Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A533C000B for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 11:34:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 160874047A for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 11:34:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=johnnewbery-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KVD0ESezQnuv for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 11:34:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-lj1-x231.google.com (mail-lj1-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::231]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A19040466 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 11:34:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lj1-x231.google.com with SMTP id b38so26621127ljf.5 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 04:34:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=johnnewbery-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=0qsDglacmcngKOffhuvbT111+47Y9QVt7yGNPVSpru4=; b=IWAQ4Bko2m6cuQZFBCv6yloCVGHZuzZqebVF3p8HOj3KhYRjuYRSZuULA9aj0rAFRV GY8JQtFjkafOjbKlvvUONe919wg4PR5HLwehq36zEgzn1++YK3HYoZpShGb/xYaUq9D9 kYgnuu9Y6nQh0EYUtR2cs3n7V93dOHMJfqny9ZeJu5No/Fa1uERGZ4AW6BOQH/msn0b2 6tSf611G56zlv3SQdfKZgFlqUTd6dWDOhXj5dkdAtI1Znm93GhXO6KQcbHqtmlqTeeei 1beC2g4+l1Hlyt7t8jXoNn9g5agK9AM5iflR9rnO8gy1TFFnbWKE/uuS9iafEgywTIlG Dj9A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=0qsDglacmcngKOffhuvbT111+47Y9QVt7yGNPVSpru4=; b=Dx/8r21Nw2SXeuBFPIpSPskXjGTksLbjO83gL+xANbMF+tQwhCg/RsUnnKnXWErYFe qv71VLdb7BPOTGuBuFnpAvdphP+8xqBM0rctmUdeq4/L7nwfnv1xYCzO6W/J3NxvidHw 6rs6thUsHaWfPMSiF0KPGhOqlm9zUhUtJbm9Tq/kHDCD3ScNLxWAH0CsYgjKPLc64fNv JAvX/W8IbOt3rL671xUt888uUZEfJZBX1XvPIrMZxAqRGNwlw6NAH2djBtJ0d65GJMSA dA6C8waJO3mVVz0K9U8qbq/+6Z6phslOQCA0xcRBl35eXyaJUCUIMYqsI9RnnwgX5HIn Uw8Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530bDSUqQGqniDzDJBZOrn9EP5dKd9DazMeuT+8GnVXJJEadWEYx NfbHUHwlij+/g08HoQjx/jAvTCsMKkaUDtb9 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyFNA3DsXyVTTHfs2sby58eulsAUL7PQpbmOdRUTC76oobvAXRG4q6lTZ+lyLtv6FYVCts8OA== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a3d2:: with SMTP id w18mr16097074lje.457.1619523239985; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 04:33:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf1-f46.google.com (mail-lf1-f46.google.com. [209.85.167.46]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w23sm1740454lfu.132.2021.04.27.04.33.59 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 27 Apr 2021 04:33:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-f46.google.com with SMTP id j4so53709646lfp.0 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 04:33:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a19:4185:: with SMTP id o127mr2912705lfa.301.1619523239113; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 04:33:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <202104230209.05373.luke@dashjr.org> <202104252100.07296.luke@dashjr.org> <40214e32-ffb3-9518-7bc8-9c1059f50da7@mattcorallo.com> <202104252122.40909.luke@dashjr.org> <248f871e-1b83-8c7c-678b-3ed0585a6357@mattcorallo.com> <20210426194309.2k5exujz23vjrgwc@ganymede> In-Reply-To: <20210426194309.2k5exujz23vjrgwc@ganymede> From: John Newbery Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 12:33:48 +0100 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005f77c105c0f2a35d" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 12:05:53 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Reminder on the Purpose of BIPs X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 11:34:06 -0000 --0000000000005f77c105c0f2a35d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" ACK. These seem like very reasonable next steps. On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 8:43 PM David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 05:31:50PM -0400, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > In general, I think its time we all agree the BIP process has simply > failed > > and move on. Luckily its not really all that critical and proposed > protocol > > documents can be placed nearly anywhere with the same effect. > > I recommend: > > 1. We add additional BIP editors, starting with Kalle Alm (if there are > no continuing significant objections). > > 2. We seek Luke Dashjr's resignation as BIPs editor. > > 3. We begin treating protocol documents outside the BIPs repository as > first-class BIP documentation. > > The first recommendation permits continued maintenance of existing BIPs > plus gives the additional maintainers an opportunity to rebuild the > credibility of the repository. > > The second recommendation addresses the dissatisfaction of many BIP > authors and potential authors with the current editor, which I think > will discourage many of them from making additional significant > contributions to the repository. It also seems to me to be a better use > of Luke's talents and interests for him to focus on protocol research > and review rather than procedurally checking whether a bunch of > documents are well formed. > > The third recommendation provides an escape hatch for anyone, such as > Matt, who currently thinks the process has failed, or for anyone who > comes to that same conclusion in the future under a different editing > team. My specific recommendations there are: > > a. Anyone writing protocol documentation in the spirit of the BIP > process can post their idea to this mailing list like we've always > done and, when they've finished collecting initial feedback, they can > assign themselves a unique decentralized identifier starting with > "bip-". They may also define a shorter alias that they encourage > people to use in cases where the correct document can be inferred > from context. E.g., > > bip-wuille-taproot (bip-taproot) > bip-towns-versionbits-min-activation-height (bip-vbmah) > bip-todd-harding-opt-in-replace-by-fee (bip-opt-in-rbf) > > b. The author then publishes the document to any place they'd like, > although > they are strongly encouraged to make any document source available > under an open license to ensure others can create their own > modifications. > > c. Implementations of BIPs, whether original repository BIPs or > decentralized BIPs, link to the BIPs they implement to ensure > researchers and developers can find the relevant protocol > documentation. E.g., > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/fe5e495c31de47b0ec732b943db11fe345d874af/doc/bips.md > > (It may also be advisable for implementations to mirror copies of > the BIPs they implement so later modifications to the document > don't confuse anyone. For this reason, extremely liberal > licensing of BIP documents is encouraged.) > > d. To help maintain quality and consistency between documentation, the > BIP editors provide a BIP document template, guidelines similar to > the existing BIP2, and an easy-to-run format linter. > > I think this decentralized BIPs alternative also helps address some > longstanding problems with the BIPs system: that many casual Bitcoin > users and developers think of documents in the BIPs repo as > authoritative and that there are some development teams (such as for LN) > that have already abandoned the BIPs process because, in part, they want > complete control over their own documentation. > > The recommendations above were developed based on conversations I had > with a few stakeholders in the BIPs process, but I did not attempt a > comprehensive survey and I certainly don't claim to speak for anyone > else. I hope the recommendations are satisfactory and I look forward to > your feedback. > > Thanks, > > -Dave > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --0000000000005f77c105c0f2a35d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
ACK. These seem like very reasonable= next=C2=A0steps.

