MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <202104230209.05373.luke@dashjr.org>
 <202104252100.07296.luke@dashjr.org>
 <40214e32-ffb3-9518-7bc8-9c1059f50da7@mattcorallo.com>
 <202104252122.40909.luke@dashjr.org>
 <248f871e-1b83-8c7c-678b-3ed0585a6357@mattcorallo.com>
 <20210426194309.2k5exujz23vjrgwc@ganymede>
 <773C1Ki5dlSNlxD3HK0eJDKHQ9Ikb5vwuKPZ3dkgEPqUmPGN6DrpLv47LNITHOlu7XWzmIpAmgw24noihYJ5lI5Qhmg7yIlboGQsfAowFCw=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <773C1Ki5dlSNlxD3HK0eJDKHQ9Ikb5vwuKPZ3dkgEPqUmPGN6DrpLv47LNITHOlu7XWzmIpAmgw24noihYJ5lI5Qhmg7yIlboGQsfAowFCw=@protonmail.com>
From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 07:49:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJowKgJ7+aiVM-c+4S9OgwY3mv4nmJjAc4C_pwSKnvUZqpNt4g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "W. J. van der Laan" <laanwj@protonmail.com>, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Reminder on the Purpose of BIPs
Precedence: list

seems like this is solved by a workflow where a maintainer who
requests changes clearly tags every entry as "changes needed" or
"review requested",, and then the author can resolve/remove the tag
after the changes are made.

not sure PR's are the right tech here.

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 6:28 AM W. J. van der Laan via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Monday, April 26th, 2021 at 9:43 PM, David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 05:31:50PM -0400, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev =
wrote:
> >
> > > In general, I think its time we all agree the BIP process has simply =
failed
> > >
> > > and move on. Luckily its not really all that critical and proposed pr=
otocol
> > >
> > > documents can be placed nearly anywhere with the same effect.
> >
>
> I like the idea of decentralizing the BIPs process. It is a historical ar=
tifact that the bips repository is part of the same organization that bitco=
in core is part of. But there shouldn't be the perception that standardizat=
ion is driven by that, or that there is any kind of (non-trivial) gatekeepi=
ng.
>
> I understand where this perception is coming from, though. There being 11=
1 PRs open at https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pulls indicates that there is=
 some kind of bottleneck. I hope adding more BIP editors can mitigate this =
somewhat.
>
> Though it also happens that the BIP author simply don't care about change=
s anymore and doesn't respond, in which case the PR lingers without any fau=
lt from the BIPs maintainer. So something is to be said of having the BIP r=
epository mirror/aggregate author's own work trees, and changes needing to =
be proposed there instead of "upstream".
>
> -W
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev