Return-Path: <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 599989E7
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:26:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f171.google.com (mail-io0-f171.google.com
	[209.85.223.171])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7959188
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:26:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by iodb91 with SMTP id b91so166802294iod.1
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Mon, 24 Aug 2015 16:26:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
	:content-type; bh=ebcF4m7TNRbv2mrIir7ndDUI0lSxlqjeH6vxaVQA0NA=;
	b=QZprnxsaQ+tKuREQg3GtccHOzJI8z607lHDQZvcBM0wFzl8h0cjJIsm28qnUHgbamB
	z33zwSSCVfN8um7hQPUOuF7zOz6kULa03q718NiWTEs33YNvUaYYrP4O3cMj0QVwKPIz
	+NBIHodguuBdk5LK39Xc/mxL8+wQEL7RdoW2DwW+7xzU2L3k5P5H6rsO9890A0cBOHPX
	bSwNnwp5dErAA9WefZgTUaxhWipzdFOStLV0lfYeVxrC8JrQN4WJ5z6dPT2a6Zqg1KRH
	HlwHcW9/xlP2Rq6Wyrr4Gd4ZUZ0xn1FDYoZ6teipZYscxbwahldgB3sFkJuO1V9LnTL6
	q7KQ==
X-Received: by 10.107.129.160 with SMTP id l32mr19232252ioi.158.1440458766406; 
	Mon, 24 Aug 2015 16:26:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABr1YTcoWesaBJaT--bbUUN-c2phc-=3ieWT7vVDNPGg0iHH2g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABr1YTcoWesaBJaT--bbUUN-c2phc-=3ieWT7vVDNPGg0iHH2g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:25:54 +0000
Message-ID: <CABr1YTc=aXS4V8gO3cmKrrinFv5BO-3Dpo+TRmSWcd-ed=JdLA@mail.gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ec3a615dcb8051e16f1ac
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Splitting BIPs
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: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:26:07 -0000

--001a113ec3a615dcb8051e16f1ac
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Also, the current "type" attribute needs modification. There are different
degrees of "standard". Just because a lot of people do X doesn't need to
mean that doing X is "officially" endorsed by any other devs. At most
levels below 1, disagreements might be entirely tolerable for many things.

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 2:06 PM Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Seems like a lot of effort and goodwill is being wasted on contention over
> things we don't really need to agree upon. In order to help us better
> prioritize, I propose adding an extra attribute to BIPs indicating their
> "level" which is split into five as follows:
>
> 1. Consensus (hard/soft fork)
> 2. Peer Services
> 3. RPC
> 4. Implementations
> 5. Applications
>
> I posted an example of what such a table might look like here: http://
> blockhawk.net/bitcoin-dev/bipwiki.html
>
> If other folks also think this is a good idea I'll start working on a BIP
> draft for this.
>

--001a113ec3a615dcb8051e16f1ac
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr">Also, the current &quot;type&quot; attribute needs modificat=
ion. There are different degrees of &quot;standard&quot;. Just because a lo=
t of people do X doesn&#39;t need to mean that doing X is &quot;officially&=
quot; endorsed by any other devs. At most levels below 1, disagreements mig=
ht be entirely tolerable for many things.<br>
</p>
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr">On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 2:06 =
PM=C2=A0Eric Lombrozo &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:elombrozo@gmail.com">elombrozo@=
gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir=
=3D"ltr"><br>
Seems like a lot of effort and goodwill is being wasted on contention over =
things we don&#39;t really need to agree upon. In order to help us better p=
rioritize, I propose adding an extra attribute to BIPs indicating their &qu=
ot;level&quot; which is split into five as follows:</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">1. Consensus (hard/soft fork)<br>
2. Peer Services<br>
3. RPC<br>
4. Implementations<br>
5. Applications</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I posted an example of what such a table might look like her=
e: http://<a href=3D"http://blockhawk.net/bitcoin-dev/bipwiki.html" target=
=3D"_blank">blockhawk.net/bitcoin-dev/bipwiki.html</a></p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">If other folks also think this is a good idea I&#39;ll start=
 working on a BIP draft for this.</p>
</blockquote></div>

--001a113ec3a615dcb8051e16f1ac--