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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1XeJxu-0007UQ-65
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 15 Oct 2014 08:29:50 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.176 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.176; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f176.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f176.google.com ([209.85.223.176])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1XeJxt-0003Xo-7K
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 15 Oct 2014 08:29:50 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f176.google.com with SMTP id rp18so738485iec.35
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 15 Oct 2014 01:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.6.2 with SMTP id w2mr12184873igw.29.1413361783884; Wed,
15 Oct 2014 01:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.141.112 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 01:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 10:29:43 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJCAWXgpzyQnAar6ecKdcci+tdR8yJjCOUpB=xmj-ytZZQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>, Amir Taaki <genjix@riseup.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
X-Headers-End: 1XeJxt-0003Xo-7K
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] BIP process
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: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 08:29:50 -0000
Hello,
I'm trying to create a bit of process around the
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips repository.
A) Currently a lot of pulls are open for various BIPs and it is not
clear who should comment on them, or who decides on changes to be
merged.
Currently all BIP changes have to go through the Bitcoin Core team,
which is a narrow bottleneck and makes little sense when you think
about it. But I don't want to go back to the wiki state in which
everyone can make arbitrary changes to any BIP - we need to distribute
the process somehow.
I'd like to propose to make the author (or someone they delegate to)
the primary contact for each BIP. They should comment on changes, and
either accept or reject them. If they accept them, the change will be
merged.
Of course this means that there is a responsibility for the author to
adhere to BIP 1. For example if your BIP is final, don't allow any
technical changes. To do small clarifications, spelling or adding
implementations or examples is OK, but changing or adding to a
protocol is not - this needs a new BIP. Changing your BIP status
without community consensus is also not OK.
B) I also think it makes sense to move the BIP discussion (both about
the BIP process and individual BIPs) to a separate mailing list.
bitcoin-development currently has a dual function: discussion of
Bitcoin Core implementation concerns, as well as global changes to
Bitcoin (in the form of BIPs).
This makes the list too busy for some people, but it is critical that
everyone writing a Bitcoin node or client is up-to-date with proposals
and can comment on them.
Wladimir
|
