Hi Jonas,

Thank you for reviewing the wiki page.

> 1. Separate Technical Evaluation from Community Support
> A simple solution would be to remove the "Wanting" and "Deficient"
categories.

There are 7 options available to share opinion on an opcode and only 2 
include community support. If a developer wants to ACK a proposal it is 
possible to use to 'prefer' or 'acceptable' and 'no' for NACK. 

We have already changed definition for 3 categories. I removed community 
support from 'no' and moonsettler rephrased 'prefer' and 'evaluating'. 
Removing some categories at this point breaks the whole table. 

At the end of the day bitcoin developers build for community so if someone 
wants to play safe and use 'deficient' and 'wanting', its their choice and 
I think we should allow such freedom to express themselves. 

>  2. Require Stating Reasons for Objections

A column for adding a link to rationale will be added this weekend. I had 
tweeted about it but forgot to update the mailing list thread.

>  Because there is no working group making decisions in Bitcoin,
> community members must individually assess whether proposals have achieved
> rough developer consensus.

>  Developers giving positive technical evaluations are also encouraged to 
share
> their reasoning, as this can help inform others' assessments.

I agree with you on this and I have requested everyone to respond to this 
thread.

>  3. Add Links to BIP Drafts

I have added the links to BIP drafts for all opcodes.

/dev/fd0
floppy disk guy

On Saturday, December 7, 2024 at 4:18:21 AM UTC+5:30 Jonas Nick wrote:

> Hi /dev/fd0,
>
> I do not think the segwit support page serves as a suitable template for
> building rough consensus, in general and for covenants in particular. It 
> lacks
> key characteristics that would help in (rough) consensus building as 
> outlined in
> RFC 7282 [0] (which I strongly recommend reading).
>
> I propose the following changes:
>
> 1. Separate Technical Evaluation from Community Support
>
> The ratings "Deficient" and "Wanting" are supposed to be assigned when a
> proposal considered to have insufficient community support. This creates a
> circular problem: the wiki page is meant to help build community support, 
> but
> the ratings already assume certain levels of support. This makes the 
> ratings
> less useful and risks creating self-fulfilling prophecies.
>
> A simple solution would be to remove the "Wanting" and "Deficient"
> categories.
>
> 2. Require Stating Reasons for Objections
>
> As RFC 7282 states:
>
> > Remember, coming to consensus is a matter of eliminating disagreement.
>
> To achieve this, we need to clearly state objections to enable a meaningful
> discussion. Each "No" rating should include a link to a mailing list post 
> or
> similar document that explicitly states the objection, covering aspects 
> such
> as technical deficiencies, likelihood of widespread adoption, and impact on
> decentralization.
>
> > Then, the purported failings
> > of the choice can be examined by the working group. The objector
> > might convince the rest of the group that the objections are valid
> > and the working group might choose a different path. Conversely, the
> > working group might convince the objector that the concerns can be
> > addressed, or that the choice is simply unappealing (i.e., something
> > the objector can "live with") and not a show-stopper.
>
> Because there is no working group making decisions in Bitcoin,
> community members must individually assess whether proposals have achieved
> rough developer consensus.
>
> Developers giving positive technical evaluations are also encouraged to 
> share
> their reasoning, as this can help inform others' assessments.
>
> 3. Add Links to BIP Drafts
>
> All opcodes mentioned on the wiki page presumably have corresponding draft
> BIPs. These should be linked to provide a clear basis for technical
> evaluation.
>
> [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/6d375199-834e-4630-8b5c-fcc5ed137cb1n%40googlegroups.com.