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 B34C7C13 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:43:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lf0-f41.google.com (mail-lf0-f41.google.com [209.85.215.41]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EC41177 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:43:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f41.google.com with SMTP id l83so28290717lfd.3 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 13:43:31 -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=QrJAv1YMbBO5+nVPmo0R+xQs2i6EVSdJTcxbxqPfrXw=; b=zCwS8q5ZZ1GvYyhXv5EAAlw/pEK7cfY2DSCSaI8NLA+4aHg39Nk7mR7zJ1xw+8QuqJ qa6Gb2ZzN/si6G4iT2Zp/RKPDpexrqLp+SKIgVOtxbeOmYDJei2oPPHIGYY0phjIPTby TOtt45x6cPoJ7k3Uzb+hmAHw1bb+ybKV0nSaSujntVan7r52WR9O9NLRdg/yTb9QsUGi xEmoL1etrvXX+7PyJ1Q7qGpumAA2TOVay3mDOP1gRhcDSdiQHVm0Xc1m7VUjGkXRRMEb 7TNsOY9k2MWwiGY9C4G+IMZdOZ0x4VBb6ITfzArBWjmEGXbMwkle4iGIEpR0GOni57TP oSeA== 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=QrJAv1YMbBO5+nVPmo0R+xQs2i6EVSdJTcxbxqPfrXw=; b=P152pxTLKJTc3/CQQjk+gFHBWGB4YhNsdO3ZPtyroF7kImojMVBiPmNbtJAyi3//// Duu7zDs3YtHe4WWrBl0Lq2+o8QCpMVTKZVDSu7h+T9H3dRebvUONGyg+1OZDrjtTIGgW RLR7bkuOzSON80X+i+RiU33IpZSqjNx0mieXPYT/X9DgOPj0CnZUs8GjuPNV/3TxRqCw kJMhxRe64YQxKXbLH+s29tMvG7cQFrnNkD+gDi7aPHrCB1An8DP8z7uI6uCDAMvdkdJA b4aoJyJ1ccn2I0M6BOTOLISsA9ZjRVdS0M0s4ELcG9Ag2TCuQtbBhZ4gtgc7fFN0yI0y YFUA== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLpJNNSjNEo4YSH396h76OLzC9mF5DQLrd8W6sA7Bgx0GGgIjKbAi3ZJnsBh0eVFGu/Glu5QB9Tkn8IyA== X-Received: by 10.25.28.140 with SMTP id c134mr1743330lfc.99.1458161009647; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 13:43:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.82.203 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 13:43:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201603081904.28687.luke@dashjr.org> References: <201603081904.28687.luke@dashjr.org> From: Btc Drak Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:43:09 +0000 Message-ID: To: Luke Dashjr Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11472c0001661f052e3091f4 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: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:42:34 +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: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:43:32 -0000 --001a11472c0001661f052e3091f4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I have an objection about "BIP comments" in BIP2. I think BIPs should be self contained, but the specification recommends posting comments to the Bitcoin Wiki (bitcoin.it). I think this is a bad idea and external sources are bound to go stale over time as can be evidenced by a number of existing BIPs which link to external content that has long since expired. Comments should be made instead using the Wiki feature at bitcoin/bips itself (which can be enabled in the administration settings). On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > It has been about 1 month since BIP 2 finished receiving comments, so I > believe it is an appropriate time to begin the process of moving it to > Final > Status. Toward this end, I have opened a pull request: > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/350 > > The current requirement for this is that "the reference implementation is > complete and accepted by the community". Given the vagueness of this > criteria, > I intend to move forward applying BIP 2's more specific criteria to itself: > > > A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it achieves > rough > > consensus on the mailing list. Such a proposal is said to have rough > > consensus if it has been open to discussion on the development mailing > list > > for at least one month, and no person maintains any unaddressed > > substantiated objections to it. Addressed or obstructive objections may > be > > ignored/overruled by general agreement that they have been sufficiently > > addressed, but clear reasoning must be given in such circumstances. > > Furthermore, there is a reference implementation in the mentioned PR. > > Please review the latest draft BIP and provide any objections ASAP. > If there are no outstanding objections on 2016 April 9th, I will consider > the > current draft to have reached rough consensus and update its Status to > Final > by merging the PR. > > Thanks, > > Luke > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --001a11472c0001661f052e3091f4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I have an objection about "BIP comments" in= BIP2. I think BIPs should be self contained, but the specification recomme= nds posting comments to the Bitcoin Wiki (bitcoin.it). I think this is a bad idea and external sou= rces are bound to go stale over time as can be evidenced by a number of exi= sting BIPs which link to external content that has long since expired. Comm= ents should be made instead using the Wiki feature at bitcoin/bips itself (= which can be enabled in the administration settings).=C2=A0

On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 7:04= PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.li= nuxfoundation.org> wrote:
It has been abo= ut 1 month since BIP 2 finished receiving comments, so I
believe it is an appropriate time to begin the process of moving it to Fina= l
Status. Toward this end, I have opened a pull request:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/350
The current requirement for this is that "the reference implementation= is
complete and accepted by the community". Given the vagueness of this c= riteria,
I intend to move forward applying BIP 2's more specific criteria to its= elf:

> A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it achieves = rough
> consensus on the mailing list. Such a proposal is said to have rough > consensus if it has been open to discussion on the development mailing= list
> for at least one month, and no person maintains any unaddressed
> substantiated objections to it. Addressed or obstructive objections ma= y be
> ignored/overruled by general agreement that they have been sufficientl= y
> addressed, but clear reasoning must be given in such circumstances.
Furthermore, there is a reference implementation in the mentioned PR.

Please review the latest draft BIP and provide any objections ASAP.
If there are no outstanding objections on 2016 April 9th, I will consider t= he
current draft to have reached rough consensus and update its Status to Fina= l
by merging the PR.

Thanks,

Luke
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--001a11472c0001661f052e3091f4--