Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.212.176 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.212.176; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-wi0-f176.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <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>
	<20150618154640.GA7840@amethyst.visucore.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 18:05:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CANEZrP016FjDZx9cNMbPR5nV0BRVxBCf-GEfD+59JseJcNWjvA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: "Wladimir J. van der Laan" <laanwj@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043bdedaaa7e960518ccfbad
Cc: g@amethyst.visucore.com,
	Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer
 to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers
Precedence: list

--f46d043bdedaaa7e960518ccfbad
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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

Alright. Here is a first cut of my proposal. It can be inserted into an
amended BIP 1 after "What belongs in a successful BIP?". Let me know what
you think.


The following section applies to BIPs that affect the block chain consensus
rules or the peer to peer protocol and thus require changes to Bitcoin
Core.

Once a draft BIP has been submitted to bitcoin-development for
consideration, the Bitcoin Core maintainer will deliver a preliminary
yes/no verdict within three weeks. This verdict may be informed by the
debate that has taken part in the previous three weeks. If more time is
required, the maintainer is required to request an extension from the BIP
author, who may then elect to force an immediate decision (risking a no),
or choosing to allow more time.

The verdict will meet the following criteria:

   - It will address the latest version of the BIP at the time the verdict
   is rendered.

   - In case of a rejection, it will spell out and describe the technical
   rationale for this decision. Opinions held by other people are not
   considered technical rationales: if the maintainer agrees with a technical
   point made during discussion, he must own that opinion for himself.
   Therefore no BIP will be rejected on grounds of controversy, disagreement,
   lack of consensus or otherwise.

   - In case of rejection, the maintainer will provide a clear, specific
   list of actionable steps the BIP author can take next. For example, a list
   of what changes would address the technical objections raised. In case the
   maintainer believes no change could ever make the BIP acceptable, the list
   must consist of instructions for how to create a patch set and, in the case
   of changes to the consensus rules, how to initiate a hard fork.

A BIP, even once rejected, may live on in the BIPS repository, though its
entry in the index may be sorted below others. The BIP author may update
the BIP with a summary of any resulting discussion. As such a summary may
be inherently contentious in case of a dispute, the authors wording of that
summary is final and may not be subject to meta-debate.

--f46d043bdedaaa7e960518ccfbad
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left=
-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;paddi=
ng-left:1ex">So then: make a proposal for a better process, post it to this=
 list.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Alright. Here is a first cut of =
my proposal. It can be inserted into an amended BIP 1 after &quot;What belo=
ngs in a successful BIP?&quot;. Let me know what you think.</div><div><br><=
/div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>The following section applies to BI=
Ps that affect the block chain consensus rules or the peer to peer protocol=
 and thus require changes to Bitcoin Core.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>O=
nce a draft BIP has been submitted to bitcoin-development for consideration=
, the Bitcoin Core maintainer will deliver a preliminary yes/no verdict wit=
hin three weeks. This verdict may be informed by the debate that has taken =
part in the previous three weeks. If more time is required, the maintainer =
is required to request an extension from the BIP author, who may then elect=
 to force an immediate decision (risking a no), or choosing to allow more t=
ime.</div><div><br></div><div>The verdict will meet the following criteria:=
</div><div><ul><li>It will address the latest version of the BIP at the tim=
e the verdict is rendered.<br><br></li><li>In case of a rejection, it will =
spell out and describe the technical rationale for this decision. Opinions =
held by other people are not considered technical rationales: if the mainta=
iner agrees with a technical point made during discussion, he must own that=
 opinion for himself. Therefore no BIP will be rejected on grounds of contr=
oversy, disagreement, lack of consensus or otherwise.<br><br></li><li>In ca=
se of rejection, the maintainer will provide a clear, specific list of acti=
onable steps the BIP author can take next. For example, a list of what chan=
ges would address the technical objections raised. In case the maintainer b=
elieves no change could ever make the BIP acceptable, the list must consist=
 of instructions for how to create a patch set and, in the case of changes =
to the consensus rules, how to initiate a hard fork.<br></li></ul><div>A BI=
P, even once rejected, may live on in the BIPS repository, though its entry=
 in the index may be sorted below others. The BIP author may update the BIP=
 with a summary of any resulting discussion. As such a summary may be inher=
ently contentious in case of a dispute, the authors wording of that summary=
 is final and may not be subject to meta-debate.</div></div><div><br></div>=
<div><br></div></div></div></div>

--f46d043bdedaaa7e960518ccfbad--