From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05D63A70 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 21:01:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f173.google.com (mail-ig0-f173.google.com [209.85.213.173]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2972194 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 21:01:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igfj19 with SMTP id j19so65957027igf.1 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 14:01:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=P8HD5FwCNiTagbWjWmaQoEVa4nVxXEmZhh61HDfC5qU=; b=uOoceQuD9FF85oXmbN52CwTTGirky7DpGxaexbZWNrfeGDcLpCUmgRh7p3kU81lozO benPMug//ndWPO0KpH3Ac9dLfDDN6JMgcjktlaFQefSrLhBKcMSPIqKkuZqOZT1jbXxI PZ8nx73AeUCOAxh8H2XtdXpB83O2ydDX/K09oh0hPqVUU25mDhCdlZtLiHFPEU0unjTh fmXNP6qDdciwJxEy6FZts2Y+5SfrNhwLXdoAb0Z4L2OihETvVpPGB1BpUqX2TqorU8qZ pkvJHcpQgrVXyHPt1lh0Sr/NUKZBRJEI0rQacXaSzKbUUn/icmH+RM/CP851EuGYbOlm h7sw== X-Received: by 10.50.110.72 with SMTP id hy8mr15842927igb.36.1440450095433; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 14:01:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Eric Lombrozo Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 21:01:26 +0000 Message-ID: To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011849d4415061051e14ecd2 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Splitting BIPs X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 21:01:37 -0000 --089e011849d4415061051e14ecd2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Seems like a lot of effort and goodwill is being wasted on contention over things we don't really need to agree upon. In order to help us better prioritize, I propose adding an extra attribute to BIPs indicating their "level" which is split into five as follows: 1. Consensus (hard/soft fork) 2. Peer Services 3. RPC 4. Implementations 5. Applications I posted an example of what such a table might look like here: http:// blockhawk.net/bitcoin-dev/bipwiki.html If other folks also think this is a good idea I'll start working on a BIP draft for this. --089e011849d4415061051e14ecd2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Seems like a lot of effort and goodwill is being wasted on contention over = things we don't really need to agree upon. In order to help us better p= rioritize, I propose adding an extra attribute to BIPs indicating their &qu= ot;level" which is split into five as follows:

1. Consensus (hard/soft fork)
2. Peer Services
3. RPC
4. Implementations
5. Applications

I posted an example of what such a table might look like her= e: http://blockha= wk.net/bitcoin-dev/bipwiki.html

If other folks also think this is a good idea I'll start= working on a BIP draft for this.

--089e011849d4415061051e14ecd2-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 599989E7 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:26:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f171.google.com (mail-io0-f171.google.com [209.85.223.171]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7959188 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:26:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iodb91 with SMTP id b91so166802294iod.1 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 16:26:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=ebcF4m7TNRbv2mrIir7ndDUI0lSxlqjeH6vxaVQA0NA=; b=QZprnxsaQ+tKuREQg3GtccHOzJI8z607lHDQZvcBM0wFzl8h0cjJIsm28qnUHgbamB z33zwSSCVfN8um7hQPUOuF7zOz6kULa03q718NiWTEs33YNvUaYYrP4O3cMj0QVwKPIz +NBIHodguuBdk5LK39Xc/mxL8+wQEL7RdoW2DwW+7xzU2L3k5P5H6rsO9890A0cBOHPX bSwNnwp5dErAA9WefZgTUaxhWipzdFOStLV0lfYeVxrC8JrQN4WJ5z6dPT2a6Zqg1KRH HlwHcW9/xlP2Rq6Wyrr4Gd4ZUZ0xn1FDYoZ6teipZYscxbwahldgB3sFkJuO1V9LnTL6 q7KQ== X-Received: by 10.107.129.160 with SMTP id l32mr19232252ioi.158.1440458766406; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 16:26:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Eric Lombrozo Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:25:54 +0000 Message-ID: To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ec3a615dcb8051e16f1ac X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Splitting BIPs X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:26:07 -0000 --001a113ec3a615dcb8051e16f1ac Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Also, the current "type" attribute needs modification. There are different degrees of "standard". Just because a lot of people do X doesn't need to mean that doing X is "officially" endorsed by any other devs. At most levels below 1, disagreements might be entirely tolerable for many things. On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 2:06 PM Eric Lombrozo wrote: > > Seems like a lot of effort and goodwill is being wasted on contention over > things we don't really need to agree upon. In order to help us better > prioritize, I propose adding an extra attribute to BIPs indicating their > "level" which is split into five as follows: > > 1. Consensus (hard/soft fork) > 2. Peer Services > 3. RPC > 4. Implementations > 5. Applications > > I posted an example of what such a table might look like here: http:// > blockhawk.net/bitcoin-dev/bipwiki.html > > If other folks also think this is a good idea I'll start working on a BIP > draft for this. > --001a113ec3a615dcb8051e16f1ac Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Also, the current "type" attribute needs modificat= ion. There are different degrees of "standard". Just because a lo= t of people do X doesn't need to mean that doing X is "officially&= quot; endorsed by any other devs. At most levels below 1, disagreements mig= ht be entirely tolerable for many things.


