Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process: Status, comments, and copyright licenses

From: Dave Scotese <dscotese@litmocracy•com>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process: Status, comments, and copyright licenses
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 21:50:29 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGLBAhffm+1m=DAph-ac8mA9ytLpKqTT45XG1r6UFGFoUvJ+PA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201602012253.18009.luke@dashjr.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3037 bytes --]

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.

"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."

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)".  Also, under "Will BIP comments be censored or limited to
particular participants/"experts"?" You could add:

   - The author of a BIP may indicate any commenting URL they wish.  The
   Bitcoin Wiki is merely a recommendation, though a very strong one.

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> I've completed an initial draft of a BIP that provides clarifications on
> the
> Status field for BIPs, as well as adding the ability for public comments on
> them, and expanding the list of allowable BIP licenses.
>
>
> https://github.com/luke-jr/bips/blob/bip-biprevised/bip-biprevised.mediawiki
>
> I plan to open discussion of making this BIP an Active status (along with
> BIP
> 123) a month after initial revisions have completed. Please provide any
> objections now, so I can try to address them now and enable consensus to be
> reached.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Luke
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

-- 
I like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do you need a
techie?
I own Litmocracy <http://www.litmocracy.com> and Meme Racing
<http://www.memeracing.net> (in alpha).
I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist <http://www.voluntaryist.com> which
now accepts Bitcoin.
I also code for The Dollar Vigilante <http://dollarvigilante.com/>.
"He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" - Satoshi
Nakamoto

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4083 bytes --]