Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A435C000B for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 09:04:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F028F40412 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 09:04:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pFP0C42OPzis for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 09:04:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-40133.protonmail.ch (mail-40133.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.133]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B94B0402A5 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 09:04:36 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 09:04:18 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail; t=1619514273; bh=4wY8w16rGNDy9S772tBuuJSy+ApUg5NUjlUxg5Zf1Fo=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ic6RHQD3vX9YFh7Ll+zTSmagq+cOd13XIdiCRQzxWdBFaUvDgJiqSyXahQLMC6fPQ 1vLPvJsd42dhWpv1wCu30/gmo+kSQeuVxnl7SOK+b9+LSemCp0LbiIFiOKkASbGT78 cRLRMOyAJoargNiETZjdPWwMIfP4xNBdeeitKT2s= To: "David A. Harding" , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion From: "W. J. van der Laan" Reply-To: "W. J. van der Laan" Message-ID: <773C1Ki5dlSNlxD3HK0eJDKHQ9Ikb5vwuKPZ3dkgEPqUmPGN6DrpLv47LNITHOlu7XWzmIpAmgw24noihYJ5lI5Qhmg7yIlboGQsfAowFCw=@protonmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20210426194309.2k5exujz23vjrgwc@ganymede> 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 10:28:38 +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 09:04:40 -0000 On Monday, April 26th, 2021 at 9:43 PM, David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 05:31:50PM -0400, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wr= ote: > > > In general, I think its time we all agree the BIP process has simply fa= iled > > > > and move on. Luckily its not really all that critical and proposed prot= ocol > > > > documents can be placed nearly anywhere with the same effect. > I like the idea of decentralizing the BIPs process. It is a historical arti= fact that the bips repository is part of the same organization that bitcoin= core is part of. But there shouldn't be the perception that standardizatio= n is driven by that, or that there is any kind of (non-trivial) gatekeeping= . I understand where this perception is coming from, though. There being 111 = PRs open at https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pulls indicates that there is s= ome kind of bottleneck. I hope adding more BIP editors can mitigate this so= mewhat. Though it also happens that the BIP author simply don't care about changes = anymore and doesn't respond, in which case the PR lingers without any fault= from the BIPs maintainer. So something is to be said of having the BIP rep= ository mirror/aggregate author's own work trees, and changes needing to be= proposed there instead of "upstream". -W