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 BA9E9AD6 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:56:48 +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 6A8C14BE for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:56:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3147638A0067 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:56:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:170927:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::yyYVyCWkxgLe=i=z:cgeTo From: Luke Dashjr To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:56:26 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.12.5-gentoo; KDE/4.14.34; x86_64; ; ) 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="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201709271856.27376.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Revising BIP 2 to expand editorial authority X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:56:48 -0000 Many pull requests to the BIPs repository are spelling corrections or similar, which are obvious to merge. Currently, the BIP process requires the Author of the affected BIPs to ACK any changes, which seems inefficient and unnecessary for these kind of editorial fixes. What do people think about modifying BIP 2 to allow editors to merge these kinds of changes without involving the Authors? Strictly speaking, BIP 2 shouldn't be changed now that it is Active, but for such a minor revision, I think an exception is reasonable. I've prepared a draft PR for BIP 2 here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/596 If you oppose this change, please say so within the next month. Luke