MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <201603081904.28687.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <201603081904.28687.luke@dashjr.org>
From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:43:09 +0000
Message-ID: <CADJgMzt1BUHo9_tVJF-LG_kkGdR88NVeqXaz9itLN21=R763Xw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11472c0001661f052e3091f4
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 promotion to Final
Precedence: list

--001a11472c0001661f052e3091f4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I have an objection about "BIP comments" in BIP2. I think BIPs should be
self contained, but the specification recommends posting comments to the
Bitcoin Wiki (bitcoin.it). I think this is a bad idea and external sources
are bound to go stale over time as can be evidenced by a number of existing
BIPs which link to external content that has long since expired. Comments
should be made instead using the Wiki feature at bitcoin/bips itself (which
can be enabled in the administration settings).

On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> It has been about 1 month since BIP 2 finished receiving comments, so I
> believe it is an appropriate time to begin the process of moving it to
> Final
> Status. Toward this end, I have opened a pull request:
>
>     https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/350
>
> The current requirement for this is that "the reference implementation is
> complete and accepted by the community". Given the vagueness of this
> criteria,
> I intend to move forward applying BIP 2's more specific criteria to itself:
>
> > A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it achieves
> rough
> > consensus on the mailing list. Such a proposal is said to have rough
> > consensus if it has been open to discussion on the development mailing
> list
> > for at least one month, and no person maintains any unaddressed
> > substantiated objections to it. Addressed or obstructive objections may
> be
> > ignored/overruled by general agreement that they have been sufficiently
> > addressed, but clear reasoning must be given in such circumstances.
>
> Furthermore, there is a reference implementation in the mentioned PR.
>
> Please review the latest draft BIP and provide any objections ASAP.
> If there are no outstanding objections on 2016 April 9th, I will consider
> the
> current draft to have reached rough consensus and update its Status to
> Final
> by merging the PR.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Luke
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--001a11472c0001661f052e3091f4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>I have an objection about &quot;BIP comments&quot; in=
 BIP2. I think BIPs should be self contained, but the specification recomme=
nds posting comments to the Bitcoin Wiki (<a href=3D"http://bitcoin.it" tar=
get=3D"_blank">bitcoin.it</a>). I think this is a bad idea and external sou=
rces are bound to go stale over time as can be evidenced by a number of exi=
sting BIPs which link to external content that has long since expired. Comm=
ents should be made instead using the Wiki feature at bitcoin/bips itself (=
which can be enabled in the administration settings).=C2=A0</div><div class=
=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 7:04=
 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bi=
tcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.li=
nuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote 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;padding-left:1ex">It has been abo=
ut 1 month since BIP 2 finished receiving comments, so I<br>
believe it is an appropriate time to begin the process of moving it to Fina=
l<br>
Status. Toward this end, I have opened a pull request:<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/350" rel=3D"n=
oreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/350</a><b=
r>
<br>
The current requirement for this is that &quot;the reference implementation=
 is<br>
complete and accepted by the community&quot;. Given the vagueness of this c=
riteria,<br>
I intend to move forward applying BIP 2&#39;s more specific criteria to its=
elf:<br>
<br>
&gt; A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it achieves =
rough<br>
&gt; consensus on the mailing list. Such a proposal is said to have rough<b=
r>
&gt; consensus if it has been open to discussion on the development mailing=
 list<br>
&gt; for at least one month, and no person maintains any unaddressed<br>
&gt; substantiated objections to it. Addressed or obstructive objections ma=
y be<br>
&gt; ignored/overruled by general agreement that they have been sufficientl=
y<br>
&gt; addressed, but clear reasoning must be given in such circumstances.<br=
>
<br>
Furthermore, there is a reference implementation in the mentioned PR.<br>
<br>
Please review the latest draft BIP and provide any objections ASAP.<br>
If there are no outstanding objections on 2016 April 9th, I will consider t=
he<br>
current draft to have reached rough consensus and update its Status to Fina=
l<br>
by merging the PR.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Luke<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>

--001a11472c0001661f052e3091f4--