MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: dscotese@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <201602012253.18009.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <201602012253.18009.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 21:50:29 -0800
Message-ID: <CAGLBAhffm+1m=DAph-ac8mA9ytLpKqTT45XG1r6UFGFoUvJ+PA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Scotese <dscotese@litmocracy.com>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff1c01e3851e6052ac314ff
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process: Status, comments,
	and copyright licenses
Precedence: list

--e89a8ff1c01e3851e6052ac314ff
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

The section that starts "Should two software projects need to release"
addresses issues that are difficult to ascertain from what is written
there.  I'll take a stab at what it means:

Would bitcoin be better off if multiple applications provided their own
implementations of API/RPC and corresponding application layer BIPs?

   - While there is only one such application, its UI will be the obvious
   standard and confusion in usability will be avoided.
   - Any more than a single such application will benefit from the
   coordination encouraged and aided by this BIP and BIP 123.

"To avoid doubt: comments and status are unrelated metrics to judge a BIP,
and neither should be directly influencing the other." makes more sense to
me as "To avoid doubt: comments and status are intended to be unrelated
metrics. Any influence of one over the other indicates a deviation from
their intended use."  This can be expanded with a simple example: "In other
words, a BIP having  the status 'Rejected' is no reason not to write
additional comments about it.  Likewise, overwhelming support for a BIP in
its comments section doesn't change the requirements for the 'Accepted' or
'Active' status."

Since the Bitcoin Wiki can be updated with comments from other places, I
think the author of a BIP should be allowed to specify other Internet
locations for comments.  So "link to a Bitcoin Wiki page" could instead be
"link to a comments page (strongly recommended to be in the Bitcoin
Wiki)".  Also, under "Will BIP comments be censored or limited to
particular participants/"experts"?" You could add:

   - The author of a BIP may indicate any commenting URL they wish.  The
   Bitcoin Wiki is merely a recommendation, though a very strong one.


On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> I've completed an initial draft of a BIP that provides clarifications on
> the
> Status field for BIPs, as well as adding the ability for public comments on
> them, and expanding the list of allowable BIP licenses.
>
>
> https://github.com/luke-jr/bips/blob/bip-biprevised/bip-biprevised.mediawiki
>
> I plan to open discussion of making this BIP an Active status (along with
> BIP
> 123) a month after initial revisions have completed. Please provide any
> objections now, so I can try to address them now and enable consensus to be
> reached.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Luke
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>



-- 
I like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do you need a
techie?
I own Litmocracy <http://www.litmocracy.com> and Meme Racing
<http://www.memeracing.net> (in alpha).
I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist <http://www.voluntaryist.com> which
now accepts Bitcoin.
I also code for The Dollar Vigilante <http://dollarvigilante.com/>.
"He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" - Satoshi
Nakamoto

--e89a8ff1c01e3851e6052ac314ff
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>The section that starts &quot;Should two software pro=
jects need to release&quot; addresses issues that are difficult to ascertai=
n from what is written there.=C2=A0 I&#39;ll take a stab at what it means:<=
br><br></div>Would bitcoin be better off if multiple applications provided =
their own implementations of API/RPC and corresponding application layer BI=
Ps?<br><ul><li>While there is only one such application, its UI will be the=
 obvious standard and confusion in usability will be avoided.</li><li>Any m=
ore than a single such application will benefit from the coordination encou=
raged and aided by this BIP and BIP 123.</li></ul><p>&quot;To avoid doubt: =
comments and status are unrelated metrics to judge a BIP, and neither shoul=
d be directly influencing the other.&quot; makes more sense to me as &quot;=
To avoid doubt: comments and status are intended to be unrelated metrics. A=
ny influence of one over the other indicates a deviation from their intende=
d use.&quot;=C2=A0 This can be expanded with a simple example: &quot;In oth=
er words, a BIP having=C2=A0 the status &#39;Rejected&#39; is no reason not=
 to write additional comments about it.=C2=A0 Likewise, overwhelming suppor=
t for a BIP in its comments section doesn&#39;t change the requirements for=
 the &#39;Accepted&#39; or &#39;Active&#39; status.&quot;</p><p>Since the B=
itcoin Wiki can be updated with comments from other places, I think the aut=
hor of a BIP should be allowed to specify other Internet locations for comm=
ents.=C2=A0 So &quot;link to a Bitcoin Wiki page&quot; could instead be &qu=
ot;link to a comments page (strongly recommended to be in the Bitcoin Wiki)=
&quot;.=C2=A0 Also, under &quot;Will BIP comments be censored or limited to=
 particular participants/&quot;experts&quot;?&quot; You could add:</p><ul><=
li>The author of a BIP may indicate any commenting URL they wish.=C2=A0 The=
 Bitcoin Wiki is merely a recommendation, though a very strong one.<br></li=
></ul></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mo=
n, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank=
">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquot=
e class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc sol=
id;padding-left:1ex">I&#39;ve completed an initial draft of a BIP that prov=
ides clarifications on the<br>
Status field for BIPs, as well as adding the ability for public comments on=
<br>
them, and expanding the list of allowable BIP licenses.<br>
<br>
<a href=3D"https://github.com/luke-jr/bips/blob/bip-biprevised/bip-biprevis=
ed.mediawiki" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/luke-=
jr/bips/blob/bip-biprevised/bip-biprevised.mediawiki</a><br>
<br>
I plan to open discussion of making this BIP an Active status (along with B=
IP<br>
123) a month after initial revisions have completed. Please provide any<br>
objections now, so I can try to address them now and enable consensus to be=
<br>
reached.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Luke<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">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><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail_sig=
nature"><div dir=3D"ltr">I like to provide some work at no charge to prove =
my value. Do you need a techie?=C2=A0 <br>I own <a href=3D"http://www.litmo=
cracy.com" target=3D"_blank">Litmocracy</a> and <a href=3D"http://www.memer=
acing.net" target=3D"_blank">Meme Racing</a> (in alpha). <br>I&#39;m the we=
bmaster for <a href=3D"http://www.voluntaryist.com" target=3D"_blank">The V=
oluntaryist</a> which now accepts Bitcoin.<br>I also code for <a href=3D"ht=
tp://dollarvigilante.com/" target=3D"_blank">The Dollar Vigilante</a>.<br>&=
quot;He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules&quot; - Satos=
hi Nakamoto</div></div>
</div>

--e89a8ff1c01e3851e6052ac314ff--