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 8:43 PM David A. Harding via= bitcoin-dev <b= itcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 05:31:50PM -040= 0, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> In general, I think its time we all agree the BIP process has simply f= ailed
> and move on. Luckily its not really all that critical and proposed pro= tocol
> documents can be placed nearly anywhere with the same effect.

I recommend:

1. We add additional BIP editors, starting with Kalle Alm (if there are
=C2=A0 =C2=A0no continuing significant objections).

2. We seek Luke Dashjr's resignation as BIPs editor.

3. We begin treating protocol documents outside the BIPs repository as
=C2=A0 =C2=A0first-class BIP documentation.

The first recommendation permits continued maintenance of existing BIPs
plus gives the additional maintainers an opportunity to rebuild the
credibility of the repository.

The second recommendation addresses the dissatisfaction of many BIP
authors and potential authors with the current editor, which I think
will discourage many of them from making additional significant
contributions to the repository.=C2=A0 It also seems to me to be a better u= se
of Luke's talents and interests for him to focus on protocol research and review rather than procedurally checking whether a bunch of
documents are well formed.

The third recommendation provides an escape hatch for anyone, such as
Matt, who currently thinks the process has failed, or for anyone who
comes to that same conclusion in the future under a different editing
team.=C2=A0 My specific recommendations there are:

a. Anyone writing protocol documentation in the spirit of the BIP
=C2=A0 =C2=A0process can post their idea to this mailing list like we'v= e always
=C2=A0 =C2=A0done and, when they've finished collecting initial feedbac= k, they can
=C2=A0 =C2=A0assign themselves a unique decentralized identifier starting w= ith
=C2=A0 =C2=A0"bip-".=C2=A0 They may also define a shorter alias t= hat they encourage
=C2=A0 =C2=A0people to use in cases where the correct document can be infer= red
=C2=A0 =C2=A0from context.=C2=A0 E.g.,

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 bip-wuille-taproot (bip-taproot)
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 bip-towns-versionbits-min-activation-height (bip-vbmah= )
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 bip-todd-harding-opt-in-replace-by-fee (bip-opt-in-rbf= )

b. The author then publishes the document to any place they'd like, alt= hough
=C2=A0 =C2=A0they are strongly encouraged to make any document source avail= able
=C2=A0 =C2=A0under an open license to ensure others can create their own =C2=A0 =C2=A0modifications.

c. Implementations of BIPs, whether original repository BIPs or
=C2=A0 =C2=A0decentralized BIPs, link to the BIPs they implement to ensure<= br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0researchers and developers can find the relevant protocol
=C2=A0 =C2=A0documentation.=C2=A0 E.g.,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/fe5e495c31de47b0ec732b943db11f= e345d874af/doc/bips.md

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0(It may also be advisable for implementations to mirror= copies of
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0the BIPs they implement so later modifications to the d= ocument
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0don't confuse anyone.=C2=A0 For this reason, extrem= ely liberal
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0licensing of BIP documents is encouraged.)

d. To help maintain quality and consistency between documentation, the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0BIP editors provide a BIP document template, guidelines simila= r to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0the existing BIP2, and an easy-to-run format linter.

I think this decentralized BIPs alternative also helps address some
longstanding problems with the BIPs system: that many casual Bitcoin
users and developers think of documents in the BIPs repo as
authoritative and that there are some development teams (such as for LN) that have already abandoned the BIPs process because, in part, they want complete control over their own documentation.=C2=A0

The recommendations above were developed based on conversations I had
with a few stakeholders in the BIPs process, but I did not attempt a
comprehensive survey and I certainly don't claim to speak for anyone else.=C2=A0 I hope the recommendations are satisfactory and I look forward = to
your feedback.

Thanks,

-Dave
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--0000000000005f77c105c0f2a35d--