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
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
|
Return-Path: <dscotese@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48B11F68
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 2 Feb 2016 05:50:31 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com (mail-ob0-f174.google.com
[209.85.214.174])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7185563
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 2 Feb 2016 05:50:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ob0-f174.google.com with SMTP id is5so140318194obc.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 01 Feb 2016 21:50:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=5/fj5nc55XYhMqGMxqoxMxjfSDQO69fntko7QOerVm0=;
b=DVUOtHsVu5LYBULL13e3CwRUXLEeKV5KcPG3Qh7CF2ghJICGhn2+EEKyKetTgrvyt2
vxubCsIkDjooQGvZaaCIZqV+IrZ3rT5mexVaK95o3SiS9M5reKR+ApY+xbZVd5GvkD6P
YlTha+fdqPdDtu8GRCd2gfIECFsjQ/ffSjgseUQa2scn6qtp25XXcxclbN2M0KAP267Q
Uo3g74BJSyHegvaSY97fN/DsXplKwtwrNnWgZW0WxN2xGUuEhKWdD2pwdS+n060L43pM
Jb0A3f3q4ZTeQWx76CLdHsjIVmXTmfzaBBfMFEDdREiDx4fzKZt587anNzOxXArMxh+h
W4uA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=5/fj5nc55XYhMqGMxqoxMxjfSDQO69fntko7QOerVm0=;
b=J1Em5Wka7Sz9RiZuoDCL4wOJ1/cGQf+NrA+Hh+8hdpKIV7FmEdCmeGFVchf2KMZni0
zY9/6hvidG1CY2KSnziRIDSpVDj42OoOewPCwQx54mzq+EmwRtC1zV3WNYLCUYns+MFj
CCYhK+tBjz+UfMFb0BvXlApGdhYUIjndWqKaz2NjqIsGGMlUPcn+aoj+06N4VyiR4OC2
TP19gPaDTzEcG8EtIqA+SoQlQhQae13ZNZdeTXSfuuHHEhI8HGC07vWsLdGpF37S/Y2Q
bZHuUGI/2EruGLsLAq5iknNSKO5KHBrUeYhPHEZ2B9iRB9Gqq3dz1Jo2eKK4oZcTKG3A
kKog==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORMoOvcR7Rq7anqPciM6bq0AkNzki6iUkuP5RaYUjouiwVj3c9EghWkm0lHWwW3pkMlyUT8BgRH3omodw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.214.40 with SMTP id nx8mr22210102obc.20.1454392229775;
Mon, 01 Feb 2016 21:50:29 -0800 (PST)
Sender: dscotese@gmail.com
Received: by 10.60.55.71 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Feb 2016 21:50:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <201602012253.18009.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <201602012253.18009.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 21:50:29 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: pYwciCa4vKNtUqfVtX-L34G_5Kg
Message-ID: <CAGLBAhffm+1m=DAph-ac8mA9ytLpKqTT45XG1r6UFGFoUvJ+PA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Scotese <dscotese@litmocracy.com>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff1c01e3851e6052ac314ff
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,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
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 14:27:32 +0000
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 05:50:31 -0000
--e89a8ff1c01e3851e6052ac314ff
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
The section that starts "Should two software projects need to release"
addresses issues that are difficult to ascertain from what is written
there. I'll take a stab at what it means:
Would bitcoin be better off if multiple applications provided their own
implementations of API/RPC and corresponding application layer BIPs?
- While there is only one such application, its UI will be the obvious
standard and confusion in usability will be avoided.
- Any more than a single such application will benefit from the
coordination encouraged and aided by this BIP and BIP 123.
"To avoid doubt: comments and status are unrelated metrics to judge a BIP,
and neither should be directly influencing the other." makes more sense to
me as "To avoid doubt: comments and status are intended to be unrelated
metrics. Any influence of one over the other indicates a deviation from
their intended use." This can be expanded with a simple example: "In other
words, a BIP having the status 'Rejected' is no reason not to write
additional comments about it. Likewise, overwhelming support for a BIP in
its comments section doesn't change the requirements for the 'Accepted' or
'Active' status."
Since the Bitcoin Wiki can be updated with comments from other places, I
think the author of a BIP should be allowed to specify other Internet
locations for comments. So "link to a Bitcoin Wiki page" could instead be
"link to a comments page (strongly recommended to be in the Bitcoin
Wiki)". Also, under "Will BIP comments be censored or limited to
particular participants/"experts"?" You could add:
- The author of a BIP may indicate any commenting URL they wish. The
Bitcoin Wiki is merely a recommendation, though a very strong one.
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I've completed an initial draft of a BIP that provides clarifications on
> the
> Status field for BIPs, as well as adding the ability for public comments on
> them, and expanding the list of allowable BIP licenses.
>
>
> https://github.com/luke-jr/bips/blob/bip-biprevised/bip-biprevised.mediawiki
>
> I plan to open discussion of making this BIP an Active status (along with
> BIP
> 123) a month after initial revisions have completed. Please provide any
> objections now, so I can try to address them now and enable consensus to be
> reached.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Luke
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
--
I like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do you need a
techie?
I own Litmocracy <http://www.litmocracy.com> and Meme Racing
<http://www.memeracing.net> (in alpha).
I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist <http://www.voluntaryist.com> which
now accepts Bitcoin.
I also code for The Dollar Vigilante <http://dollarvigilante.com/>.
"He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" - Satoshi
Nakamoto
--e89a8ff1c01e3851e6052ac314ff
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>The section that starts "Should two software pro=
jects need to release" addresses issues that are difficult to ascertai=
n from what is written there.=C2=A0 I'll take a stab at what it means:<=
br><br></div>Would bitcoin be better off if multiple applications provided =
their own implementations of API/RPC and corresponding application layer BI=
Ps?<br><ul><li>While there is only one such application, its UI will be the=
obvious standard and confusion in usability will be avoided.</li><li>Any m=
ore than a single such application will benefit from the coordination encou=
raged and aided by this BIP and BIP 123.</li></ul><p>"To avoid doubt: =
comments and status are unrelated metrics to judge a BIP, and neither shoul=
d be directly influencing the other." makes more sense to me as "=
To avoid doubt: comments and status are intended to be unrelated metrics. A=
ny influence of one over the other indicates a deviation from their intende=
d use."=C2=A0 This can be expanded with a simple example: "In oth=
er words, a BIP having=C2=A0 the status 'Rejected' is no reason not=
to write additional comments about it.=C2=A0 Likewise, overwhelming suppor=
t for a BIP in its comments section doesn't change the requirements for=
the 'Accepted' or 'Active' status."</p><p>Since the B=
itcoin Wiki can be updated with comments from other places, I think the aut=
hor of a BIP should be allowed to specify other Internet locations for comm=
ents.=C2=A0 So "link to a Bitcoin Wiki page" could instead be &qu=
ot;link to a comments page (strongly recommended to be in the Bitcoin Wiki)=
".=C2=A0 Also, under "Will BIP comments be censored or limited to=
particular participants/"experts"?" You could add:</p><ul><=
li>The author of a BIP may indicate any commenting URL they wish.=C2=A0 The=
Bitcoin Wiki is merely a recommendation, though a very strong one.<br></li=
></ul></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mo=
n, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank=
">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquot=
e class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc sol=
id;padding-left:1ex">I've completed an initial draft of a BIP that prov=
ides clarifications on the<br>
Status field for BIPs, as well as adding the ability for public comments on=
<br>
them, and expanding the list of allowable BIP licenses.<br>
<br>
<a href=3D"https://github.com/luke-jr/bips/blob/bip-biprevised/bip-biprevis=
ed.mediawiki" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/luke-=
jr/bips/blob/bip-biprevised/bip-biprevised.mediawiki</a><br>
<br>
I plan to open discussion of making this BIP an Active status (along with B=
IP<br>
123) a month after initial revisions have completed. Please provide any<br>
objections now, so I can try to address them now and enable consensus to be=
<br>
reached.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Luke<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail_sig=
nature"><div dir=3D"ltr">I like to provide some work at no charge to prove =
my value. Do you need a techie?=C2=A0 <br>I own <a href=3D"http://www.litmo=
cracy.com" target=3D"_blank">Litmocracy</a> and <a href=3D"http://www.memer=
acing.net" target=3D"_blank">Meme Racing</a> (in alpha). <br>I'm the we=
bmaster for <a href=3D"http://www.voluntaryist.com" target=3D"_blank">The V=
oluntaryist</a> which now accepts Bitcoin.<br>I also code for <a href=3D"ht=
tp://dollarvigilante.com/" target=3D"_blank">The Dollar Vigilante</a>.<br>&=
quot;He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" - Satos=
hi Nakamoto</div></div>
</div>
--e89a8ff1c01e3851e6052ac314ff--
|
