Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40C99CF8 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:45:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:08:36 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from science.musalbas.com (science.musalbas.com [195.154.112.130]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E56B416F for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:45:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.7.0.6] (unknown [10.7.0.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by science.musalbas.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D18376A09BC for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:37:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=musalbas.com; s=mail; t=1457570266; bh=gN+WcNHwW0pGO+sWa1uFuBa1AClZuvBIcf22SuDZqu4=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=C1+eO7QT9Y9N7v6Au0dwg8p7quCzC+a1499f/raVzd4CIlxdDMBOSZl696qJzDF77 +FDldwu4rllhNUFdA5NGySci/skO3xSm+jmGn8GPmpcJjnVfw+XoN2Wevgqho649UJ uz7E33En9+vyAmHtzS+DrPED2VXy24Jt6EXSHnR4= To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <201602012253.18009.luke@dashjr.org> From: Mustafa Al-Bassam Message-ID: <56E0C1DA.4090804@musalbas.com> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:37:46 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080008010804050303010408" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HTML_MESSAGE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 01:44:53 +0000 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:45:20 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080008010804050303010408 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It would be nice to decouple the venue, but even BIP 1 gives that control to whoever controls the mailing list: "Following a discussion, the proposal should be sent to the bitcoin-dev list and the BIP editor with the draft BIP." (BIP 1) A neater way to do it might be to replace references to the mailing list with "public discussion medium" where "medium" can be defined as something like any discussion forum frequented by the wider development community, like the pull requests section of the BIP repo, conferences, etc. On 02/02/16 15:58, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev > > 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. > > > > I like the more concrete definitions of the various statuses. > > I don't like the definition of "consensus". I think the definition > described gives too much centralized control to whoever controls the > mailing list and the wiki. > > -- > -- > Gavin Andresen > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --------------080008010804050303010408 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit It would be nice to decouple the venue, but even BIP 1 gives that control to whoever controls the mailing list: "Following a discussion, the proposal should be sent to the bitcoin-dev list and the BIP editor with the draft BIP." (BIP 1)

A neater way to do it might be to replace references to the mailing list with "public discussion medium" where "medium" can be defined as something like any discussion forum frequented by the wider development community, like the pull requests section of the BIP repo, conferences, etc.

On 02/02/16 15:58, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev wrote:
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 5:53 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.
 

I like the more concrete definitions of the various statuses.

I don't like the definition of "consensus".  I think the definition described gives too much centralized control to whoever controls the mailing list and the wiki.

--
--
Gavin Andresen



_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--------------080008010804050303010408--