public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Scotese <dscotese@litmocracy.com>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process: Status, comments, and copyright licenses
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 21:50:29 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGLBAhffm+1m=DAph-ac8mA9ytLpKqTT45XG1r6UFGFoUvJ+PA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201602012253.18009.luke@dashjr.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3037 bytes --]

The section that starts "Should two software projects need to release"
addresses issues that are difficult to ascertain from what is written
there.  I'll take a stab at what it means:

Would bitcoin be better off if multiple applications provided their own
implementations of API/RPC and corresponding application layer BIPs?

   - While there is only one such application, its UI will be the obvious
   standard and confusion in usability will be avoided.
   - Any more than a single such application will benefit from the
   coordination encouraged and aided by this BIP and BIP 123.

"To avoid doubt: comments and status are unrelated metrics to judge a BIP,
and neither should be directly influencing the other." makes more sense to
me as "To avoid doubt: comments and status are intended to be unrelated
metrics. Any influence of one over the other indicates a deviation from
their intended use."  This can be expanded with a simple example: "In other
words, a BIP having  the status 'Rejected' is no reason not to write
additional comments about it.  Likewise, overwhelming support for a BIP in
its comments section doesn't change the requirements for the 'Accepted' or
'Active' status."

Since the Bitcoin Wiki can be updated with comments from other places, I
think the author of a BIP should be allowed to specify other Internet
locations for comments.  So "link to a Bitcoin Wiki page" could instead be
"link to a comments page (strongly recommended to be in the Bitcoin
Wiki)".  Also, under "Will BIP comments be censored or limited to
particular participants/"experts"?" You could add:

   - The author of a BIP may indicate any commenting URL they wish.  The
   Bitcoin Wiki is merely a recommendation, though a very strong one.


On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> I've completed an initial draft of a BIP that provides clarifications on
> the
> Status field for BIPs, as well as adding the ability for public comments on
> them, and expanding the list of allowable BIP licenses.
>
>
> https://github.com/luke-jr/bips/blob/bip-biprevised/bip-biprevised.mediawiki
>
> I plan to open discussion of making this BIP an Active status (along with
> BIP
> 123) a month after initial revisions have completed. Please provide any
> objections now, so I can try to address them now and enable consensus to be
> reached.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Luke
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>



-- 
I like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do you need a
techie?
I own Litmocracy <http://www.litmocracy.com> and Meme Racing
<http://www.memeracing.net> (in alpha).
I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist <http://www.voluntaryist.com> which
now accepts Bitcoin.
I also code for The Dollar Vigilante <http://dollarvigilante.com/>.
"He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" - Satoshi
Nakamoto

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4083 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2016-02-02  5:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-02-01 22:53 [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process: Status, comments, and copyright licenses Luke Dashjr
2016-02-02  5:50 ` Dave Scotese [this message]
2016-02-02  7:54   ` Luke Dashjr
2016-02-02 16:00     ` Dave Scotese
2016-02-02 15:58 ` Gavin Andresen
2016-02-02 17:38   ` Jorge Timón
2016-02-02 19:41     ` Luke Dashjr
     [not found]       ` <CAGLBAhdFo2pXcDfvPCTpm7ufQuG8z4mHsdoidGkhB3q5SWLj=A@mail.gmail.com>
2016-02-03  0:03         ` Luke Dashjr
2016-02-03  0:59           ` Jorge Timón
2016-02-02 19:08   ` Luke Dashjr
2016-03-10  0:37   ` Mustafa Al-Bassam
2016-02-04  4:15 ` Luke Dashjr
2016-02-04 17:45   ` Ryan Grant
2016-02-04 21:17     ` Luke Dashjr
2016-02-05  0:09       ` Ryan Grant
2016-02-02  6:35 Ryan Grant

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='CAGLBAhffm+1m=DAph-ac8mA9ytLpKqTT45XG1r6UFGFoUvJ+PA@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=dscotese@litmocracy.com \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=luke@dashjr.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