MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <64B72DF6-BE37-4624-ADAA-CE28C14A4227@gmail.com>
References: <64B72DF6-BE37-4624-ADAA-CE28C14A4227@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 19:43:15 -0500
Message-ID: <CABaSBaw7hM2qmuR6Z6USy5=V9NGeCPKmHHuVOH=vexDk7kY8OA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
To: Andy Chase <theandychase@gmail.com>, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP/Draft] BIP Acceptance Process
Precedence: list

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Andy Chase via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I wrote the BIP mostly to stir the pot on ideas of governance

Some quick comments:

I have some objects that I am not ready to put into words, but I do
think there are easily some major objections to committee design. If I
vanish and never respond with my objections, perhaps there's an IETF
RFC about this already....

Something that may mitigate my possible objections would be some
mandatory requirement about ecosystem echo-chambers making many
attempts and efforts at steelman representations of alternative
viewpoints. Understanding objections at a fundamental level, enough to
make strong steelman statements, is very important to ensure that the
competing opinions are not censored from consideration. Pathological
integration and internalization of these steelman arguments can be
very useful, even if the process looks unusual.

Your process does not have to replace any particular BIP process
as-is, but rather could be an alternative that proceeds on its own
perhaps indefinitely without replacement. I don't think too many BIP
processes are necessarily incompatible except by namespace collision.

https://gist.github.com/andychase/dddb83c294295879308b#gistcomment-1566432

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507