From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Ryan Grant <bitcoin-dev@rgrant.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 21:17:30 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.13-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; )
References: <201602012253.18009.luke@dashjr.org>
	<201602040415.47580.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAMnpzfqVhfFimvX0zU-SCcEL8JGzjnWu8D3v_Ph4kbeGtr8r=w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMnpzfqVhfFimvX0zU-SCcEL8JGzjnWu8D3v_Ph4kbeGtr8r=w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201602042117.31076.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process: Status, comments,
	and copyright licenses
Precedence: list

On Thursday, February 04, 2016 5:45:38 PM Ryan Grant wrote:
> [BIP 2:]
> > A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it
> > achieves rough consensus on the mailing list.
> 
> Is this mix of wiki and mailing list intentional?  If so, the wiki
> talk page is meant to be a self-curated permanent record of support
> and dissent, but second-order reply commentary might fall either on
> the wiki or the mailing list?

The wiki page is meant to be a place to leave comments recommending or 
discouraging adoption of a completed BIP, after discussion is over. For 
example, many people seem to think BIP 38 is a good idea simply because it is 
a Final BIP, whereas in general we would want to discourage using it since it 
cannot really be used safely.

All review itself ought to remain on the ML.

> BIP 2 should ask that all current and future forums that BIP authors
> might choose for review have indisputable records of moderation and
> user edits.

Is this necessary considering the author-chosen forum may only be *in addition 
to* the Bitcoin Wiki?

> Is dump.bitcoin.it a sufficient public record of contentious
> moderation or user cross-comment editing?  It seems like as long as
> the wiki as a whole is verifiable, it would suffice.

It should be everything except accounts/passwords.

Luke