📅 Original date posted:2013-10-21
📝 Original message:Added: I'm happy with gmaxwell as BIP editor as well, as he is
apparently the current BIP-number-assigner-in-chief. :)
The goal is to improve the process, hash-seal our specs, and create an
easy way for anyone with at least an email address to participate.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at bitpay.com> wrote:
> This summarizes some rambling on IRC about revising the BIPS process.
>
> Right now, the BIPS process is a bit haphazard. Previously, BIPS were
> in a git repo, and the BIPS on the wiki were locked against editing.
> The BIPS editor at the time started off well, but was eventually
> M.I.A. So the BIPS "home" moved de facto to where everyone was
> reading them anyway, the wiki. They were made editable, and it became
> easier to Just Pick A Number And Write One. However, this inevitably
> became a bit disorganized. Further, there was a recent incident --
> easily reverted -- where someone hopped on the wiki and started
> arbitrarily editing an existing standard.
>
> BIPs need to move back to git, in my opinion. Standards should be
> hash-sealed against corruption. Anything less would be uncivilized,
> and un-bitcoin. However, many on IRC pointed out requiring a git pull
> request might be a burdensome process, and discourage some
> contributors. The following is a sketch of an improved process.
>
> 1) BIP Draft.
>
> Modelled after IETF drafts. Anybody may submit a BIP draft, as long
> as it meets two very loose requirements:
> * At least somewhat related to bitcoin. Note, I did not say "crypto-currency".
> * Formatted similarly to existing BIPs (i.e. markdown, or whatever the
> community prefers)
>
> BIP drafts may be submitted via git pull request, or by emailing an
> attachment to bips.editor at bitcoin.org. This mirrors the Linux kernel
> change submission process: git is preferred, but there is always a
> non-git method for folks who cannot or do not wish to use git or
> github.
>
> BIP drafts are stored in git://github.com/bitcoin/bips.git/drafts/ and
> are not automatically assigned a BIPS number.
>
> 2) Time passes. Software for BIP drafts is developed, tested,
> published, and publicly discussed in a typical open source manner.
>
> 3) If interest and use cases remain strong, a BIP number may be
> requested, and the BIP draft is moved to
> git://github.com/bitcoin/bips.git main directory.
>
> 4) If there is general consensus that the BIP should be adopted, the
> BIP status is changed to "accepted."
>
> There are no specified time limits. Sometimes consensus about a BIP
> is reached in days, sometimes 12+ months or more. It varies widely
> depending on the feature's complexity and impact.
>
> As with the IETF, it will be q
>
> --
> Jeff Garzik
> Senior Software Engineer and open source evangelist
> BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
--
Jeff Garzik
Senior Software Engineer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
Jeff Garzik [ARCHIVE] /
npub1kf…f3f58
2023-06-07 15:07:42
in reply to nevent1q…4ndr
Author Public Key
npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58Published at
2023-06-07 15:07:42Event JSON
{
"id": "38e9ce3d9b212e406ec0ae311fc1956fc16dd8e951cfc35f13b461d0561c9a96",
"pubkey": "b25e10e25d470d9b215521b50da0dfe7a209bec7fedeb53860c3e180ffdc8c11",
"created_at": 1686150462,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"7825845c40e7246842c64e1640ea39dcb04d6d8f430fae7ba311b465db0e4d0f",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"e054b8b1e59daae41dbb5256355e1f144d8876916cb92a2ff779d3b5dafdf90e",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b25e10e25d470d9b215521b50da0dfe7a209bec7fedeb53860c3e180ffdc8c11"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-10-21\n📝 Original message:Added: I'm happy with gmaxwell as BIP editor as well, as he is\napparently the current BIP-number-assigner-in-chief. :)\n\nThe goal is to improve the process, hash-seal our specs, and create an\neasy way for anyone with at least an email address to participate.\n\nOn Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Jeff Garzik \u003cjgarzik at bitpay.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e This summarizes some rambling on IRC about revising the BIPS process.\n\u003e\n\u003e Right now, the BIPS process is a bit haphazard. Previously, BIPS were\n\u003e in a git repo, and the BIPS on the wiki were locked against editing.\n\u003e The BIPS editor at the time started off well, but was eventually\n\u003e M.I.A. So the BIPS \"home\" moved de facto to where everyone was\n\u003e reading them anyway, the wiki. They were made editable, and it became\n\u003e easier to Just Pick A Number And Write One. However, this inevitably\n\u003e became a bit disorganized. Further, there was a recent incident --\n\u003e easily reverted -- where someone hopped on the wiki and started\n\u003e arbitrarily editing an existing standard.\n\u003e\n\u003e BIPs need to move back to git, in my opinion. Standards should be\n\u003e hash-sealed against corruption. Anything less would be uncivilized,\n\u003e and un-bitcoin. However, many on IRC pointed out requiring a git pull\n\u003e request might be a burdensome process, and discourage some\n\u003e contributors. The following is a sketch of an improved process.\n\u003e\n\u003e 1) BIP Draft.\n\u003e\n\u003e Modelled after IETF drafts. Anybody may submit a BIP draft, as long\n\u003e as it meets two very loose requirements:\n\u003e * At least somewhat related to bitcoin. Note, I did not say \"crypto-currency\".\n\u003e * Formatted similarly to existing BIPs (i.e. markdown, or whatever the\n\u003e community prefers)\n\u003e\n\u003e BIP drafts may be submitted via git pull request, or by emailing an\n\u003e attachment to bips.editor at bitcoin.org. This mirrors the Linux kernel\n\u003e change submission process: git is preferred, but there is always a\n\u003e non-git method for folks who cannot or do not wish to use git or\n\u003e github.\n\u003e\n\u003e BIP drafts are stored in git://github.com/bitcoin/bips.git/drafts/ and\n\u003e are not automatically assigned a BIPS number.\n\u003e\n\u003e 2) Time passes. Software for BIP drafts is developed, tested,\n\u003e published, and publicly discussed in a typical open source manner.\n\u003e\n\u003e 3) If interest and use cases remain strong, a BIP number may be\n\u003e requested, and the BIP draft is moved to\n\u003e git://github.com/bitcoin/bips.git main directory.\n\u003e\n\u003e 4) If there is general consensus that the BIP should be adopted, the\n\u003e BIP status is changed to \"accepted.\"\n\u003e\n\u003e There are no specified time limits. Sometimes consensus about a BIP\n\u003e is reached in days, sometimes 12+ months or more. It varies widely\n\u003e depending on the feature's complexity and impact.\n\u003e\n\u003e As with the IETF, it will be q\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e Jeff Garzik\n\u003e Senior Software Engineer and open source evangelist\n\u003e BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/\n\n\n\n-- \nJeff Garzik\nSenior Software Engineer and open source evangelist\nBitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/",
"sig": "ce78bf8fb5ee96bd99b8590b01a821adffb159d5a3be5053f1d68ca162e9aed12c276e765f82a1cd53de134869098f73330796a9e4f7c8e86e782e9b12a8f126"
}