Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.212.176 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.212.176; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-wi0-f176.google.com; 
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 17:46:42 +0200
From: "Wladimir J. van der Laan" <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info>, g@amethyst.visucore.com
Message-ID: <20150618154640.GA7840@amethyst.visucore.com>
References: <55828737.6000007@riseup.net>
	<CANEZrP3M7+BsZKLFZV-0A_fC7NmMGbTDxsx3ywru3dSW78ZskQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150618111407.GA6690@amethyst.visucore.com>
	<CANEZrP2iMXeL-5zyE2cvoyNRakhZbQfLXORZ2AhqEATQE-KjAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOG=w-sWimZTJe=4gCvC5R7SAEK+Nvo-hZtM7xC-bBQd0pG3mw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5582E3FE.7010206@bitcoins.info>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5582E3FE.7010206@bitcoins.info>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer
 to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers
Precedence: list

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512


> This kind of thing always happens as projects become larger and more
> diverse.  Something that was once a small group turns into a big
> group of diverse stakeholders.  When it gets too big for the
> informal processes then some people get upset and defensive. Happens
> all the time but it is not really a good excuse to keep doing things
> in an inefficient manner.  The old ways just don't scale and if you
> ever worked on massive projects then you know these formal processes
> work better.

So then: make a proposal for a better process, post it to this list.

In practice there has been zero interest in improving the BIP process.

E.g. the BIP process was adapted from the Python Enhancement Proposals by Amir Taaki (in 2009 or so?). It hasn't really changed since then, apart from some spelling and grammar corrections. It is not specifically adapted to Bitcoin, and doesn't make a distinction between for example, consensus changes and non-consensus changes.

So that's up to someone to do. You seem to be enthousiastic about it, so go ahead.

Wladimir
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVgufFAAoJEHSBCwEjRsmmAmYIAI9ndrMoqEuoaP5t+7W42UuH
sh5qR7hojCCoZZl1N+rQ63UXcPBO/V4NUkUG97S3qpEFDzuoYSbOX2Eh+TRfK+s+
U+BpLhWteSexJ3N9aiFuR0q5jgesAzLZ9wtq1gCPI/Zu5/fgYBP4AVTiQGdXCZtv
m6ZDKCf+aB/fW/59/AiY44NkMDjVQieEVRiT1IPFJULWesOOdtv7UoqIpz0vDa/5
Jplm41j8IpTPioJKSwUi5qzSDrF7O39PC9LMXNRx/0FIuYfwqJpvF0Frc+vtPpjQ
llKE7945uMXz3FLSV0Orx26XPal/MuF5AYOPNk6pJfwYw7q91AUvQxVFepBa9vw=
=dMO9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----