📅 Original date posted:2014-10-15
📝 Original message:On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Wladimir <laanwj at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
This all makes a lot of sense to me, and would help a lot with the
workflow. Unfortunately github pulls and issues really have nothing
to faciltate a multistage workflow... e.g. where something can go
through several steps.
We're also having problems with people failing to comment on things,
not even "I looked at this and have no opinion", which is really
obstructing things.
Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1f2…crwet
2023-06-07 15:26:29
in reply to nevent1q…8aqy
Author Public Key
npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwetPublished at
2023-06-07 15:26:29Event JSON
{
"id": "f6f7019d19a7eed9ddc6f6ad884b30007c52e7dac509dca5b0e46d1ad9a77fb1",
"pubkey": "4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73",
"created_at": 1686151589,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8e8ffc86b671332d74dc30a93d73d86bf0648414fedbd225ac787a9a2713f3b5",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"c111271b24d07b39f08118c11c655b4702627163a8e84d95c2c37b3ac640cad8",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"30217b018a47b99ed4c20399b44b02f70ec4f58ed77a2814a563fa28322ef722"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-10-15\n📝 Original message:On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Wladimir \u003claanwj at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Hello,\n\u003e\n\u003e I'm trying to create a bit of process around the\n\u003e https://github.com/bitcoin/bips repository.\n\u003e\n\u003e A) Currently a lot of pulls are open for various BIPs and it is not\n\u003e clear who should comment on them, or who decides on changes to be\n\u003e merged.\n\u003e\n\u003e Currently all BIP changes have to go through the Bitcoin Core team,\n\u003e which is a narrow bottleneck and makes little sense when you think\n\u003e about it. But I don't want to go back to the wiki state in which\n\u003e everyone can make arbitrary changes to any BIP - we need to distribute\n\u003e the process somehow.\n\u003e\n\u003e I'd like to propose to make the author (or someone they delegate to)\n\u003e the primary contact for each BIP. They should comment on changes, and\n\u003e either accept or reject them. If they accept them, the change will be\n\u003e merged.\n\u003e\n\u003e Of course this means that there is a responsibility for the author to\n\u003e adhere to BIP 1. For example if your BIP is final, don't allow any\n\u003e technical changes. To do small clarifications, spelling or adding\n\u003e implementations or examples is OK, but changing or adding to a\n\u003e protocol is not - this needs a new BIP. Changing your BIP status\n\u003e without community consensus is also not OK.\n\u003e\n\u003e B) I also think it makes sense to move the BIP discussion (both about\n\u003e the BIP process and individual BIPs) to a separate mailing list.\n\u003e\n\u003e bitcoin-development currently has a dual function: discussion of\n\u003e Bitcoin Core implementation concerns, as well as global changes to\n\u003e Bitcoin (in the form of BIPs).\n\u003e\n\u003e This makes the list too busy for some people, but it is critical that\n\u003e everyone writing a Bitcoin node or client is up-to-date with proposals\n\u003e and can comment on them.\n\n\nThis all makes a lot of sense to me, and would help a lot with the\nworkflow. Unfortunately github pulls and issues really have nothing\nto faciltate a multistage workflow... e.g. where something can go\nthrough several steps.\n\nWe're also having problems with people failing to comment on things,\nnot even \"I looked at this and have no opinion\", which is really\nobstructing things.",
"sig": "882223533431f95fdd9a98d9a56b492d3d78f44060e5ae2547a32cb375e2fb900f3ad3257475178947728d8efc5df362835e996985eff06815aa87d275a466b8"
}