Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05D63A70 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 21:01:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f173.google.com (mail-ig0-f173.google.com [209.85.213.173]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2972194 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 21:01:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igfj19 with SMTP id j19so65957027igf.1 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 14:01:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=P8HD5FwCNiTagbWjWmaQoEVa4nVxXEmZhh61HDfC5qU=; b=uOoceQuD9FF85oXmbN52CwTTGirky7DpGxaexbZWNrfeGDcLpCUmgRh7p3kU81lozO benPMug//ndWPO0KpH3Ac9dLfDDN6JMgcjktlaFQefSrLhBKcMSPIqKkuZqOZT1jbXxI PZ8nx73AeUCOAxh8H2XtdXpB83O2ydDX/K09oh0hPqVUU25mDhCdlZtLiHFPEU0unjTh fmXNP6qDdciwJxEy6FZts2Y+5SfrNhwLXdoAb0Z4L2OihETvVpPGB1BpUqX2TqorU8qZ pkvJHcpQgrVXyHPt1lh0Sr/NUKZBRJEI0rQacXaSzKbUUn/icmH+RM/CP851EuGYbOlm h7sw== X-Received: by 10.50.110.72 with SMTP id hy8mr15842927igb.36.1440450095433; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 14:01:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Eric Lombrozo Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 21:01:26 +0000 Message-ID: To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011849d4415061051e14ecd2 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: [bitcoin-dev] Splitting BIPs 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: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 21:01:37 -0000 --089e011849d4415061051e14ecd2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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. --089e011849d4415061051e14ecd2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


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 p= rioritize, I propose adding an extra attribute to BIPs indicating their &qu= ot;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 her= e: http://blockha= wk.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.

--089e011849d4415061051e14ecd2--