path: root/a8/ca9d62dfc84bce6fb26af3066cfba2b7bc96f6

Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F421CC0037
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 17 Jan 2024 16:46:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C17A441FDE
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 17 Jan 2024 16:46:12 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org C17A441FDE
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org;
 dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dashjr.org header.i=@dashjr.org
 header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=zinan header.b=ADUXWzBX
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 3r401dkTRUew
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 17 Jan 2024 16:46:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AB6641F43
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 17 Jan 2024 16:46:11 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 4AB6641F43
Received: from [192.168.86.103] (99-39-46-195.lightspeed.dybhfl.sbcglobal.net
 [99.39.46.195]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
 by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 17435143730
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 17 Jan 2024 16:46:02 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dashjr.org; s=zinan;
 t=1705509969; bh=IfHiVGB/O6Rzv0HDwkkhDxUQ7eVnpf7NKJ9/oT4xBfY=;
 h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To;
 b=ADUXWzBXv/2r6ZFdlF8BJqeq9qgSr6zu2kUv8VkqsP0Kw7vvTIe6V7N1+olbXecuE
 YRn9X9ltBIzw5zYCvpVsLGxPtjYFxXNN/Lwfw93y7ng3oHl8Alhh78j0W+IWRTY5V/
 rLrrCKvc1rQOWLX2dzT9h5GcHxBehGzFj9k8tOR4=
X-Hashcash: 1:23:240117:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::4gH7m+Ox/hYYGTpU:1Jwu
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------RI3ea25P7f0SROxwRJOJsFU0"
Message-ID: <030e09b8-3831-45ff-92ad-9531ae277f80@dashjr.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 11:45:59 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US, en-GB
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <Zac+rMC/c+qTmSxY@erisian.com.au>
 <CACrqygDJRtZN4Oo30=DaFO2KYkn1H+Daxh5cinHKz66Uvn9BVg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
In-Reply-To: <CACrqygDJRtZN4Oo30=DaFO2KYkn1H+Daxh5cinHKz66Uvn9BVg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP process friction
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: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 16:46:13 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------RI3ea25P7f0SROxwRJOJsFU0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Perhaps a BIP 3 is in order, but most of the real issue is simply a 
matter of volunteer time.

AJ's attempt to conflate that with his own personal disagreements with 
how BIPs have always worked, is unrelated.

