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 5F547FE1 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 21:18:35 +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 D77B513F for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 21:18:34 +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 D96D538A9ACA; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 21:17:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:160204:bitcoin-dev@rgrant.org::439K60keEd+4cN0o:eaokz X-Hashcash: 1:25:160204:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::M0cB7O/92f3jFo+w:nOcK From: Luke Dashjr To: Ryan Grant Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 21:17:30 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.13-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) References: <201602012253.18009.luke@dashjr.org> <201602040415.47580.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="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201602042117.31076.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: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 21:18:35 -0000 On Thursday, February 04, 2016 5:45:38 PM Ryan Grant wrote: > [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? The wiki page is meant to be a place to leave comments recommending or discouraging adoption of a completed BIP, after discussion is over. For example, many people seem to think BIP 38 is a good idea simply because it is a Final BIP, whereas in general we would want to discourage using it since it cannot really be used safely. All review itself ought to remain on the ML. > 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 this necessary considering the author-chosen forum may only be *in addition to* the Bitcoin Wiki? > 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. It should be everything except accounts/passwords. Luke