1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
|
Return-Path: <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86B22C000B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 26 Apr 2021 20:04:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 601CA4016E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 26 Apr 2021 20:04:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id oSDLUm1JMGpL
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 26 Apr 2021 20:04:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-ej1-x62e.google.com (mail-ej1-x62e.google.com
[IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62e])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4581940004
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 26 Apr 2021 20:04:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ej1-x62e.google.com with SMTP id r20so36534572ejo.11
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 26 Apr 2021 13:04:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=8VNm3pU25C09irTGS6tUPvzTlr6FktA1b+nbDrNi+Y0=;
b=KQ9nDEYpBepX2tY6ml0it37FXLsdoTSeTNa5IAupZTCmX+8WMC2cyKO2LTKskoOWLA
51B6YZ1oAau4hvB19dMHcNCzZjB1R6chWplDcg5Uf45coXSUn2PPYJc6gEhASQjvSQnM
z659RBS3rrbZSVtwDzHXcBpUO7OAZFof3H1YX6tWmfHtCoSjSnQjJHIpfOLcOPv3Q02Q
8eANHOcZ+Wyc2gkxiU9Be96bWSLq/EaPJMSS1vhA2StLQ6rKKcEM6hla2DADNo/cb9Ni
bku7Je3KtRo8LABXexe9d+HwhUacjyWGdoVnN84uZRko0ItO2MxMwXY9Oys187aKmwF6
GqwA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
:message-id:subject:to;
bh=8VNm3pU25C09irTGS6tUPvzTlr6FktA1b+nbDrNi+Y0=;
b=VYsZTkp+oUjZqIK8wRT6p79ZAIzeiL9upxWQas1RjeBOhR42h99bWgGEnny6vTWPeT
ElkvrHL9KdIFxN7W3jQVY7pQmMQgZtnN40najznOhedPOj0XnhjAZvI6av9GRt4OQ6Us
GqEy7mlshTMOQn0IVKBjNegPdA1psgc8x3+IfIdwTh0RwkBgtD+6mHkXsgnZJqSZc5+5
f8/TVIWZVgKU2SSY+H+CX86vVH4hROv0H6m4StkMdBpnmZRu2vh/kBpYA4ywvMuODNLN
6a9DHHc2N1kSmFRfhFU75wkxkpnHbKP1qKjsK3I4zTiW7C/VkeF+HGhUz+Id5gD67LNA
Ql8A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5310Q1z3CzMFgxXHYh9ByI3K8N3jn/0/sMlfZ/wgHYTBnWe+7KZw
hP4dgcgFkPv6nmfZAo9Rhsd7NcNr1m4lhwB5yDxJUTc+
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw7utRT158PrqTY3YvW14JvkhbZYuhorcgHEDygCH0AXtenYzN4rho9Laeinxw5ub6kC9m1Cxdjl+w7dQ+w/4E=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:aecd:: with SMTP id
me13mr20496901ejb.324.1619467491521;
Mon, 26 Apr 2021 13:04:51 -0700 (PDT)
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>
In-Reply-To: <20210426194309.2k5exujz23vjrgwc@ganymede>
From: Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 20:04:39 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgRZwf=SBB4EvpeTBLshRfT1tmnv33GP+Ln+w2bxt48=pA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "David A. Harding" <dave@dtrt.org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 20:07:17 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Reminder on the Purpose of BIPs
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 20:04:54 -0000
I endorse Harding's recommendations. On the point about mirroring,
one thing to keep in mind is that the other repositories may go
offline.
Modification confusion could be avoided by recording what revision
(commit hash) was current at the time of inclusion, but the document
going offline can only be protected against by maintaining a copy
somewhere.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 7:44 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 protocol
> > documents can be placed nearly anywhere with the same effect.
>
> I recommend:
>
> 1. We add additional BIP editors, starting with Kalle Alm (if there are
> no continuing significant objections).
>
> 2. We seek Luke Dashjr's resignation as BIPs editor.
>
> 3. We begin treating protocol documents outside the BIPs repository as
> first-class BIP documentation.
>
> The first recommendation permits continued maintenance of existing BIPs
> plus gives the additional maintainers an opportunity to rebuild the
> credibility of the repository.
>
> The second recommendation addresses the dissatisfaction of many BIP
> authors and potential authors with the current editor, which I think
> will discourage many of them from making additional significant
> contributions to the repository. It also seems to me to be a better use
> of Luke's talents and interests for him to focus on protocol research
> and review rather than procedurally checking whether a bunch of
> documents are well formed.
>
> The third recommendation provides an escape hatch for anyone, such as
> Matt, who currently thinks the process has failed, or for anyone who
> comes to that same conclusion in the future under a different editing
> team. My specific recommendations there are:
>
> a. Anyone writing protocol documentation in the spirit of the BIP
> process can post their idea to this mailing list like we've always
> done and, when they've finished collecting initial feedback, they can
> assign themselves a unique decentralized identifier starting with
> "bip-". They may also define a shorter alias that they encourage
> people to use in cases where the correct document can be inferred
> from context. E.g.,
>
> bip-wuille-taproot (bip-taproot)
> bip-towns-versionbits-min-activation-height (bip-vbmah)
> bip-todd-harding-opt-in-replace-by-fee (bip-opt-in-rbf)
>
> b. The author then publishes the document to any place they'd like, although
> they are strongly encouraged to make any document source available
> under an open license to ensure others can create their own
> modifications.
>
> c. Implementations of BIPs, whether original repository BIPs or
> decentralized BIPs, link to the BIPs they implement to ensure
> researchers and developers can find the relevant protocol
> documentation. E.g.,
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/fe5e495c31de47b0ec732b943db11fe345d874af/doc/bips.md
>
> (It may also be advisable for implementations to mirror copies of
> the BIPs they implement so later modifications to the document
> don't confuse anyone. For this reason, extremely liberal
> licensing of BIP documents is encouraged.)
>
> d. To help maintain quality and consistency between documentation, the
> BIP editors provide a BIP document template, guidelines similar to
> the existing BIP2, and an easy-to-run format linter.
>
> I think this decentralized BIPs alternative also helps address some
> longstanding problems with the BIPs system: that many casual Bitcoin
> users and developers think of documents in the BIPs repo as
> authoritative and that there are some development teams (such as for LN)
> that have already abandoned the BIPs process because, in part, they want
> complete control over their own documentation.
>
> The recommendations above were developed based on conversations I had
> with a few stakeholders in the BIPs process, but I did not attempt a
> comprehensive survey and I certainly don't claim to speak for anyone
> else. I hope the recommendations are satisfactory and I look forward to
> your feedback.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Dave
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
