blob: 3cdb1a96e8ad79107ebd3807763e409cb78c8550 (
plain)
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
|
Return-Path: <milly@bitcoins.info>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F24241239
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 4 Sep 2015 21:05:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail.help.org (mail.help.org [70.90.2.18])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D35D5188
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 4 Sep 2015 21:05:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.1.10.25] (B [10.1.10.25]) by mail.help.org with ESMTPA
; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 17:05:01 -0400
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, pete@petertodd.org
References: <64B72DF6-BE37-4624-ADAA-CE28C14A4227@gmail.com>
<CABaSBaw7hM2qmuR6Z6USy5=V9NGeCPKmHHuVOH=vexDk7kY8OA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAxp-m_vo5vJEemR_hRX3hNcUPveA6EHn-ZFMJo8ke59E6BrKw@mail.gmail.com>
<CADJgMzvanj41Dfa4kQsq5SVvt-Zeee2SOfD3Uws-FpBQsyZsqg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAxp-m_EmMbVBqQK9ijoe+n0dAs726TaBX5m1Wgzsv-m1KHdfQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20150904203144.GB463@muck>
From: Milly Bitcoin <milly@bitcoins.info>
Message-ID: <55EA077E.5090102@bitcoins.info>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 17:05:02 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150904203144.GB463@muck>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05 autolearn=ham
version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP/Draft] BIP Acceptance Process
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 21:05:08 -0000
> IMO trying to "set up a system" in that kind of environment is silly,
The first step is to define the system that is currently in place.
There is a system in place but it is just close to the vest and
sometimes not discussed in public. This works when Bitcoin has a small
number of stakeholder but does not work well as other parties with
diverse interests get involved. You can't expect major players to
invest large sums when the process is controlled by a tiny group of
people where some of those people have rather unusual opinions about
things and limited experience outside of technical areas within Bitcoin.
You just don't have enough experience in working on large projects to
understand the benefits of the proposal discussed. I suggest you look
into into and get some experience instead of posting rants that
highlight your inexperience. What is silly is using a process that
involves hyperbolic twitter and reddit posts.
Basically such a process does not replace the analysis that is done now,
it just makes it transparent and attempts to make it consistent so there
is not all this confusion over comparing apples and oranges. Here is
link that discusses some of the benefits and limitations of doing this:
http://www.jakeman.com.au/media/whats-right-with-risk-matrices.
Russ
|
