From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Drak <drak@zikula.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Revisiting the BIPS process, a proposal
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:01:26 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgREw+5NWaFVYd9FS-s63_-24tyWsz5_w6yc8+mGnFYUgQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANAnSg1eH8+sY6n4-cptdzS5Qj0aXdN_d8h8B9joyk73HGL6ZA@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Drak <drak@zikula.org> wrote:
> It's quite normal for standards bodies to allocate numbers when in draft
> status. If they don't pass, they don't pass - they are clearly labelled
> DRAFTs.
>
> +1 on having things in a github repository. Much better for collaboration,
The IETF makes a clear distinction between individual proposals and
documents which have been accepted by a working group. The former are
named after their authors. Work is not assigned a number until it is
complete.
I believe it is important to distinguish complete work that people
should be implementing from things which are incomplete, and even
more important to distinguish the work of single parties.
Otherwise you're going to get crap like BIP90: "Increase the supply of
Bitcoins to 210 million" being confused as an earnest proposal
supported by many that has traction.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-19 17:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-21 14:30 [Bitcoin-development] Revisiting the BIPS process, a proposal Jeff Garzik
2013-10-21 14:34 ` Jeff Garzik
2013-10-21 15:46 ` Andreas Schildbach
2013-10-21 16:14 ` Jeff Garzik
2013-10-21 17:17 ` Jeff Garzik
2013-10-21 19:38 ` Jean-Paul Kogelman
2013-10-21 19:47 ` Luke-Jr
2013-10-21 20:57 ` Benjamin Cordes
2013-10-21 20:59 ` Benjamin Cordes
2013-10-22 6:39 ` Martin Sustrik
2013-10-22 6:59 ` Jean-Paul Kogelman
2013-10-22 7:03 ` Gregory Maxwell
2013-10-22 7:34 ` Martin Sustrik
2013-10-22 7:49 ` Peter Todd
2013-10-22 7:56 ` Gregory Maxwell
2013-10-22 8:20 ` Martin Sustrik
2013-10-22 14:08 ` Jeff Garzik
2013-10-23 7:38 ` Martin Sustrik
2013-10-23 19:40 ` Peter Todd
2013-10-23 20:05 ` Martin Sustrik
2013-10-23 20:27 ` Peter Todd
2013-10-23 21:07 ` Pieter Wuille
2013-10-23 21:42 ` Allen Piscitello
2013-10-23 21:49 ` Luke-Jr
2013-10-24 7:03 ` Martin Sustrik
2013-10-24 10:39 ` Jeff Garzik
2013-10-24 11:11 ` Christian Decker
2013-10-24 19:43 ` Jeremy Spilman
2013-11-19 16:32 ` Wladimir
2013-11-19 16:53 ` Drak
2013-11-19 17:01 ` Gregory Maxwell [this message]
2013-11-19 17:07 ` Drak
2013-11-19 17:45 ` Wladimir
2013-11-19 17:54 ` Gregory Maxwell
2013-11-19 17:06 ` Peter Todd
[not found] ` <CA+s+GJA=p+yvoJqUAMQQRcfYK1B8eMVSJDWaXW8o+X5dzCXkdA@mail.gmail.com>
2013-11-19 17:21 ` [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: " Wladimir
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAAS2fgREw+5NWaFVYd9FS-s63_-24tyWsz5_w6yc8+mGnFYUgQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=gmaxwell@gmail.com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=drak@zikula.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox