MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <201709271856.27376.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <201709271856.27376.luke@dashjr.org>
From: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 14:01:40 -0500
Message-ID: <CABaSBaz=pMfTz2UF-WpyxrkGY9XZO+zTHR7-Oie79J1Ap10hpQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113cea56160912055a306c63"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Revising BIP 2 to expand editorial authority
Precedence: list

--001a113cea56160912055a306c63
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> What do people think about modifying BIP 2 to allow editors to merge these
> kinds of changes without involving the Authors? Strictly speaking, BIP 2
> shouldn't be changed now that it is Active, but for such a minor revision,
> I
> think an exception is reasonable.
>

Even minor revisions can not change the meaning of text. Changing a single
word can often have a strange impact on the meaning of the text. There
should be some amount of care exercised here. Maybe it would be okay as
long as edits are mentioned in the changelog at the bottom of each
document, or mention that the primary authors have not reviewed suggested
changes, or something as much; otherwise the reader might not be aware to
check revision history to see what's going on.

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507

--001a113cea56160912055a306c63
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On W=
ed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">=
&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_bla=
nk">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockqu=
ote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc s=
olid;padding-left:1ex">What do people think about modifying BIP 2 to allow =
editors to merge these<br>
kinds of changes without involving the Authors? Strictly speaking, BIP 2<br=
>
shouldn&#39;t be changed now that it is Active, but for such a minor revisi=
on, I<br>
think an exception is reasonable.<br></blockquote><div><br>Even minor revis=
ions can not change the meaning of text. Changing a single word can often h=
ave a strange impact on the meaning of the text. There should be some amoun=
t of care exercised here. Maybe it would be okay as long as edits are menti=
oned in the changelog at the bottom of each document, or mention that the p=
rimary authors have not reviewed suggested changes, or something as much; o=
therwise the reader might not be aware to check revision history to see wha=
t&#39;s going on.<br><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_signature" data-sm=
artmail=3D"gmail_signature">- Bryan<br><a href=3D"http://heybryan.org/" tar=
get=3D"_blank">http://heybryan.org/</a><br>1 512 203 0507</div>
</div></div>

--001a113cea56160912055a306c63--