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 09B5DEF5 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:08:41 +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 AE35E112 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:08:40 +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 899DA38A99D4; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:08:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:160202:gavinandresen@gmail.com::wyBa9ontAAYFaH72:acHes X-Hashcash: 1:25:160202:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::vkp/2Ip725NvcRS3:5jez From: Luke Dashjr To: Gavin Andresen Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:08:19 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.13-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) References: <201602012253.18009.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: <201602021908.20547.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_SBL, RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no 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] BIP Process: Status, comments, and copyright licenses 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: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 19:08:41 -0000 On Tuesday, February 02, 2016 3:58:21 PM Gavin Andresen wrote: > I don't like the definition of "consensus". I think the definition > described gives too much centralized control to whoever controls the > mailing list and the wiki. How can I improve this? Inevitably, every medium of communications will be controlled by someone (even if unmoderated, it becomes effectively controlled by trolls who spam it with garbage). I think it's important to note that this is also only for updating the status of BIPs, and is not in any way relevant to such proposals *actually* being accepted. So if the BIP process were to breakdown on this or any other point, it isn't somehow controlling the actual reality. To explicitly clarify this point, I have added to the end of the section: "These criteria are considered objective ways to observe the de facto adoption of the BIP, and are not to be used as reasons to oppose or reject a BIP. Should a BIP become actually and unambiguously adopted despite not meeting the criteria outlined here, it should still be updated to Final status." Does that help? Thanks, Luke