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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1WjtlF-0006Jc-5S
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 12 May 2014 17:11:33 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.217.170 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.217.170; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-lb0-f170.google.com;
Received: from mail-lb0-f170.google.com ([209.85.217.170])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WjtlE-0006pL-9v
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 12 May 2014 17:11:33 +0000
Received: by mail-lb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id w7so7774678lbi.15
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 12 May 2014 10:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.203.236 with SMTP id kt12mr13853804lac.8.1399914685593;
Mon, 12 May 2014 10:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.89.68 with HTTP; Mon, 12 May 2014 10:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1612758.yYdJV7lBXv@crushinator>
References: <CAAS2fgRWKWMkzqpQDXJGJYZPyb+vTnaRs3jOrzQ-zG5JJyqr1Q@mail.gmail.com>
<1612758.yYdJV7lBXv@crushinator>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 10:11:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQOOLKkXbc5FiXhabbew+xrYp7Cy6sQuNPQmg9DU-iyPg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1WjtlE-0006pL-9v
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Prenumbered BIP naming
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 17:11:33 -0000
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name> wro=
te:
> Why is there such a high bar to getting a number assigned to a BIP anyway=
? BIP 1 seems to suggest that getting a BIP number assigned is no big deal,=
but the reality seems to betray that casual notion. Even proposals with ho=
urs of work put into them are not getting BIP numbers. It's not exactly as =
though there's a shortage of integers. Are numbers assigned only to proposa=
ls that are well liked? Isn't the point of assigning numbers so that we can=
have organized discussions about all proposals, even ones we don't like?
It isn't a big deal, but according to the process numbers shouldn't be
assigned for things that haven't even been publically discussed. If
someone wants to create specifications that are purely the product of
they own work and not a public discussion=E2=80=94 they should feel free to=
do
that, but BIP isn't the process for that. So, since things need to be
discussed, it can be useful to have something to call a proposal
before other things happen=E2=80=94 thats all. The same kind of issue arise=
s
elsewhere.
|
