From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D09EAC000B for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:44:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7487608DC for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:44:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.935 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.935 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dtrt.org Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O4_6k_oFHRye for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:44:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from newmail.dtrt.org (newmail.dtrt.org [IPv6:2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe7b:78d1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B4C9607F1 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:44:33 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dtrt.org; s=20201208; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=u4GTAg/swUfH2Xk0yf7wbqxslRLoWxmc5MvVe5VWsSc=; b=MtVHnSacAcVCiYGue2VoTlcrTd VfHTGy0KS6OOBDgRzvbgfY8cNHecGLz1BVR093YunsV2oCaJS2go6rny7e27w0PLJmGnYZcG7JvUV RS1UGnctPlxnjRfm/XgBbVbfYXSZCcSnl4MY1WAuZqsbjA4WProcl7n7yrCT3zVX0IjQ=; Received: from harding by newmail.dtrt.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lb79j-0001rs-1j; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:44:31 -1000 Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:43:09 -1000 From: "David A. Harding" To: Matt Corallo , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Message-ID: <20210426194309.2k5exujz23vjrgwc@ganymede> References: <202104230209.05373.luke@dashjr.org> <202104252100.07296.luke@dashjr.org> <40214e32-ffb3-9518-7bc8-9c1059f50da7@mattcorallo.com> <202104252122.40909.luke@dashjr.org> <248f871e-1b83-8c7c-678b-3ed0585a6357@mattcorallo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="j3q76vaymejxhqu4" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <248f871e-1b83-8c7c-678b-3ed0585a6357@mattcorallo.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Reminder on the Purpose of BIPs X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:44:34 -0000 --j3q76vaymejxhqu4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 05:31:50PM -0400, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrot= e: > In general, I think its time we all agree the BIP process has simply fail= ed > and move on. Luckily its not really all that critical and proposed protoc= ol > documents can be placed nearly anywhere with the same effect. I recommend: 1. We add additional BIP editors, starting with Kalle Alm (if there are no continuing significant objections). 2. We seek Luke Dashjr's resignation as BIPs editor. 3. We begin treating protocol documents outside the BIPs repository as first-class BIP documentation. The first recommendation permits continued maintenance of existing BIPs plus gives the additional maintainers an opportunity to rebuild the credibility of the repository. The second recommendation addresses the dissatisfaction of many BIP authors and potential authors with the current editor, which I think will discourage many of them from making additional significant contributions to the repository. It also seems to me to be a better use of Luke's talents and interests for him to focus on protocol research and review rather than procedurally checking whether a bunch of documents are well formed. The third recommendation provides an escape hatch for anyone, such as Matt, who currently thinks the process has failed, or for anyone who comes to that same conclusion in the future under a different editing team. My specific recommendations there are: a. Anyone writing protocol documentation in the spirit of the BIP process can post their idea to this mailing list like we've always done and, when they've finished collecting initial feedback, they can assign themselves a unique decentralized identifier starting with "bip-". They may also define a shorter alias that they encourage people to use in cases where the correct document can be inferred from context. E.g., bip-wuille-taproot (bip-taproot) bip-towns-versionbits-min-activation-height (bip-vbmah) bip-todd-harding-opt-in-replace-by-fee (bip-opt-in-rbf) b. The author then publishes the document to any place they'd like, although they are strongly encouraged to make any document source available under an open license to ensure others can create their own modifications. c. Implementations of BIPs, whether original repository BIPs or decentralized BIPs, link to the BIPs they implement to ensure researchers and developers can find the relevant protocol documentation. E.g., https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/fe5e495c31de47b0ec732b943db11fe3= 45d874af/doc/bips.md (It may also be advisable for implementations to mirror copies of the BIPs they implement so later modifications to the document don't confuse anyone. For this reason, extremely liberal licensing of BIP documents is encouraged.) d. To help maintain quality and consistency between documentation, the BIP editors provide a BIP document template, guidelines similar to the existing BIP2, and an easy-to-run format linter. I think this decentralized BIPs alternative also helps address some longstanding problems with the BIPs system: that many casual Bitcoin users and developers think of documents in the BIPs repo as authoritative and that there are some development teams (such as for LN) that have already abandoned the BIPs process because, in part, they want complete control over their own documentation. =20 The recommendations above were developed based on conversations I had with a few stakeholders in the BIPs process, but I did not attempt a comprehensive survey and I certainly don't claim to speak for anyone else. I hope the recommendations are satisfactory and I look forward to your feedback. Thanks, -Dave --j3q76vaymejxhqu4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEgxUkqkMp0LnoXjCr2dtBqWwiadMFAmCHF80ACgkQ2dtBqWwi adOASQ/7BV78+4WBQc8AYGdoG3Plui2wZcJY8pbnfRta9mnrnkGNg2vTF2FfjIRC uLIgUv3bV3ycXZ60fdV01UcFRkwK6Oep+V6NbvKInSOPF28vtiEXelzDCtwh0bVg 0To12QqtO4XbNHXpxixS5tUVGYns6iXrXVD8JJsde0iBU05MAXX3X1W06E1MQ+YE Yryhu9vb7+Tu/aPOgIq8juZmCgmGwItus/T44HrHub/uwhLNRh9Ylu7vRGI2ZSki wodDsM5nLrkKjOyrtajF+liv+XvxZxWd81Imw5ZVq1AI54xTmKCysagi5m2umt/d RLOPrPpsCBUhWO+jmJ/wb37TmcYLPuA8ZiI5XX9EGZZ9qd6P042vhQ3g85gauoYr MX5tk1lOtjMOx100cP8sjZHCGuWjbLrOGnX5nMxUw+1wVCW7gA0d2yfCkL/pA3T6 qUgYJRDE3H41aGYKg7t8OsMOGdwegp0k4MOKB6i1afqU8KJznlnN+6ji84IyWbTP +B3QyA7ZsxvqjUI0IyTTw2GumRAIdoqv8GC04jRUDN7LxyNxK1lpoCNv+vFKfQHc s7bUi5onwB7EcIQrY5RkoXA62jzAQZbfCazjsVqwbKAT42azvM8IGCrXazYQt1pT 2jdnTgrpL1Lfa4oGNxq1zRiFSlDTkHh9vmvPMK/ZV7ioR0E1y6I= =IB+y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --j3q76vaymejxhqu4--