diff options
| author | Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> | 2016-02-02 19:08:19 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2016-02-02 19:08:41 +0000 |
| commit | 42e1a12cd1d54ac1d2d007875f4e1243143d7dde (patch) | |
| tree | 5c8c26667c305a4476d39904e333132ed5c1d353 | |
| parent | 2bf47ce1333fc7aa83b709336ab259d97c2c8b63 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-42e1a12cd1d54ac1d2d007875f4e1243143d7dde.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-42e1a12cd1d54ac1d2d007875f4e1243143d7dde.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process: Status, comments, and copyright licenses
| -rw-r--r-- | 31/e3fcef1c9faf52a38e1fb8ed91b38150c27b2d | 78 |
1 files changed, 78 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/31/e3fcef1c9faf52a38e1fb8ed91b38150c27b2d b/31/e3fcef1c9faf52a38e1fb8ed91b38150c27b2d new file mode 100644 index 000000000..3b72736f1 --- /dev/null +++ b/31/e3fcef1c9faf52a38e1fb8ed91b38150c27b2d @@ -0,0 +1,78 @@ +Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09B5DEF5 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:08:41 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE35E112 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:08:40 +0000 (UTC) +Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown + [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6]) + (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) + by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 899DA38A99D4; + Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:08:21 +0000 (UTC) +X-Hashcash: 1:25:160202:gavinandresen@gmail.com::wyBa9ontAAYFaH72:acHes +X-Hashcash: 1:25:160202:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::vkp/2Ip725NvcRS3:5jez +From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> +To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> +Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:08:19 +0000 +User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.13-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) +References: <201602012253.18009.luke@dashjr.org> + <CABsx9T2X+2Vnwd3RJJvRpNKbO2S1kY8JS2YqHEKUmAhYSNpkBg@mail.gmail.com> +In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T2X+2Vnwd3RJJvRpNKbO2S1kY8JS2YqHEKUmAhYSNpkBg@mail.gmail.com> +X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F +X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F +X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: Text/Plain; + charset="iso-8859-15" +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit +Message-Id: <201602021908.20547.luke@dashjr.org> +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_SBL, + RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.1 +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on + smtp1.linux-foundation.org +Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process: Status, comments, + and copyright licenses +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 19:08:41 -0000 + +On Tuesday, February 02, 2016 3:58:21 PM Gavin Andresen wrote: +> I don't like the definition of "consensus". I think the definition +> described gives too much centralized control to whoever controls the +> mailing list and the wiki. + +How can I improve this? Inevitably, every medium of communications will be +controlled by someone (even if unmoderated, it becomes effectively controlled +by trolls who spam it with garbage). + +I think it's important to note that this is also only for updating the status +of BIPs, and is not in any way relevant to such proposals *actually* being +accepted. So if the BIP process were to breakdown on this or any other point, +it isn't somehow controlling the actual reality. To explicitly clarify this +point, I have added to the end of the section: + "These criteria are considered objective ways to observe the de facto + adoption of the BIP, and are not to be used as reasons to oppose or + reject a BIP. Should a BIP become actually and unambiguously adopted + despite not meeting the criteria outlined here, it should still be + updated to Final status." +Does that help? + +Thanks, + +Luke + |