Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D56BFE73 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 17:46:09 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-yw0-f174.google.com (mail-yw0-f174.google.com [209.85.161.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B01A144 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 17:46:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-f174.google.com with SMTP id g127so31146745ywf.2 for ; Thu, 04 Feb 2016 09:46:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rgrant-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=t+aAcRcjNGMQaMxAycSOOhAv3tr7u+3lTB5TQ9YQs+w=; b=KjOQPolDvcD5W178bpSNSwes35uGs2ZxHApZtMfqlpKjwqz2QMm89Nkt9QXoZih6/L 2D/1X/T0voC1gOyj1SmtU3ZnQCBms80ytec0Tt+Z4vMUgga9QRC7tCIyIWyewF4dv5Z7 EiifbZfP+JY+OV6hUW0TOJ9hEHU/gkt63hU/Ow0d30fzgIYuAGbFyRkIwHAb14cWVgUu oWzVUOy84CUyK7X7NQVG8fA5Su2NS3897LkpPuvWl10GKHe4lThpLDFkQJpTDopMLEHH QRwvbOXQzof4bJvJVUzJ8gz2+pN5utaCvmco6hHsWEpFuFspJfdB09uftthLaZj2DbGZ jiNQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=t+aAcRcjNGMQaMxAycSOOhAv3tr7u+3lTB5TQ9YQs+w=; b=BdWEXXSsNNgAlimXytQffwX97h74Lh4Kqevj+DFwx/gvGcutRe992N3Mw0HSeBYm47 jFGkpvcLZf1/opZUf3hfLskL5yhO9SfrXHQrvkok30pz4zLlE6A3i7xWPkftTOZ1RGVg tnjePQ/hEIsiN9xYKUQc7m+7ajT0YFGLuqt5Krhr1nN9DHqrRtv17c+rV7/eXBY2LmSD XGgzTiLZjpug7QbMBtYMwfpJFh+AI5u/VWFBBaTaWRIzz/dI2UbhsVtL16zQRCHHTJQl h6cj6kOfjmMbkruD4iK1QGeffRvycOfvNJq9BCHeMH2zxR89aiYFtj51JyaP1GQRRBGT 1eqw== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQUVoJdI6KPGaAPvMW1+VlNiZjEdGyObA9JPlN0HFYuAu0NAZvi/RRniNv/BhStM7x5UrkM2SH95hyvIg== X-Received: by 10.129.108.75 with SMTP id h72mr4314753ywc.299.1454607968559; Thu, 04 Feb 2016 09:46:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: rgrant@rgrant.org Received: by 10.37.44.72 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 09:45:38 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201602040415.47580.luke@dashjr.org> References: <201602012253.18009.luke@dashjr.org> <201602040415.47580.luke@dashjr.org> From: Ryan Grant Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 13:45:38 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5v4RdXWCyAzW3Jpk3ajCqUzAvK0 Message-ID: To: Luke Dashjr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID 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, 04 Feb 2016 17:48:38 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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, 04 Feb 2016 17:46:10 -0000 On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:15 AM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev 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.