{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1rv5ajnhgrc0wq3ulrk6tcjkgsaq8h4rs5rtsvrnklz4j0lw40egqphc5wt","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1rv5ajnhgrc0wq3ulrk6tcjkgsaq8h4rs5rtsvrnklz4j0lw40egqphc5wt","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-07-22\n📝 Original message:\u003edefault in case of controversy is no change.\n\nI think the result of this would probably be that no controversial \nchanges ever get implemented via this process so others will hard fork \nthe code and eventually make this process irrelevant.  Since you need \nclose to 100% agreement the irrelevance would have to come as a step \nfunction which will manifest itself in a rather disruptive manner.\n\nThe question is really is this hark-forking disruption worse than coming \nup with some kind of process to handle controversial changes.\n\nRuss"}