1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
|
Return-Path: <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7A5BC000B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 25 Apr 2021 20:29:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTP id 9AE20402D6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 25 Apr 2021 20:29:48 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.801 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7,
SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mattcorallo.com
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with UTF8SMTP id 9ntK_KBHiiM4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 25 Apr 2021 20:29:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail.as397444.net (mail.as397444.net [69.59.18.99])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPS id 2C0704024A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 25 Apr 2021 20:29:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail.as397444.net (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPSA id B944A553445;
Sun, 25 Apr 2021 20:29:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-DKIM-Note: Keys used to sign are likely public at https://as397444.net/dkim/
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mattcorallo.com;
s=1619380864; t=1619382584;
bh=aq6wgBPOF9jdIyV8fwT18pYDYtmDUXwGtZydFhwbvM8=;
h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From;
b=krINmZh4A3eG4OCQEco5Py9R/P03GJCrqMOgfRN/rgfPLEzdUcbmZPNo9CIZTV7SS
ZwX6y2KoJSB5R/0oB4NXuTvI6lHw8sXBgc/E88Yu36ceHw8CloTELbd6VFSpwfOCVm
goi2AqItqmBk3KLbEfvuwd5QVC1X4suSFCQ59/5XO81LYpjM8reiySwkdEzhqTaDku
U5FjyX03mde9dAS2ZA9W9lazrKDdLTukr/ysIC6jWITSCfQ3bP7mG6TsfoUY73QaLo
6RlXxvBbXc5AH4quW22Q+d6JwrdDbUGH7EMDwjetwHGYgqEnX9mwKFfnqZjyYo4o1B
ssKk8hOm/UEvg==
Message-ID: <64807e52-14ea-198b-4caf-29be92e89655@mattcorallo.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2021 16:29:44 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Antoine Riard <antoine.riard@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>, Karl-Johan Alm <karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp>
References: <202104230209.05373.luke@dashjr.org>
<CALZpt+Hz3jFnA8z1w6yictdHWnnKReMK+6eEHg_jUZ7==xNZzQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALZpt+Hz3jFnA8z1w6yictdHWnnKReMK+6eEHg_jUZ7==xNZzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [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 <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: Sun, 25 Apr 2021 20:29:48 -0000
There appears to be some severe lack of understanding of the point of the BIP process here.
The BIP process exists to be a place for those in the Bitcoin development community (which includes anyone who wishes to
participate in it!) to place specifications which may be important for others in the Bitcoin development community to
see, to ensure interoperability.
It does not, should not, and has never existed to take any positions on...anything. It has always existed to allow those
who wish to participate in the Bitcoin development community to publish proposed standards or deployed protocols, in
whatever form the authors of the BIPs seem fit.
If anyone suggests changes with a BIP's proposed form in a way the original author does not agree with, they have always
been free to, and should simply create a new BIP with their proposed form.
The BIP editor's role has always been, and should continue to be, to encourage BIP authors to respond to (either by
dismissing or accepting) feedback on their BIPs, and encourage formatting in a standard form. The BIP editor's role has
never included, and should not include, taking a stance on substantive changes to a BIP's contents - those are up to the
author(s) of a BIP, and always have been.
If the BIP editor is deliberately refusing to accept changes which the author's approval (which appears to be occurring
here), the broader development community (us) should either remove the BIP editor and replace them, or simply ignore the
BIP repository entirely (which seems like the most likely outcome here). There really should be no debate over this
point, and I'm not entirely sure why anyone would think there should be.
Luckily BIPs aren't really all that critical in this instance - they exist to communicate protocols for
interoperability, and in this case the protocol changes as proposed have been broadly communicated already.
Still, given the apparent lack of desire to remove the BIP editor in this case, I'd suggest we all move on and simply
ignore the BIP repository entirely. Simply sending notices of protocol systems to this mailing list is likely sufficient.
Matt
On 4/23/21 11:34, Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Hi Luke,
>
> For the records and the subscribers of this list not following #bitcoin-core-dev, this mail follows a discussion which
> did happen during yesterday irc meetings.
> Logs here : http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/2021-04-22.log <http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/2021-04-22.log>
>
> I'll reiterate my opinion expressed during the meeting. If this proposal to extend the bip editorship membership doesn't
> satisfy parties involved or anyone in the community, I'm strongly opposed to have the matter sliced by admins of the
> Bitcoin github org. I believe that defect or uncertainty in the BIP Process shouldn't be solved by GH janitorial roles
> and I think their roles don't bestow to intervene in case of loopholes. Further, you have far more contributors involved
> in the BIP Process rather than only Bitcoin Core ones. FWIW, such precedent merits would be quite similar to lobby
> directly GH staff...
>
> Unless we harm Bitcoin users by not acting, I think we should always be respectful of procedural forms. And in the lack
> of such forms, stay patient until a solution satisfy everyone.
>
> I would recommend the BIP editorship, once extended or not, to move in its own repository in the future.
>
> Cheers,
> Antoine
>
>
>
>
> Le jeu. 22 avr. 2021 à 22:09, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> a écrit :
>
> Unless there are objections, I intend to add Kalle Alm as a BIP editor to
> assist in merging PRs into the bips git repo.
>
> Since there is no explicit process to adding BIP editors, IMO it should be
> fine to use BIP 2's Process BIP progression:
>
> > A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it achieves
> > rough consensus on the mailing list. Such a proposal is said to have
> > rough consensus if it has been open to discussion on the development
> > mailing list for at least one month, and no person maintains any
> > unaddressed substantiated objections to it.
>
> A Process BIP could be opened for each new editor, but IMO that is
> unnecessary. If anyone feels there is a need for a new Process BIP, we can go
> that route, but there is prior precedent for BIP editors appointing new BIP
> editors, so I think this should be fine.
>
> Please speak up soon if you disagree.
>
> Luke
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
|
