📅 Original date posted:2016-03-18
📝 Original message:On Friday, March 18, 2016 9:42:16 AM Btc Drak wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> > BIP Comments are not a part of the BIP itself, merely post-completion
> > notes from various external parties. So having them external does not
> > make the BIP
> > any less self-contained. Right now, this information takes the form of
> > reddit/forum comments, IRC chats, etc.
>
> BIP2 does not state the comments section is where discussion happens for
> the BIP, but for a sort of final summary.
Yes, discussion for the BIP still happens on the mailing list.
> > It is important that the forum for comments have a low barrier of use.
> > The Bitcoin Wiki requires only a request for editing privileges, whereas
> > GitHub wiki would require reading and agreeing to a lengthy Terms of
> > Service contract.
>
> Seems weak, it's much easier to sign up for a Github account and most have
> one already. It's certainly easier than either paying to get edit
> privileges on the Bitcoin Wiki find someone to convince you're genuine an
> obscure IRC channel.
Weak? What does that even mean? GitHub's terms are no trivial list. It's not a
matter of "easy", but whether you're willing to agree to the terms or not -
and people should be free to participate without doing so. The Bitcoin Wiki
has never had a problem with whitelisting people, and isn't exclusively
available via IRC.
> > In terms of staleness, the Wiki has been shown to stand the test of time,
> > and
> > is frankly less likely to move than the GitHub repository.
> >
> > The BIP process originated on the Wiki, and was only moved to GitHub
> > because
> > stronger moderation was needed (eg, to prevent random other people from
> > editing someone else's BIP; number self-assignments; etc). Such
> > moderation is
> > not only unnecessary for BIP Comments, but would be an outright nuisance.
>
> I'm not sure that is the reason why, but in any case, Github is a more
> sensible place because of the collaborative features which is why they
> became the centre of OSS software development for hundreds of thousands of
> projects.
GitHub's collaborative features for the wiki function is clearly inferior.
> > I hope this addresses all your concerns and we can move forward with BIP
> > 2 unmodified?
>
> I am sorry but it has not. I still strongly object to using the Bitcoin
> Wiki or any external source source for the commentary part of BIP2. I
> believe it should be done on using the Wiki feature at bitcoin/bips. If
> that is not acceptable, then I would suggest a separate page in the bip
> assets folder, called bip<nnnn>/comments.md. On a side note, more complex
> reference implementation code should be stored in that folder too.
Then you're essentially standing in the way of BIP 2 and stalling it.
I have no interest in having to manually approve every single little comment
on BIPs, and I think it's likely nobody will use it if doing so requires such
effort.
> > (On another note, I wonder if we should recommend non-reference
> > implementation
> > lists/links be moved to BIP Comments rather than constantly revising the
> > BIPs
> > with them...)
>
> Certainly those could be on the comments page.
Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tf…rfq0n
2023-06-07 17:49:47
in reply to nevent1q…ad2c
Author Public Key
npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nPublished at
2023-06-07 17:49:47Event JSON
{
"id": "cb911e264f2eed62b0663d2f5d36501e1ed3bc75aebbd13fbef6326369afda26",
"pubkey": "5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803",
"created_at": 1686160187,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"68278d1b6e2275eedb14f88a4e09247e8c0fac7690941ead662233f54058c146",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"2be277524841d4fa6460c499db37408b125e58ab82b1cc540ae87329fd946b37",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"fdf31024ca0537ed828d895ddc8525f8af023f0dc935a8327a8a496d0d7a9f83"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-03-18\n📝 Original message:On Friday, March 18, 2016 9:42:16 AM Btc Drak wrote:\n\u003e On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Luke Dashjr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e BIP Comments are not a part of the BIP itself, merely post-completion\n\u003e \u003e notes from various external parties. So having them external does not\n\u003e \u003e make the BIP\n\u003e \u003e any less self-contained. Right now, this information takes the form of\n\u003e \u003e reddit/forum comments, IRC chats, etc.\n\u003e \n\u003e BIP2 does not state the comments section is where discussion happens for\n\u003e the BIP, but for a sort of final summary.\n\nYes, discussion for the BIP still happens on the mailing list.\n\n\u003e \u003e It is important that the forum for comments have a low barrier of use.\n\u003e \u003e The Bitcoin Wiki requires only a request for editing privileges, whereas\n\u003e \u003e GitHub wiki would require reading and agreeing to a lengthy Terms of\n\u003e \u003e Service contract.\n\u003e \n\u003e Seems weak, it's much easier to sign up for a Github account and most have\n\u003e one already. It's certainly easier than either paying to get edit\n\u003e privileges on the Bitcoin Wiki find someone to convince you're genuine an\n\u003e obscure IRC channel.\n\nWeak? What does that even mean? GitHub's terms are no trivial list. It's not a \nmatter of \"easy\", but whether you're willing to agree to the terms or not - \nand people should be free to participate without doing so. The Bitcoin Wiki \nhas never had a problem with whitelisting people, and isn't exclusively \navailable via IRC.\n\n\u003e \u003e In terms of staleness, the Wiki has been shown to stand the test of time,\n\u003e \u003e and\n\u003e \u003e is frankly less likely to move than the GitHub repository.\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e The BIP process originated on the Wiki, and was only moved to GitHub\n\u003e \u003e because\n\u003e \u003e stronger moderation was needed (eg, to prevent random other people from\n\u003e \u003e editing someone else's BIP; number self-assignments; etc). Such\n\u003e \u003e moderation is\n\u003e \u003e not only unnecessary for BIP Comments, but would be an outright nuisance.\n\u003e \n\u003e I'm not sure that is the reason why, but in any case, Github is a more\n\u003e sensible place because of the collaborative features which is why they\n\u003e became the centre of OSS software development for hundreds of thousands of\n\u003e projects.\n\nGitHub's collaborative features for the wiki function is clearly inferior.\n\n\u003e \u003e I hope this addresses all your concerns and we can move forward with BIP\n\u003e \u003e 2 unmodified?\n\u003e \n\u003e I am sorry but it has not. I still strongly object to using the Bitcoin\n\u003e Wiki or any external source source for the commentary part of BIP2. I\n\u003e believe it should be done on using the Wiki feature at bitcoin/bips. If\n\u003e that is not acceptable, then I would suggest a separate page in the bip\n\u003e assets folder, called bip\u003cnnnn\u003e/comments.md. On a side note, more complex\n\u003e reference implementation code should be stored in that folder too.\n\nThen you're essentially standing in the way of BIP 2 and stalling it.\n\nI have no interest in having to manually approve every single little comment \non BIPs, and I think it's likely nobody will use it if doing so requires such \neffort.\n\n\u003e \u003e (On another note, I wonder if we should recommend non-reference\n\u003e \u003e implementation\n\u003e \u003e lists/links be moved to BIP Comments rather than constantly revising the\n\u003e \u003e BIPs\n\u003e \u003e with them...)\n\u003e \n\u003e Certainly those could be on the comments page.",
"sig": "a8fddc308257777b3a9e5bbb287589953ffc4fedeba300826ea9c53b5c36963ab866ab35351694b1256b27595617be3246f9fbb57982c87314a4239c7328e717"
}