to really achieve rough consensus.
related to #1550274
What do you think could be done better?
I wasn’t very impressed with how either camp conducted themselves, but I also didn’t think the 110ers gave anyone much to work with.
See the IAB answer to Bernstein about what all that wooly bs means in practice, and that we're better off just ignoring anything that doesn't take consensus building seriously.
If a proposal doesn't respect other participants, then it ought to not be interacted with. Else, instead of the proposers forking themselves off, we're forking those off that we disrespect. If you want to change bitcoin, you have to convince everyone.
lot=true? ignore. Activation threshold< 90%? ignore."pedos"/"epstein"/other ragebait? ignore.