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
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09B5DEF5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:08:41 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE35E112
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:08:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 899DA38A99D4;
Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:08:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160202:gavinandresen@gmail.com::wyBa9ontAAYFaH72:acHes
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160202:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::vkp/2Ip725NvcRS3:5jez
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:08:19 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.13-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; )
References: <201602012253.18009.luke@dashjr.org>
<CABsx9T2X+2Vnwd3RJJvRpNKbO2S1kY8JS2YqHEKUmAhYSNpkBg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T2X+2Vnwd3RJJvRpNKbO2S1kY8JS2YqHEKUmAhYSNpkBg@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201602021908.20547.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_SBL,
RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process: Status, comments,
and copyright licenses
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 19:08:41 -0000
On Tuesday, February 02, 2016 3:58:21 PM Gavin Andresen wrote:
> I don't like the definition of "consensus". I think the definition
> described gives too much centralized control to whoever controls the
> mailing list and the wiki.
How can I improve this? Inevitably, every medium of communications will be
controlled by someone (even if unmoderated, it becomes effectively controlled
by trolls who spam it with garbage).
I think it's important to note that this is also only for updating the status
of BIPs, and is not in any way relevant to such proposals *actually* being
accepted. So if the BIP process were to breakdown on this or any other point,
it isn't somehow controlling the actual reality. To explicitly clarify this
point, I have added to the end of the section:
"These criteria are considered objective ways to observe the de facto
adoption of the BIP, and are not to be used as reasons to oppose or
reject a BIP. Should a BIP become actually and unambiguously adopted
despite not meeting the criteria outlined here, it should still be
updated to Final status."
Does that help?
Thanks,
Luke
|