Luke


On 1/17/24 01:55, Christopher Allen via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 6:43 PM Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev 
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>     If people want to use it for bitcoin-related proposals that don't have
>     anything to do with inquisition, that's fine; I'm intending to
>     apply the
>     policies I think the BIPs repo should be using, so feel free to
>     open a PR,
>     even if you already know I think your idea is BS on its merits. If
>     someone
>     wants to write an automatic-merge-bot for me, that'd also be great.
>
>     If someone wants to reform the BIPs repo itself so it works better,
>     that'd be even better, but I'm not volunteering for that fight.
>
>
> I've no idea how to reform BIPs, but we have a similar problem with 
> the Blockchain Commons Research (BCR) vs Proposals (BCP), vs. 
> specifications that are emerging in various other standards groups 
> (IETF, W3C, and we have desire to submit some of these as BIPs as well).
>
> We do a few things differently, one of which in particular might be 
> useful for the future of BIPs: we reset the numbers every year. So the 
> first new BCR (research proposal) for 2024 would be 2024-01. Also, 
> when there is a major change in an old BCR, we create a new number for 
> it in the new year it is update.
>
> We also have a concept called "Status", which is a progression that 
> only moves forward if BCRs are actually implemented with a reference 
> implementation, and advances further when they have multiple 
> implementations (and thus are qualified moved over to BCP repo as it 
> is somewhat stable and no longer "research".). A last form is when a 
> specification has moved to be controlled by another standards group 
> (such as a BIP). If only one organization implements a BCR, it will 
> never advance to BCP.
>
> Some form of Status for BIPs inspired by this concept could track if a 
> BIP was ever actually implemented by someone, or more ideally, 
> implemented by multiple people in multiple organizations, ideally in 
> multiple languages.
>
> Here is how we currently do status, and the status of our current 
> specifications: 
> https://github.com/BlockchainCommons/Research/blob/master/README.md#status
>
> Each BCR has a status which is indicated by a symbol.
>
> Symbol 	Title 	Description
> ❌❌ 	Withdrawn 	Of historic interest only. Withdrawn either because 
> never came into use or proved sufficiently problematic that we do not 
> recommend its usage in any way.
> ❌ 	Superseded 	Superseded by a newer BCR. We do not suggest 
> implementing as an output format, but you may still wish to implement 
> as an input format to maintain backward compatibility.
> 📙 	Research 	Contains original research or proposes specifications 
> that have not yet been implemented by us. Offered to the community for 
> consideration.
> ⭐️ 	Reference Implementation 	At least one reference implementation 
> has been released, usually as a library, and may include demos or 
> other supporting tools. This specification still remains very open to 
> change because it has not yet (to our knowledge) been implemented by 
> additional parties.
> ⭐️⭐️ 	Multiple Implementations 	At least two (known) implementations 
> exist, at least one not by the owner of the reference implementation. 
> Has demonstrable community support. May still change due to the needs 
> of the community, but community feedback will be sought.
> ⭐️⭐️⭐️ 	Standards Track 	Typically at least two implementations, and 
> is considered stable and ready for standardization. Being proposed as 
> a BIP, IETF Internet Draft, or some other standardization draft 
> format. Will typically be moved to theBCP repo 
> <https://github.com/BlockchainCommons/bcps>. Though changes may still 
> be made to the specification, these changes will exclusively be to 
> allow for standardization, and will be conducted with community feedback.
> ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ 	Standardized 	A specification has been standardized as a an 
> IETF RFC, BIP, or approved by some other standards body.
>
> ❌❌ after another status symbol is read, "...but withdrawn" and ❌ is 
> read, "...but superseded".
>
> -- Christopher Allen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--------------RI3ea25P7f0SROxwRJOJsFU0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <p>Perhaps a BIP 3 is in order, but most of the real issue is simply
      a matter of volunteer time.</p>
    <p>AJ's attempt to conflate that with his own personal disagreements
      with how BIPs have always worked, is unrelated.</p>
    <p>Luke</p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/17/24 01:55, Christopher Allen via
      bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACrqygDJRtZN4Oo30=DaFO2KYkn1H+Daxh5cinHKz66Uvn9BVg@mail.gmail.com">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div dir="ltr"><span><br>
          </span></div>
        <br>
        <div class="gmail_quote">
          <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><span>On Tue, Jan 16, 2024
              at 6:43 PM Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a
                href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
                moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;
              wrote:</span></div>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote"><span>
              If people want to use it for bitcoin-related proposals
              that don't have<br>
              anything to do with inquisition, that's fine; I'm
              intending to apply the<br>
              policies I think the BIPs repo should be using, so feel
              free to open a PR,<br>
              even if you already know I think your idea is BS on its
              merits. If someone<br>
              wants to write an automatic-merge-bot for me, that'd also
              be great.<br>
              <br>
              If someone wants to reform the BIPs repo itself so it
              works better,<br>
              that'd be even better, but I'm not volunteering for that
              fight.<br>
            </span></blockquote>
          <div><span><br>
            </span></div>
          <div><span>I've no idea how to reform BIPs, but we have a
              similar problem with the Blockchain Commons Research (BCR)
              vs Proposals (BCP), vs. specifications that are emerging
              in various other standards groups (IETF, W3C, and we have
              desire to submit some of these as BIPs as well). </span></div>
          <div><span><br>
            </span></div>
          <div><span>We do a few things differently, one of which in
              particular might be useful for the future of BIPs: we
              reset the numbers every year. So the first new BCR
              (research proposal) for 2024 would be 2024-01. Also, when
              there is a major change in an old BCR, we create a new
              number for it in the new year it is update.</span></div>
          <div><span><br>
            </span></div>
          <div><span>We also have a concept called "Status", which is a
              progression that only moves forward if BCRs are actually
              implemented with a reference implementation, and advances
              further when they have multiple implementations (and thus
              are qualified moved over to BCP repo as it is somewhat
              stable and no longer "research".). A last form is when a
              specification has moved to be controlled by another
              standards group (such as a BIP). If only one organization
              implements a BCR, it will never advance to BCP.</span></div>
          <div><span><br>
            </span></div>
          <div><span>Some form of Status for BIPs inspired by this
              concept could track if a BIP was ever actually implemented
              by someone, or more ideally, implemented by multiple
              people in multiple organizations, ideally in multiple
              languages. </span></div>
          <div><span><br>
            </span></div>
          <div><span>Here is how we currently do status, and the status
              of our current specifications: </span><span><a
href="https://github.com/BlockchainCommons/Research/blob/master/README.md#status"
                moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://github.com/BlockchainCommons/Research/blob/master/README.md#status</a></span></div>
          <div><span><br>
            </span></div>
          <div>
            <p dir="auto"><span>Each BCR has a status which is indicated
                by a symbol.</span></p>
            <table>
              <thead><tr>
                  <th><span>Symbol</span></th>
                  <th><span>Title</span></th>
                  <th><span>Description</span></th>
                </tr>
              </thead><tbody>
                <tr>
                  <td><span>❌❌</span></td>
                  <td><span>Withdrawn</span></td>
                  <td><span>Of historic interest only. Withdrawn either
                      because never came into use or proved sufficiently
                      problematic that we do not recommend its usage in
                      any way.</span></td>
                </tr>
                <tr>
                  <td><span>❌</span></td>
                  <td><span>Superseded</span></td>
                  <td><span>Superseded by a newer BCR. We do not suggest
                      implementing as an output format, but you may
                      still wish to implement as an input format to
                      maintain backward compatibility.</span></td>
                </tr>
                <tr>
                  <td><span>📙</span></td>
                  <td><span>Research</span></td>
                  <td><span>Contains original research or proposes
                      specifications that have not yet been implemented
                      by us. Offered to the community for consideration.</span></td>
                </tr>
                <tr>
                  <td><span>⭐️</span></td>
                  <td><span>Reference Implementation</span></td>
                  <td><span>At least one reference implementation has
                      been released, usually as a library, and may
                      include demos or other supporting tools. This
                      specification still remains very open to change
                      because it has not yet (to our knowledge) been
                      implemented by additional parties.</span></td>
                </tr>
                <tr>
                  <td><span>⭐️⭐️</span></td>
                  <td><span>Multiple Implementations</span></td>
                  <td><span>At least two (known) implementations exist,
                      at least one not by the owner of the reference
                      implementation. Has demonstrable community
                      support. May still change due to the needs of the
                      community, but community feedback will be sought.</span></td>
                </tr>
                <tr>
                  <td><span>⭐️⭐️⭐️</span></td>
                  <td><span>Standards Track</span></td>
                  <td><span>Typically at least two implementations, and
                      is considered stable and ready for
                      standardization. Being proposed as a BIP, IETF
                      Internet Draft, or some other standardization
                      draft format. Will typically be moved to the<span
                        class="gmail-Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
                        href="https://github.com/BlockchainCommons/bcps"
                        moz-do-not-send="true">BCP repo</a>. Though
                      changes may still be made to the specification,
                      these changes will exclusively be to allow for
                      standardization, and will be conducted with
                      community feedback.</span></td>
                </tr>
                <tr>
                  <td><span>⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️</span></td>
                  <td><span>Standardized</span></td>
                  <td><span>A specification has been standardized as a
                      an IETF RFC, BIP, or approved by some other
                      standards body.</span></td>
                </tr>
              </tbody>
            </table>
            <p dir="auto"><span>❌❌ after another status symbol is read,
                "...but withdrawn" and ❌ is read, "...but superseded".</span></p>
            <p dir="auto"><span>-- Christopher Allen</span><span><br>
              </span></p>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
      <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
  </body>
</html>

--------------RI3ea25P7f0SROxwRJOJsFU0--