From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>
To: Dave Scotese <dscotese@litmocracy•com>,
Ryan Grant <bitcoin-dev@rgrant•org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process: Status, comments, and copyright licenses
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 07:54:29 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201602020754.31734.luke@dashjr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGLBAhffm+1m=DAph-ac8mA9ytLpKqTT45XG1r6UFGFoUvJ+PA@mail.gmail.com>
On Tuesday, February 02, 2016 5:50:29 AM Dave Scotese wrote:
> The section that starts "Should two software projects need to release"
> addresses issues that are difficult to ascertain from what is written
> there. I'll take a stab at what it means:
>
> Would bitcoin be better off if multiple applications provided their own
> implementations of API/RPC and corresponding application layer BIPs?
>
> - While there is only one such application, its UI will be the obvious
> standard and confusion in usability will be avoided.
> - Any more than a single such application will benefit from the
> coordination encouraged and aided by this BIP and BIP 123.
The original question is intended to answer both: a) why only one
implementation is insufficient for Final status, and b) why two is sufficient.
If every application had its own BIP (how I understand your version), none of
them would be standards and it wouldn't make sense to have a BIP at all - just
project documentation would be sufficient.
> "To avoid doubt: comments and status are unrelated metrics to judge a BIP,
> and neither should be directly influencing the other." makes more sense to
> me as "To avoid doubt: comments and status are intended to be unrelated
> metrics. Any influence of one over the other indicates a deviation from
> their intended use." This can be expanded with a simple example: "In other
> words, a BIP having the status 'Rejected' is no reason not to write
> additional comments about it. Likewise, overwhelming support for a BIP in
> its comments section doesn't change the requirements for the 'Accepted' or
> 'Active' status."
Extending this to "influence" is probably too far - after all, comments may
discourage implementations, which can very well result in the Status
eventually becoming Rejected rather than Final. How about:
"To avoid doubt: comments and status are intended to be unrelated metrics. In
other words, a BIP having the status 'Rejected' is no reason to write (or not
write) additional comments about it, nor would a status of 'Final' preclude
comments discouraging [further] implementation. Likewise, overwhelming support
for a BIP in its comments section doesn't change the requirements for the
'Final' or 'Active' status."
> Since the Bitcoin Wiki can be updated with comments from other places, I
> think the author of a BIP should be allowed to specify other Internet
> locations for comments. So "link to a Bitcoin Wiki page" could instead be
> "link to a comments page (strongly recommended to be in the Bitcoin
> Wiki)".
Hmm, I wonder if this could be too easily abuse to discourage comments
(because the commenter does not wish to register with yet another forum),
and/or censor negative comments (because the author has made his own forum
specifically for the purpose).
On Tuesday, February 02, 2016 6:35:07 AM you wrote:
> For section "Formally defining consensus",
>
> Where objections were not deemed substantiated by the community, clear
> reasoning must be offered.
I have integrated this into the draft.
> For section "BIP Comments",
>
> Comments should be solicited on the bitcoin-dev mailing list, and
> summarized fairly in the wiki; with notice of summarization and time
> for suggesting edits on the mailing list. Wiki registration and
> monitoring should not be a required hurdle to participation.
The intent is for the commenter to edit the wiki page himself. I have updated
it to reflect this.
Luke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-02 7:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-01 22:53 Luke Dashjr
2016-02-02 5:50 ` Dave Scotese
2016-02-02 7:54 ` Luke Dashjr [this message]
2016-02-02 16:00 ` Dave Scotese
2016-02-02 15:58 ` Gavin Andresen
2016-02-02 17:38 ` Jorge Timón
2016-02-02 19:41 ` Luke Dashjr
[not found] ` <CAGLBAhdFo2pXcDfvPCTpm7ufQuG8z4mHsdoidGkhB3q5SWLj=A@mail.gmail.com>
2016-02-03 0:03 ` Luke Dashjr
2016-02-03 0:59 ` Jorge Timón
2016-02-02 19:08 ` Luke Dashjr
2016-03-10 0:37 ` Mustafa Al-Bassam
2016-02-04 4:15 ` Luke Dashjr
2016-02-04 17:45 ` Ryan Grant
2016-02-04 21:17 ` Luke Dashjr
2016-02-05 0:09 ` Ryan Grant
2016-02-02 6:35 Ryan Grant
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201602020754.31734.luke@dashjr.org \
--to=luke@dashjr$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@rgrant$(echo .)org \
--cc=dscotese@litmocracy$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox