MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rgrant@rgrant.org
In-Reply-To: <201602040415.47580.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <201602012253.18009.luke@dashjr.org>
	<201602040415.47580.luke@dashjr.org>
From: Ryan Grant <bitcoin-dev@rgrant.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 13:45:38 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMnpzfqVhfFimvX0zU-SCcEL8JGzjnWu8D3v_Ph4kbeGtr8r=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process: Status, comments,
	and copyright licenses
Precedence: list

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:15 AM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Various changes have been made based on initial input.
> Further review and re-review is of course welcome.

These recent edits definitely guide us towards less hard feelings when
comments are offered, without excessive policy structure.

[BIP 2:]
> A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it
> achieves rough consensus on the mailing list.

Is this mix of wiki and mailing list intentional?  If so, the wiki
talk page is meant to be a self-curated permanent record of support
and dissent, but second-order reply commentary might fall either on
the wiki or the mailing list?

Mediawiki offers watchlists on a polling model, and there is some
email support [1], but it would be nice of a BIP author to at least
gather new/edited comment titles and report them to bitcoin-dev once a
week, during review.  Someone has to stare at the diffs.

  [1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Page_change_notification

BIP 2 should ask that all current and future forums that BIP authors
might choose for review have indisputable records of moderation and
user edits.

Is dump.bitcoin.it a sufficient public record of contentious
moderation or user cross-comment editing?  It seems like as long as
the wiki as a whole is verifiable, it would suffice.