From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WjtlF-0006Jc-5S for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 12 May 2014 17:11:33 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.217.170 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.170; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; helo=mail-lb0-f170.google.com; Received: from mail-lb0-f170.google.com ([209.85.217.170]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WjtlE-0006pL-9v for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 12 May 2014 17:11:33 +0000 Received: by mail-lb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id w7so7774678lbi.15 for ; Mon, 12 May 2014 10:11:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.203.236 with SMTP id kt12mr13853804lac.8.1399914685593; Mon, 12 May 2014 10:11:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.89.68 with HTTP; Mon, 12 May 2014 10:11:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1612758.yYdJV7lBXv@crushinator> References: <1612758.yYdJV7lBXv@crushinator> Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 10:11:25 -0700 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Matt Whitlock Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gmaxwell[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1WjtlE-0006pL-9v Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Prenumbered BIP naming X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 17:11:33 -0000 On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Matt Whitlock wro= te: > Why is there such a high bar to getting a number assigned to a BIP anyway= ? BIP 1 seems to suggest that getting a BIP number assigned is no big deal,= but the reality seems to betray that casual notion. Even proposals with ho= urs of work put into them are not getting BIP numbers. It's not exactly as = though there's a shortage of integers. Are numbers assigned only to proposa= ls that are well liked? Isn't the point of assigning numbers so that we can= have organized discussions about all proposals, even ones we don't like? It isn't a big deal, but according to the process numbers shouldn't be assigned for things that haven't even been publically discussed. If someone wants to create specifications that are purely the product of they own work and not a public discussion=E2=80=94 they should feel free to= do that, but BIP isn't the process for that. So, since things need to be discussed, it can be useful to have something to call a proposal before other things happen=E2=80=94 thats all. The same kind of issue arise= s elsewhere.