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 1B823BE6 for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 09:42:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lf0-f52.google.com (mail-lf0-f52.google.com [209.85.215.52]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4B17176 for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 09:42:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f52.google.com with SMTP id d82so14614646lfe.3 for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 02:42:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=i8THl5t8Kr6tOpBhNI8KXuvhWnKnU/NbwUrGqaFxMnk=; b=AMmDeug8TrhVlQONC/d4ctkLSSXXrd9HQ6PzK6iDb7eUltqPu+DuTjPPW04JbmFIai gGeEUIrTC3ORY5B7AwWJEmFC7DnyvaN4Kq+DdMFrCf45cUP6Wgj4sELWA4m97eyi2EyO 74rRm5deJ1baXmEFOK/isHMM249NeHGCdDPs//m+8uynLSMigAKg07xuXMEfigq10Rpr 5F+o559Qq2KD9GhpWd5025sbTp4OlCeE1AvN3PPTMZ9w3OxKmkortnuTI9mvSuXJPtYR x/EIVqba32lZ4ju56B6m/b1jOZel84uEYh8vBFAxXJ2zt94i5zfjgyp7anDhURCgXwPl v+Vg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=i8THl5t8Kr6tOpBhNI8KXuvhWnKnU/NbwUrGqaFxMnk=; b=e17xl4THhQI0a6/gt/NSslAtKL2l2o7Kaq3O8L7YYs9+QbQbITfxOto5wEBjXgKeo8 A6EuZDpuoO8UNMK9QF0NXnTEX8KjlnALbHM65jHLSXDkDR/blHPOZss5vCC+E8rXXIRS FGxmKvzZAjW50Okd5EcQeAN1M+9rKLhkiyvcHnEvOjvtLzngYd+dNNIaGWrTO4Mkssif +y5F0z+B7sxKtYN5TaEq8aYJLlptXO8RGBMgWOFLyTcrkDDjXEwtfz4sqcX3MJ/zRebI y2vyULGlWYLG7Ve3f+nhcF6haO5FmO+454uLCJeYget7Oy7roNwPXsY0ewy3Jp2qtTNt oi3A== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKf3pnf+Hdl0vOAULUwg/GVCZ3qLRSQsrM8N7/W30qbyAjTeFRUw2P6X9HDNK33gVOnJEdJDMQqWOOc9A== X-Received: by 10.25.213.196 with SMTP id m187mr5486346lfg.67.1458294156163; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 02:42:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.82.203 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 02:42:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201603162224.32315.luke@dashjr.org> References: <201603081904.28687.luke@dashjr.org> <201603162224.32315.luke@dashjr.org> From: Btc Drak Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 09:42:16 +0000 Message-ID: To: Luke Dashjr Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11420a5627ff9e052e4f9159 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM, HK_RANDOM_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no 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 09:42:39 -0000 --001a11420a5627ff9e052e4f9159 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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. > 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. > 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. > 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. > (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. --001a11420a5627ff9e052e4f9159 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On W= ed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wr= ote:
BIP Comments are not a part of the B= IP itself, merely post-completion notes
from various external parties. So having them external does not make the BI= P
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 th= e BIP, but for a sort of final summary.
=C2=A0
It is important that the forum for comments have a low barrier of use. The<= br> 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 eas= ier to sign up for a Github account and most have one already. It's cer= tainly easier than either paying to get edit privileges on the Bitcoin Wiki= find someone to convince you're genuine an obscure IRC channel.
<= div>=C2=A0
In terms of staleness, the Wiki has been shown to stand the test of time, a= nd
is frankly less likely to move than the GitHub repository.

The BIP process originated on the Wiki, and was only moved to GitHub becaus= e
stronger moderation was needed (eg, to prevent random other people from
editing someone else's BIP; number self-assignments; etc). Such moderat= ion 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 collaborat= ive features which is why they became the centre of OSS software developmen= t for hundreds of thousands of projects.
=C2=A0
I hope this addresses all your concerns and we can move forward with BIP 2<= br> unmodified?

I am sorry but it has not. = I still strongly object to using the Bitcoin Wiki or any external source so= urce 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 s= uggest a separate page in the bip assets folder, called bip<nnnn>/comments.md. On a side note, more complex r= eference implementation code should be stored in that folder too.
=C2=A0
(On another note, I wonder if we should recommend non-reference implementat= ion
lists/links be moved to BIP Comments rather than constantly revising the BI= Ps
with them...)

Certainly those could be = on the comments page.
--001a11420a5627ff9e052e4f9159--