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 6CB97D5B for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 19:35:26 +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 CD518151 for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 19:35:25 +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 1796238A17C4; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 19:35:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:160318:btcdrak@gmail.com::Jc25fN+NEBp7TKe5:czE6G X-Hashcash: 1:25:160318:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::zKuuZUkpmHt0VWWj:BsLj From: Luke Dashjr To: Btc Drak Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 19:34:52 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.18-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) References: <201603081904.28687.luke@dashjr.org> <201603162224.32315.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: <201603181934.54684.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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 20:38:56 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 promotion to Final 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, 18 Mar 2016 19:35:26 -0000 On Friday, March 18, 2016 9:42:16 AM Btc Drak wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote: > > BIP Comments are not a part of the BIP itself, merely post-completion > > notes from various external parties. So having them external does not > > make the BIP > > any less self-contained. Right now, this information takes the form of > > reddit/forum comments, IRC chats, etc. > > BIP2 does not state the comments section is where discussion happens for > the BIP, but for a sort of final summary. Yes, discussion for the BIP still happens on the mailing list. > > It is important that the forum for comments have a low barrier of use. > > The Bitcoin Wiki requires only a request for editing privileges, whereas > > GitHub wiki would require reading and agreeing to a lengthy Terms of > > Service contract. > > Seems weak, it's much easier to sign up for a Github account and most have > one already. It's certainly easier than either paying to get edit > privileges on the Bitcoin Wiki find someone to convince you're genuine an > obscure IRC channel. Weak? What does that even mean? GitHub's terms are no trivial list. It's not a matter of "easy", but whether you're willing to agree to the terms or not - and people should be free to participate without doing so. The Bitcoin Wiki has never had a problem with whitelisting people, and isn't exclusively available via IRC. > > In terms of staleness, the Wiki has been shown to stand the test of time, > > and > > is frankly less likely to move than the GitHub repository. > > > > The BIP process originated on the Wiki, and was only moved to GitHub > > because > > stronger moderation was needed (eg, to prevent random other people from > > editing someone else's BIP; number self-assignments; etc). Such > > moderation is > > not only unnecessary for BIP Comments, but would be an outright nuisance. > > I'm not sure that is the reason why, but in any case, Github is a more > sensible place because of the collaborative features which is why they > became the centre of OSS software development for hundreds of thousands of > projects. GitHub's collaborative features for the wiki function is clearly inferior. > > I hope this addresses all your concerns and we can move forward with BIP > > 2 unmodified? > > I am sorry but it has not. I still strongly object to using the Bitcoin > Wiki or any external source source for the commentary part of BIP2. I > believe it should be done on using the Wiki feature at bitcoin/bips. If > that is not acceptable, then I would suggest a separate page in the bip > assets folder, called bip/comments.md. On a side note, more complex > reference implementation code should be stored in that folder too. Then you're essentially standing in the way of BIP 2 and stalling it. I have no interest in having to manually approve every single little comment on BIPs, and I think it's likely nobody will use it if doing so requires such effort. > > (On another note, I wonder if we should recommend non-reference > > implementation > > lists/links be moved to BIP Comments rather than constantly revising the > > BIPs > > with them...) > > Certainly those could be on the comments page.