On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 2:06 = PM=C2=A0Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@= gmail.com> wrote:


Seems like a lot of effort and goodwill is being wasted on contention over = things we don't really need to agree upon. In order to help us better p= rioritize, I propose adding an extra attribute to BIPs indicating their &qu= ot;level" which is split into five as follows:

1. Consensus (hard/soft fork)
2. Peer Services
3. RPC
4. Implementations
5. Applications

I posted an example of what such a table might look like her= e: http://blockhawk.net/bitcoin-dev/bipwiki.html

If other folks also think this is a good idea I'll start= working on a BIP draft for this.

--001a113ec3a615dcb8051e16f1ac-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97DB8EC8 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 20:52:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f180.google.com (mail-io0-f180.google.com [209.85.223.180]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 368831F8 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 20:52:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iods203 with SMTP id s203so71771294iod.0 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:52:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=U9nRDQftjxSN+M4Dg6VSma/3w9DZ8YaU2q10I6j4VYo=; b=KOS3wmrurSvxz4i2lf+EFnMeYQLp0+u5ZudsWmKEYf7oYPSFppH/Ou1slF/fuZ0xH+ tfZTgH+zxANxJGkTbXbQmbNz2zCWeyEblHkD0iiPCbTSzBBjQUQ91ErKFY3WWkZsD2Ez AWxC1XAKYgVWa8ijnV/t1jrsL4R44Umt1tcQF1dpk2zrqoM2fQkiRRoB40CPKeZ6E76T Q5v3z9U5i6dlbix/4Fj0GKbpd7XNYlK6tihyCWf7GZ8vuAlqAKyCf2nZ/MbbxS6x5PLB kurWO7brSsFrYiUOps13SoBenglKDUpgLwPCUSnopwQiFZH8QdcCzAeXRQTKLrHnRyOo 3+LQ== X-Received: by 10.107.132.146 with SMTP id o18mr11203314ioi.134.1440708724609; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:52:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Eric Lombrozo Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 20:51:55 +0000 Message-ID: To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113f33cac15c45051e5123c4 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Splitting BIPs X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 20:52:06 -0000 --001a113f33cac15c45051e5123c4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I posted a new draft of the proposal: http://blockhawk.net/bitcoin-dev/bipwiki.html The subsections still need to be fleshed out a bit more. I'd love any comments or suggestions. On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 4:30 PM Eric Lombrozo wrote: > Also, the current "type" attribute needs modification. There are different > degrees of "standard". Just because a lot of people do X doesn't need to > mean that doing X is "officially" endorsed by any other devs. At most > levels below 1, disagreements might be entirely tolerable for many things. > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 2:06 PM Eric Lombrozo wrote: > >> >> Seems like a lot of effort and goodwill is being wasted on contention >> over things we don't really need to agree upon. In order to help us better >> prioritize, I propose adding an extra attribute to BIPs indicating their >> "level" which is split into five as follows: >> >> 1. Consensus (hard/soft fork) >> 2. Peer Services >> 3. RPC >> 4. Implementations >> 5. Applications >> >> I posted an example of what such a table might look like here: http:// >> blockhawk.net/bitcoin-dev/bipwiki.html >> >> If other folks also think this is a good idea I'll start working on a BIP >> draft for this. >> > --001a113f33cac15c45051e5123c4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I posted a new draft of the proposal: http://blockhawk.net/bitcoin-dev/bipwik= i.html

The subsections still need to be fleshed out a bit more. I&#= 39;d love any comments or suggestions.


