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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1Z5c1j-0002D1-JC
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:46:51 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.212.176 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.212.176; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wi0-f176.google.com;
Received: from mail-wi0-f176.google.com ([209.85.212.176])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z5c1i-0003kU-Qs
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:46:51 +0000
Received: by wicnd19 with SMTP id nd19so64746112wic.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 18 Jun 2015 08:46:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.180.75.78 with SMTP id a14mr3877826wiw.68.1434642404824;
Thu, 18 Jun 2015 08:46:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from amethyst.visucore.com (dhcp-089-098-228-253.chello.nl.
[89.98.228.253])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id o6sm32003551wiz.24.2015.06.18.08.46.43
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
Thu, 18 Jun 2015 08:46:43 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 17:46:42 +0200
From: "Wladimir J. van der Laan" <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info>, g@amethyst.visucore.com
Message-ID: <20150618154640.GA7840@amethyst.visucore.com>
References: <55828737.6000007@riseup.net>
<CANEZrP3M7+BsZKLFZV-0A_fC7NmMGbTDxsx3ywru3dSW78ZskQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20150618111407.GA6690@amethyst.visucore.com>
<CANEZrP2iMXeL-5zyE2cvoyNRakhZbQfLXORZ2AhqEATQE-KjAQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAOG=w-sWimZTJe=4gCvC5R7SAEK+Nvo-hZtM7xC-bBQd0pG3mw@mail.gmail.com>
<5582E3FE.7010206@bitcoins.info>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5582E3FE.7010206@bitcoins.info>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(laanwj[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
0.3 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1Z5c1i-0003kU-Qs
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer
to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:46:51 -0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
> This kind of thing always happens as projects become larger and more
> diverse. Something that was once a small group turns into a big
> group of diverse stakeholders. When it gets too big for the
> informal processes then some people get upset and defensive. Happens
> all the time but it is not really a good excuse to keep doing things
> in an inefficient manner. The old ways just don't scale and if you
> ever worked on massive projects then you know these formal processes
> work better.
So then: make a proposal for a better process, post it to this list.
In practice there has been zero interest in improving the BIP process.
E.g. the BIP process was adapted from the Python Enhancement Proposals by Amir Taaki (in 2009 or so?). It hasn't really changed since then, apart from some spelling and grammar corrections. It is not specifically adapted to Bitcoin, and doesn't make a distinction between for example, consensus changes and non-consensus changes.
So that's up to someone to do. You seem to be enthousiastic about it, so go ahead.
Wladimir
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVgufFAAoJEHSBCwEjRsmmAmYIAI9ndrMoqEuoaP5t+7W42UuH
sh5qR7hojCCoZZl1N+rQ63UXcPBO/V4NUkUG97S3qpEFDzuoYSbOX2Eh+TRfK+s+
U+BpLhWteSexJ3N9aiFuR0q5jgesAzLZ9wtq1gCPI/Zu5/fgYBP4AVTiQGdXCZtv
m6ZDKCf+aB/fW/59/AiY44NkMDjVQieEVRiT1IPFJULWesOOdtv7UoqIpz0vDa/5
Jplm41j8IpTPioJKSwUi5qzSDrF7O39PC9LMXNRx/0FIuYfwqJpvF0Frc+vtPpjQ
llKE7945uMXz3FLSV0Orx26XPal/MuF5AYOPNk6pJfwYw7q91AUvQxVFepBa9vw=
=dMO9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
