summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/c7/4d64a9bf87e7c538e836083e68922cdef63c54
blob: 08f1914c97bcf9a78c24aa7219ab347aa431e8c8 (plain)
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
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 DF19DD76
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 24 Sep 2016 06:36:14 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (unknown [192.3.11.21])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65A80117
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 24 Sep 2016 06:36:14 +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 206D338AB765
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Sat, 24 Sep 2016 06:36:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160924:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::XXwNjKR6Ia2YSzCT:aDpa6
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 06:36:00 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.4.21-gentoo; KDE/4.14.24; x86_64; ; )
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="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201609240636.01968.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_DYNAMIC
	autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 revival and rework
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 06:36:15 -0000

I've revived BIP 2 (from Deferred Status) and given it some updates. Most 
notably, I have reworked it to be a *replacement* for BIP 1 rather than an 
addendum.

https://github.com/luke-jr/bips/blob/bip0002_squash/bip-0002.mediawiki

Please review it. If things go well, hopefully we can get this done by 
Christmas. ;)

Other recent changes include:
* OPL will no longer be an acceptable license. Many in the community feel that 
prohibiting publication is unacceptable for BIPs, and I haven't heard any 
arguments in favour of allowing it.
* Accepted Status has been renamed to Proposed. The name "Accepted" seems a 
constant source of confusion since it requires only action from the author.
* Non-image auxiliary files are permitted in the bip-XXXX subdirectory. This 
was already the norm despite BIP 1.
* Email addresses are now required for authors. The Travis script has been 
enforcing this for months now already.
* The Post-History header may be provided as a link instead of a simple date. 
A few BIPs were already doing this.
* Markdown format is no longer permitted for BIPs. I don't see the point in 
allowing multiple formats, and so far we've been fine with just MediaWiki.
* The Resolution header has been dropped, as it is not applicable to a 
decentralised system where no authority exists to make final decisions.

Other changes already in the previous draft of BIP 2:
* An implementation is now required (when applicable) before BIPs can proceed 
to Proposed Status.
* BIP Comments are newly introduced.
* The License preamble headers have been added.

Thanks,

Luke