From: Ryan Grant <bitcoin-dev@rgrant•org>
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: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 13:45:38 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMnpzfqVhfFimvX0zU-SCcEL8JGzjnWu8D3v_Ph4kbeGtr8r=w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201602040415.47580.luke@dashjr.org>
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:15 AM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Various changes have been made based on initial input.
> Further review and re-review is of course welcome.
These recent edits definitely guide us towards less hard feelings when
comments are offered, without excessive policy structure.
[BIP 2:]
> A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it
> achieves rough consensus on the mailing list.
Is this mix of wiki and mailing list intentional? If so, the wiki
talk page is meant to be a self-curated permanent record of support
and dissent, but second-order reply commentary might fall either on
the wiki or the mailing list?
Mediawiki offers watchlists on a polling model, and there is some
email support [1], but it would be nice of a BIP author to at least
gather new/edited comment titles and report them to bitcoin-dev once a
week, during review. Someone has to stare at the diffs.
[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Page_change_notification
BIP 2 should ask that all current and future forums that BIP authors
might choose for review have indisputable records of moderation and
user edits.
Is dump.bitcoin.it a sufficient public record of contentious
moderation or user cross-comment editing? It seems like as long as
the wiki as a whole is verifiable, it would suffice.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-04 17:46 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
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 [this message]
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='CAMnpzfqVhfFimvX0zU-SCcEL8JGzjnWu8D3v_Ph4kbeGtr8r=w@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=bitcoin-dev@rgrant$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=luke@dashjr$(echo .)org \
/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