On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 4:30 = PM=C2=A0Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@= gmail.com> wrote:

Also, the current "type" attribute needs modification. T= here are different degrees of "standard". Just because a lot of p= eople do X doesn't need to mean that doing X is "officially" = endorsed by any other devs. At most levels below 1, disagreements might be = entirely tolerable for many things.


On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 2:06 = PM=C2=A0Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> wrote:


Seems like a lot of effort and goodwill is being wasted on contention over = things we don't really need to agree upon. In order to help us better p= rioritize, I propose adding an extra attribute to BIPs indicating their &qu= ot;level" which is split into five as follows:

1. Consensus (hard/soft fork)
2. Peer Services
3. RPC
4. Implementations
5. Applications

I posted an example of what such a table might look like her= e: http://blockhawk.net/bitcoin-dev/bipwiki.html

If other folks also think this is a good idea I'll start= working on a BIP draft for this.

--001a113f33cac15c45051e5123c4-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AE64E5A for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2015 23:37:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36B5F15F for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2015 23:37:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by laboe4 with SMTP id oe4so25447867lab.0 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2015 16:37:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=tRnWfQOXr9hW5zNgGTkh0qWkC5irErhoVb2MaU2s0Tk=; b=cpd467G4nuSYJLWXWw2Bs7dDQohQus3/bwjnRJQODIUImOpwN7CKQOpxXouj0vjKuL VGMFuOOFdlJm1It7LSOcYrepXHaQAffZLraafAXpKxUsxZYld23GPA5SoeqgBstE9VHO J+C0SdrEP000toFfnf66F9dVk8Yw46wDaGRz1VkGBkn6f7ajEQQ6RxG/eRZ/SfPxJXiU pOF8t/u5Tkkj8o6qFLvolapQadpDi+jL2Vdf0JvVCe1YUPdg4fR5jIL/Pu7t2uUal+CE sZ73upuq38ZVvjBW6hWnJCqJgaBPDIR0PFQ7YiQSLSvzeCI3CV7RapC6/K4TXjBeFYeJ Berg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkzu5ZU5YD9YQZ0ePIOsUvlcUEv4f6/MtQ+nYJ1RFB+R5i8iILvDCM3hXTbo1rnwTfQBxna MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.7.68 with SMTP id h4mr7617738laa.94.1440891425660; Sat, 29 Aug 2015 16:37:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.15.22 with HTTP; Sat, 29 Aug 2015 16:37:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 01:37:05 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Eric Lombrozo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Splitting BIPs X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 23:37:08 -0000 Concept ACK. As suggested in the other thread, maybe it is worth to start a new BIP draft for this? On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I posted a new draft of the proposal: > http://blockhawk.net/bitcoin-dev/bipwiki.html > > The subsections still need to be fleshed out a bit more. I'd love any > comments or suggestions. > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 4:30 PM Eric Lombrozo wrote: >> >> Also, the current "type" attribute needs modification. There are different >> degrees of "standard". Just because a lot of people do X doesn't need to >> mean that doing X is "officially" endorsed by any other devs. At most levels >> below 1, disagreements might be entirely tolerable for many things. >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 2:06 PM Eric Lombrozo wrote: >>> >>> >>> Seems like a lot of effort and goodwill is being wasted on contention >>> over things we don't really need to agree upon. In order to help us better >>> prioritize, I propose adding an extra attribute to BIPs indicating their >>> "level" which is split into five as follows: >>> >>> 1. Consensus (hard/soft fork) >>> 2. Peer Services >>> 3. RPC >>> 4. Implementations >>> 5. Applications >>> >>> I posted an example of what such a table might look like here: >>> http://blockhawk.net/bitcoin-dev/bipwiki.html >>> >>> If other folks also think this is a good idea I'll start working on a BIP >>> draft for this. > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >