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 48B11F68 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 05:50:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com (mail-ob0-f174.google.com [209.85.214.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7185563 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 05:50:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ob0-f174.google.com with SMTP id is5so140318194obc.0 for ; Mon, 01 Feb 2016 21:50:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=5/fj5nc55XYhMqGMxqoxMxjfSDQO69fntko7QOerVm0=; b=DVUOtHsVu5LYBULL13e3CwRUXLEeKV5KcPG3Qh7CF2ghJICGhn2+EEKyKetTgrvyt2 vxubCsIkDjooQGvZaaCIZqV+IrZ3rT5mexVaK95o3SiS9M5reKR+ApY+xbZVd5GvkD6P YlTha+fdqPdDtu8GRCd2gfIECFsjQ/ffSjgseUQa2scn6qtp25XXcxclbN2M0KAP267Q Uo3g74BJSyHegvaSY97fN/DsXplKwtwrNnWgZW0WxN2xGUuEhKWdD2pwdS+n060L43pM Jb0A3f3q4ZTeQWx76CLdHsjIVmXTmfzaBBfMFEDdREiDx4fzKZt587anNzOxXArMxh+h W4uA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=5/fj5nc55XYhMqGMxqoxMxjfSDQO69fntko7QOerVm0=; b=J1Em5Wka7Sz9RiZuoDCL4wOJ1/cGQf+NrA+Hh+8hdpKIV7FmEdCmeGFVchf2KMZni0 zY9/6hvidG1CY2KSnziRIDSpVDj42OoOewPCwQx54mzq+EmwRtC1zV3WNYLCUYns+MFj CCYhK+tBjz+UfMFb0BvXlApGdhYUIjndWqKaz2NjqIsGGMlUPcn+aoj+06N4VyiR4OC2 TP19gPaDTzEcG8EtIqA+SoQlQhQae13ZNZdeTXSfuuHHEhI8HGC07vWsLdGpF37S/Y2Q bZHuUGI/2EruGLsLAq5iknNSKO5KHBrUeYhPHEZ2B9iRB9Gqq3dz1Jo2eKK4oZcTKG3A kKog== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORMoOvcR7Rq7anqPciM6bq0AkNzki6iUkuP5RaYUjouiwVj3c9EghWkm0lHWwW3pkMlyUT8BgRH3omodw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.214.40 with SMTP id nx8mr22210102obc.20.1454392229775; Mon, 01 Feb 2016 21:50:29 -0800 (PST) Sender: dscotese@gmail.com Received: by 10.60.55.71 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Feb 2016 21:50:29 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201602012253.18009.luke@dashjr.org> References: <201602012253.18009.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 21:50:29 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: pYwciCa4vKNtUqfVtX-L34G_5Kg Message-ID: From: Dave Scotese To: Luke Dashjr Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff1c01e3851e6052ac314ff X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 14:27:32 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process: Status, comments, and copyright licenses 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: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 05:50:31 -0000 --e89a8ff1c01e3851e6052ac314ff Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 and Meme Racing (in alpha). I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist which now accepts Bitcoin. I also code for The Dollar Vigilante . "He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" - Satoshi Nakamoto --e89a8ff1c01e3851e6052ac314ff Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The section that starts "Should two software pro= jects need to release" addresses issues that are difficult to ascertai= n from what is written there.=C2=A0 I'll take a stab at what it means:<= br>
Would bitcoin be better off if multiple applications provided = their own implementations of API/RPC and corresponding application layer BI= Ps?
  • While there is only one such application, its UI will be the= obvious standard and confusion in usability will be avoided.
  • Any m= ore than a single such application will benefit from the coordination encou= raged and aided by this BIP and BIP 123.

"To avoid doubt: = comments and status are unrelated metrics to judge a BIP, and neither shoul= d be directly influencing the other." makes more sense to me as "= To avoid doubt: comments and status are intended to be unrelated metrics. A= ny influence of one over the other indicates a deviation from their intende= d use."=C2=A0 This can be expanded with a simple example: "In oth= er words, a BIP having=C2=A0 the status 'Rejected' is no reason not= to write additional comments about it.=C2=A0 Likewise, overwhelming suppor= t for a BIP in its comments section doesn't change the requirements for= the 'Accepted' or 'Active' status."

Since the B= itcoin Wiki can be updated with comments from other places, I think the aut= hor of a BIP should be allowed to specify other Internet locations for comm= ents.=C2=A0 So "link to a Bitcoin Wiki page" could instead be &qu= ot;link to a comments page (strongly recommended to be in the Bitcoin Wiki)= ".=C2=A0 Also, under "Will BIP comments be censored or limited to= particular participants/"experts"?" You could add:

    <= li>The author of a BIP may indicate any commenting URL they wish.=C2=A0 The= Bitcoin Wiki is merely a recommendation, though a very strong one.

On Mo= n, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev &l= t;bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
I've completed an initial draft of a BIP that prov= ides 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 B= IP
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/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev



--
I like to provide some work at no charge to prove = my value. Do you need a techie?=C2=A0
I own Litmocracy and Meme Racing (in alpha).
I'm the we= bmaster for The V= oluntaryist which now accepts Bitcoin.
I also code for The Dollar Vigilante.
&= quot;He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" - Satos= hi Nakamoto
--e89a8ff1c01e3851e6052ac314ff--