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
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F547FE1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 4 Feb 2016 21:18:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D77B513F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 4 Feb 2016 21:18:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D96D538A9ACA;
Thu, 4 Feb 2016 21:17:31 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160204:bitcoin-dev@rgrant.org::439K60keEd+4cN0o:eaokz
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160204:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::M0cB7O/92f3jFo+w:nOcK
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Ryan Grant <bitcoin-dev@rgrant.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 21:17:30 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.13-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; )
References: <201602012253.18009.luke@dashjr.org>
<201602040415.47580.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAMnpzfqVhfFimvX0zU-SCcEL8JGzjnWu8D3v_Ph4kbeGtr8r=w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMnpzfqVhfFimvX0zU-SCcEL8JGzjnWu8D3v_Ph4kbeGtr8r=w@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201602042117.31076.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_SBL,
RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process: Status, comments,
and copyright licenses
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: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 21:18:35 -0000
On Thursday, February 04, 2016 5:45:38 PM Ryan Grant wrote:
> [BIP 2:]
> > A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it
> > achieves rough consensus on the mailing list.
>
> Is this mix of wiki and mailing list intentional? If so, the wiki
> talk page is meant to be a self-curated permanent record of support
> and dissent, but second-order reply commentary might fall either on
> the wiki or the mailing list?
The wiki page is meant to be a place to leave comments recommending or
discouraging adoption of a completed BIP, after discussion is over. For
example, many people seem to think BIP 38 is a good idea simply because it is
a Final BIP, whereas in general we would want to discourage using it since it
cannot really be used safely.
All review itself ought to remain on the ML.
> BIP 2 should ask that all current and future forums that BIP authors
> might choose for review have indisputable records of moderation and
> user edits.
Is this necessary considering the author-chosen forum may only be *in addition
to* the Bitcoin Wiki?
> Is dump.bitcoin.it a sufficient public record of contentious
> moderation or user cross-comment editing? It seems like as long as
> the wiki as a whole is verifiable, it would suffice.
It should be everything except accounts/passwords.
Luke
|
