Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.214.42 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.214.42; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-bk0-f42.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgREw+5NWaFVYd9FS-s63_-24tyWsz5_w6yc8+mGnFYUgQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJHLa0MCJzFapBYu+cGcJobeVkuS3yibpgaEJOmEj5-1wWEDYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+s+GJDnCx4ZT5woovB-MsKfHOqNoC9WefKQ-VMpWHCZrat5Kw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANAnSg1eH8+sY6n4-cptdzS5Qj0aXdN_d8h8B9joyk73HGL6ZA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgREw+5NWaFVYd9FS-s63_-24tyWsz5_w6yc8+mGnFYUgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 18:45:36 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJAW9j88VWNgmpXTjeSFOxHHzow82E2pyvyfKr=SRcS-Kg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf301cbd5c6719da04eb8b3bbb
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Revisiting the BIPS process, a proposal
Precedence: list

--20cf301cbd5c6719da04eb8b3bbb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Drak <drak@zikula.org> wrote:
> > It's quite normal for standards bodies to allocate numbers when in draft
> > status. If they don't pass, they don't pass - they are clearly labelled
> > DRAFTs.
> >
> > +1 on having things in a github repository. Much better for
> collaboration,
>
> The IETF makes a clear distinction between individual proposals and
> documents which have been accepted by a working group. The former are
> named after their authors.  Work is not assigned a number until it is
> complete.
>

Talking about complete, BIP 40 and 41 don't even have an associated
document:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips
I agree that was over-eager number assigning.

Wladimir

--20cf301cbd5c6719da04eb8b3bbb
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote">On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Gregory Maxwell <span dir=3D"ltr">=
&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gmaxwell@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gmaxwell@gmail.=
com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8=
:53 AM, Drak &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:drak@zikula.org">drak@zikula.org</a>&gt;=
 wrote:<br>

&gt; It&#39;s quite normal for standards bodies to allocate numbers when in=
 draft<br>
&gt; status. If they don&#39;t pass, they don&#39;t pass - they are clearly=
 labelled<br>
&gt; DRAFTs.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; +1 on having things in a github repository. Much better for collaborat=
ion,<br>
<br>
The IETF makes a clear distinction between individual proposals and<br>
documents which have been accepted by a working group. The former are<br>
named after their authors. =C2=A0Work is not assigned a number until it is<=
br>
complete.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Talking about complete, BIP 4=
0 and 41 don&#39;t even have an associated document:<br><a href=3D"https://=
github.com/bitcoin/bips">https://github.com/bitcoin/bips</a><br></div><div>
I agree that was over-eager number assigning.<br></div><div><br>Wladimir<br=
><br></div></div></div></div>

--20cf301cbd5c6719da04eb8b3bbb--