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 65858F34 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 21:46:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0549F140 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 21:45:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5F09A1080053; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 21:45:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:150904:theandychase@gmail.com::=MsbvrvAb0w1oqFG:laE6 X-Hashcash: 1:25:150904:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::hj27COm=jSVL9Zix:BDJn X-Hashcash: 1:25:150904:pete@petertodd.org::xY1WYNRmoTRZ/Gvm:aei6p From: Luke Dashjr To: Andy Chase Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 21:45:32 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.1-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) References: <64B72DF6-BE37-4624-ADAA-CE28C14A4227@gmail.com> <201509042101.11839.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201509042145.34410.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP/Draft] BIP Acceptance Process 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: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 21:46:00 -0000 On Friday, September 04, 2015 9:36:42 PM Andy Chase wrote: > I understand your concerns. What kinds of changes do you think should go > through a process like this? Just hard forks? The process loses meaning if it doesn't reflect reality. So only hardforks should go through the hardfork process; only softforks through the softfork process; etc. Trying to make one-size-fits-all just means de facto accepted BIPs wouldn't be recognised as such because nobody cares to meet the higher requirements. Luke