Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97DB8EC8 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 20:52:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f180.google.com (mail-io0-f180.google.com [209.85.223.180]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 368831F8 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 20:52:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iods203 with SMTP id s203so71771294iod.0 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:52:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=U9nRDQftjxSN+M4Dg6VSma/3w9DZ8YaU2q10I6j4VYo=; b=KOS3wmrurSvxz4i2lf+EFnMeYQLp0+u5ZudsWmKEYf7oYPSFppH/Ou1slF/fuZ0xH+ tfZTgH+zxANxJGkTbXbQmbNz2zCWeyEblHkD0iiPCbTSzBBjQUQ91ErKFY3WWkZsD2Ez AWxC1XAKYgVWa8ijnV/t1jrsL4R44Umt1tcQF1dpk2zrqoM2fQkiRRoB40CPKeZ6E76T Q5v3z9U5i6dlbix/4Fj0GKbpd7XNYlK6tihyCWf7GZ8vuAlqAKyCf2nZ/MbbxS6x5PLB kurWO7brSsFrYiUOps13SoBenglKDUpgLwPCUSnopwQiFZH8QdcCzAeXRQTKLrHnRyOo 3+LQ== X-Received: by 10.107.132.146 with SMTP id o18mr11203314ioi.134.1440708724609; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:52:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Eric Lombrozo Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 20:51:55 +0000 Message-ID: To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113f33cac15c45051e5123c4 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Splitting BIPs X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 20:52:06 -0000 --001a113f33cac15c45051e5123c4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I posted a new draft of the proposal: http://blockhawk.net/bitcoin-dev/bipwiki.html The subsections still need to be fleshed out a bit more. I'd love any comments or suggestions. On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 4:30 PM Eric Lombrozo wrote: > Also, the current "type" attribute needs modification. There are different > degrees of "standard". Just because a lot of people do X doesn't need to > mean that doing X is "officially" endorsed by any other devs. At most > levels below 1, disagreements might be entirely tolerable for many things. > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 2:06 PM Eric Lombrozo wrote: > >> >> Seems like a lot of effort and goodwill is being wasted on contention >> over things we don't really need to agree upon. In order to help us better >> prioritize, I propose adding an extra attribute to BIPs indicating their >> "level" which is split into five as follows: >> >> 1. Consensus (hard/soft fork) >> 2. Peer Services >> 3. RPC >> 4. Implementations >> 5. Applications >> >> I posted an example of what such a table might look like here: http:// >> blockhawk.net/bitcoin-dev/bipwiki.html >> >> If other folks also think this is a good idea I'll start working on a BIP >> draft for this. >> > --001a113f33cac15c45051e5123c4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I posted a new draft of the proposal: http://blockhawk.net/bitcoin-dev/bipwik= i.html

The subsections still need to be fleshed out a bit more. I&#= 39;d love any comments or suggestions.


On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 4:30 = PM=C2=A0Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@= gmail.com> wrote:

Also, the current "type" attribute needs modification. T= here are different degrees of "standard". Just because a lot of p= eople do X doesn't need to mean that doing X is "officially" = endorsed by any other devs. At most levels below 1, disagreements might be = entirely tolerable for many things.


On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 2:06 = PM=C2=A0Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> wrote:


Seems like a lot of effort and goodwill is being wasted on contention over = things we don't really need to agree upon. In order to help us better p= rioritize, I propose adding an extra attribute to BIPs indicating their &qu= ot;level" which is split into five as follows:

1. Consensus (hard/soft fork)
2. Peer Services
3. RPC
4. Implementations
5. Applications

I posted an example of what such a table might look like her= e: http://blockhawk.net/bitcoin-dev/bipwiki.html

If other folks also think this is a good idea I'll start= working on a BIP draft for this.

--001a113f33cac15c45051e5123c4--