📅 Original date posted:2016-02-04
📝 Original message:On Thursday, February 04, 2016 5:45:38 PM Ryan Grant wrote:
> [BIP 2:]
> > A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it
> > achieves rough consensus on the mailing list.
>
> Is this mix of wiki and mailing list intentional? If so, the wiki
> talk page is meant to be a self-curated permanent record of support
> and dissent, but second-order reply commentary might fall either on
> the wiki or the mailing list?
The wiki page is meant to be a place to leave comments recommending or
discouraging adoption of a completed BIP, after discussion is over. For
example, many people seem to think BIP 38 is a good idea simply because it is
a Final BIP, whereas in general we would want to discourage using it since it
cannot really be used safely.
All review itself ought to remain on the ML.
> BIP 2 should ask that all current and future forums that BIP authors
> might choose for review have indisputable records of moderation and
> user edits.
Is this necessary considering the author-chosen forum may only be *in addition
to* the Bitcoin Wiki?
> Is dump.bitcoin.it a sufficient public record of contentious
> moderation or user cross-comment editing? It seems like as long as
> the wiki as a whole is verifiable, it would suffice.
It should be everything except accounts/passwords.
Luke
Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tf…rfq0n
2023-06-07 17:48:23
in reply to nevent1q…4n9y
Author Public Key
npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nPublished at
2023-06-07 17:48:23Event JSON
{
"id": "4f0440ddc656ae0abb044ea5fbf0672543e09c94770a59b70bff53d0ae4dd944",
"pubkey": "5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803",
"created_at": 1686160103,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3fc3fb490099c294c2e6fd9121e2b041d03ad828592794b617d1387be19ddf83",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"71f57132b29d506a8dfae67bdb0e7422697574b4098deda47e092ff94f54061e",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"2f55bf03677afdb15d004a39383afba6220aa6c059cafa7b8827b87934d3c254"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-02-04\n📝 Original message:On Thursday, February 04, 2016 5:45:38 PM Ryan Grant wrote:\n\u003e [BIP 2:]\n\u003e \u003e A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it\n\u003e \u003e achieves rough consensus on the mailing list.\n\u003e \n\u003e Is this mix of wiki and mailing list intentional? If so, the wiki\n\u003e talk page is meant to be a self-curated permanent record of support\n\u003e and dissent, but second-order reply commentary might fall either on\n\u003e the wiki or the mailing list?\n\nThe wiki page is meant to be a place to leave comments recommending or \ndiscouraging adoption of a completed BIP, after discussion is over. For \nexample, many people seem to think BIP 38 is a good idea simply because it is \na Final BIP, whereas in general we would want to discourage using it since it \ncannot really be used safely.\n\nAll review itself ought to remain on the ML.\n\n\u003e BIP 2 should ask that all current and future forums that BIP authors\n\u003e might choose for review have indisputable records of moderation and\n\u003e user edits.\n\nIs this necessary considering the author-chosen forum may only be *in addition \nto* the Bitcoin Wiki?\n\n\u003e Is dump.bitcoin.it a sufficient public record of contentious\n\u003e moderation or user cross-comment editing? It seems like as long as\n\u003e the wiki as a whole is verifiable, it would suffice.\n\nIt should be everything except accounts/passwords.\n\nLuke",
"sig": "39d3643cd0e4e9b3049915da2ec70af19a64923e5a569fc5c038793773c1203e45a46c5c08379281e85c1d8e75e91cc07a98c50f0bff471b12d7d8b0a8410d5e"
}