📅 Original date posted:2015-06-18
📝 Original message:You misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying I have a specific
process that should be followed, I am saying that whatever the process
is then it should be formalized or at least written down. That way the
stakeholders have something to work with and keeps people on track.
Since some people are saying they don't really know what the process is
the first step would be to describe the current process. I don't fully
understand the current process but I can see it is not formalized and
nobody can even give me a clear description of what it is. Once you
have it written down then changes/improvements can be proposed.
The first baby step was already done by the Foundation in developing
that risk study. A NIST guide for developing such a document is at
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-30-rev1/sp800_30_r1.pdf.
No one person can come up with this and it would take buy in from
several different people who have expertise in specific technical areas
as well as experts in coming up with test plans. I recently suggested
to the people running the MIT lab that they look into developing a
program along those lines. Gavin also recently suggested that list of
Bitcoin metrics be developed to help resolve the current disputes. I
can help develop this process if there is interest.
Russ
On 6/18/2015 11:46 AM, Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
>
>> This kind of thing always happens as projects become larger and more
>> diverse. Something that was once a small group turns into a big
>> group of diverse stakeholders. When it gets too big for the
>> informal processes then some people get upset and defensive. Happens
>> all the time but it is not really a good excuse to keep doing things
>> in an inefficient manner. The old ways just don't scale and if you
>> ever worked on massive projects then you know these formal processes
>> work better.
> So then: make a proposal for a better process, post it to this list.
>
> In practice there has been zero interest in improving the BIP process.
>
> E.g. the BIP process was adapted from the Python Enhancement Proposals by Amir Taaki (in 2009 or so?). It hasn't really changed since then, apart from some spelling and grammar corrections. It is not specifically adapted to Bitcoin, and doesn't make a distinction between for example, consensus changes and non-consensus changes.
>
> So that's up to someone to do. You seem to be enthousiastic about it, so go ahead.
>
> Wladimir
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
>
> iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVgufFAAoJEHSBCwEjRsmmAmYIAI9ndrMoqEuoaP5t+7W42UuH
> sh5qR7hojCCoZZl1N+rQ63UXcPBO/V4NUkUG97S3qpEFDzuoYSbOX2Eh+TRfK+s+
> U+BpLhWteSexJ3N9aiFuR0q5jgesAzLZ9wtq1gCPI/Zu5/fgYBP4AVTiQGdXCZtv
> m6ZDKCf+aB/fW/59/AiY44NkMDjVQieEVRiT1IPFJULWesOOdtv7UoqIpz0vDa/5
> Jplm41j8IpTPioJKSwUi5qzSDrF7O39PC9LMXNRx/0FIuYfwqJpvF0Frc+vtPpjQ
> llKE7945uMXz3FLSV0Orx26XPal/MuF5AYOPNk6pJfwYw7q91AUvQxVFepBa9vw=
> =dMO9
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
Milly Bitcoin [ARCHIVE] /
npub1rv…hc5wt
2023-06-07 15:38:43
in reply to nevent1q…88zr
Author Public Key
npub1rv5ajnhgrc0wq3ulrk6tcjkgsaq8h4rs5rtsvrnklz4j0lw40egqphc5wtPublished at
2023-06-07 15:38:43Event JSON
{
"id": "099ea3f0e95b385cc023eb50e00298862813e0462ba7ca8cda7ffcb4c06cef7e",
"pubkey": "1b29d94ee81e1ee0479f1db4bc4ac887407bd470a0d7060e76f8ab27fdd57e50",
"created_at": 1686152323,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"23c1bb2f25b9e7356b48aa2a86751c4f26fb3977b440917a1cb3512c200b0b2f",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"f1b17351ebfcdf83393272af8bc623756706686b61eb49a234cec98b1ad932c1",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"33228a8ed797b24e872fc0257c1515fc9bca74c0b230dcbb7d3d2bd38fd97ed7"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-18\n📝 Original message:You misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying I have a specific \nprocess that should be followed, I am saying that whatever the process \nis then it should be formalized or at least written down. That way the \nstakeholders have something to work with and keeps people on track. \nSince some people are saying they don't really know what the process is \nthe first step would be to describe the current process. I don't fully \nunderstand the current process but I can see it is not formalized and \nnobody can even give me a clear description of what it is. Once you \nhave it written down then changes/improvements can be proposed.\n\nThe first baby step was already done by the Foundation in developing \nthat risk study. A NIST guide for developing such a document is at \nhttp://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-30-rev1/sp800_30_r1.pdf. \nNo one person can come up with this and it would take buy in from \nseveral different people who have expertise in specific technical areas \nas well as experts in coming up with test plans. I recently suggested \nto the people running the MIT lab that they look into developing a \nprogram along those lines. Gavin also recently suggested that list of \nBitcoin metrics be developed to help resolve the current disputes. I \ncan help develop this process if there is interest.\n\nRuss\n\n\n\n\nOn 6/18/2015 11:46 AM, Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote:\n\u003e -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\n\u003e Hash: SHA512\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e This kind of thing always happens as projects become larger and more\n\u003e\u003e diverse. Something that was once a small group turns into a big\n\u003e\u003e group of diverse stakeholders. When it gets too big for the\n\u003e\u003e informal processes then some people get upset and defensive. Happens\n\u003e\u003e all the time but it is not really a good excuse to keep doing things\n\u003e\u003e in an inefficient manner. The old ways just don't scale and if you\n\u003e\u003e ever worked on massive projects then you know these formal processes\n\u003e\u003e work better.\n\u003e So then: make a proposal for a better process, post it to this list.\n\u003e\n\u003e In practice there has been zero interest in improving the BIP process.\n\u003e\n\u003e E.g. the BIP process was adapted from the Python Enhancement Proposals by Amir Taaki (in 2009 or so?). It hasn't really changed since then, apart from some spelling and grammar corrections. It is not specifically adapted to Bitcoin, and doesn't make a distinction between for example, consensus changes and non-consensus changes.\n\u003e\n\u003e So that's up to someone to do. You seem to be enthousiastic about it, so go ahead.\n\u003e\n\u003e Wladimir\n\u003e -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\n\u003e Version: GnuPG v1\n\u003e\n\u003e iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVgufFAAoJEHSBCwEjRsmmAmYIAI9ndrMoqEuoaP5t+7W42UuH\n\u003e sh5qR7hojCCoZZl1N+rQ63UXcPBO/V4NUkUG97S3qpEFDzuoYSbOX2Eh+TRfK+s+\n\u003e U+BpLhWteSexJ3N9aiFuR0q5jgesAzLZ9wtq1gCPI/Zu5/fgYBP4AVTiQGdXCZtv\n\u003e m6ZDKCf+aB/fW/59/AiY44NkMDjVQieEVRiT1IPFJULWesOOdtv7UoqIpz0vDa/5\n\u003e Jplm41j8IpTPioJKSwUi5qzSDrF7O39PC9LMXNRx/0FIuYfwqJpvF0Frc+vtPpjQ\n\u003e llKE7945uMXz3FLSV0Orx26XPal/MuF5AYOPNk6pJfwYw7q91AUvQxVFepBa9vw=\n\u003e =dMO9\n\u003e -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----\n\u003e",
"sig": "78881ebde444b879e98ffc1467dad6a634e1496872ff1028f7a1863a71e111c3ab33f02d17b9987da3a039da1fb74cdb988b2fe15abf335f54290fc7e16c3f0a"
}