* [Bitcoin-development] Prenumbered BIP naming
@ 2014-05-12 16:53 Gregory Maxwell
2014-05-12 17:01 ` Matt Whitlock
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Gregory Maxwell @ 2014-05-12 16:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bitcoin Development
I've noticed some folks struggling to attach labels to their yet to be
numbered BIPs.
I'd recommend people call them "draft-<main author name>-<what it
does>" like draft-maxwell-coinburning in the style of pre-WG IETF
drafts.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Prenumbered BIP naming
2014-05-12 16:53 [Bitcoin-development] Prenumbered BIP naming Gregory Maxwell
@ 2014-05-12 17:01 ` Matt Whitlock
2014-05-12 17:11 ` Gregory Maxwell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Matt Whitlock @ 2014-05-12 17:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bitcoin-development
On Monday, 12 May 2014, at 9:53 am, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> I've noticed some folks struggling to attach labels to their yet to be
> numbered BIPs.
>
> I'd recommend people call them "draft-<main author name>-<what it
> does>" like draft-maxwell-coinburning in the style of pre-WG IETF
> drafts.
Why is there such a high bar to getting a number assigned to a BIP anyway? BIP 1 seems to suggest that getting a BIP number assigned is no big deal, but the reality seems to betray that casual notion. Even proposals with hours of work put into them are not getting BIP numbers. It's not exactly as though there's a shortage of integers. Are numbers assigned only to proposals that are well liked? Isn't the point of assigning numbers so that we can have organized discussions about all proposals, even ones we don't like?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Prenumbered BIP naming
2014-05-12 17:01 ` Matt Whitlock
@ 2014-05-12 17:11 ` Gregory Maxwell
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Gregory Maxwell @ 2014-05-12 17:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Matt Whitlock; +Cc: Bitcoin Development
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock•name> wrote:
> Why is there such a high bar to getting a number assigned to a BIP anyway? BIP 1 seems to suggest that getting a BIP number assigned is no big deal, but the reality seems to betray that casual notion. Even proposals with hours of work put into them are not getting BIP numbers. It's not exactly as though there's a shortage of integers. Are numbers assigned only to proposals that are well liked? Isn't the point of assigning numbers so that we can have organized discussions about all proposals, even ones we don't like?
It isn't a big deal, but according to the process numbers shouldn't be
assigned for things that haven't even been publically discussed. If
someone wants to create specifications that are purely the product of
they own work and not a public discussion— they should feel free to do
that, but BIP isn't the process for that. So, since things need to be
discussed, it can be useful to have something to call a proposal
before other things happen— thats all. The same kind of issue arises
elsewhere.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-05-12 17:11 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-05-12 16:53 [Bitcoin-development] Prenumbered BIP naming Gregory Maxwell
2014-05-12 17:01 ` Matt Whitlock
2014-05-12 17:11 ` Gregory Maxwell
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox