public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: "Wladimir J. van der Laan" <laanwj@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 16:16:51 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0zxfK_SqveYyaPxAxVn_kM2347VrjstmkbHkXJC9suZw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150618140544.GA7674@amethyst.visucore.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2172 bytes --]

>
> If you think it's not clear enough, which may explain why you did not even
> attempt to follow it for your block size increase, feel free to make
> improvements.
>

As the outcome of a block size BIP would be a code change to Bitcoin Core,
I cannot make improvements, only ask for them. Which is what I'm doing.

I agree that BIP 1 is not clear enough. Gavin is writing a BIP to accompany
his patch, because BIPs are best when they describe working code, and BIP 1
*is* at least clear about that. Otherwise it can turn out during
implementation that something was different to what was anticipated. I'm
sure you agree with this.

So a BIP is coming. However, BIP 1 also says this:

Vetting an idea publicly before going as far as writing a BIP is meant to
> save the potential author time


and

BIP authors are responsible for collecting community feedback on a BIP
> before submitting it for review


OK. Gavin has been vetting the idea publicly and collecting community
feedback. Note that the entire Bitcoin community is not on this list, so he
published a series of blog posts to get wider feedback, and then was
criticised for not doing it all here instead.

But anyway - so far, so good.  The procedure is being followed.

What happens once a BIP is written? The process says:

For a BIP to be accepted it must meet certain minimum criteria. It must be
> a clear and complete description of the proposed enhancement. The
> enhancement must represent a net improvement. The proposed implementation,
> if applicable, must be solid and must not complicate the protocol unduly.



>  Once a BIP has been accepted, the reference implementation must be
> completed.


This is where the problem starts.

The BIP process you refer to *does not state how acceptance will happen*.
It merely sets out a few minimum requirements like making some sort of
sense, having code. It's also full of extremely vague descriptions like
"must represent a net improvement". Improvement according to who? That's
left unexplained.

And then it says what happens once a BIP is accepted.

The middle bit is missing. When there is disagreement over a consensus BIP,
how are decisions made?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4494 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2015-06-18 14:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-06-18  8:54 [Bitcoin-development] Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers odinn
2015-06-18 10:00 ` Mike Hearn
2015-06-18 11:14   ` Wladimir J. van der Laan
2015-06-18 11:47     ` Wladimir J. van der Laan
2015-06-18 13:36       ` Mike Hearn
2015-06-18 15:58         ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-06-18 12:29     ` Pieter Wuille
2015-06-18 12:50       ` Wladimir J. van der Laan
2015-06-18 12:56         ` Benjamin
2015-06-18 13:49       ` Mike Hearn
2015-06-18 14:05         ` Wladimir J. van der Laan
2015-06-18 14:16           ` Mike Hearn [this message]
2015-06-18 14:53           ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-18 14:56             ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-18 15:13               ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-18 14:53       ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-18 16:07         ` justusranvier
2015-06-18 16:28           ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-18 17:04             ` justusranvier
2015-06-18 17:42               ` Alex Morcos
2015-06-18 18:01                 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-18 18:23                 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-06-18 18:44                   ` Alex Morcos
2015-06-18 18:49                   ` Jorge Timón
2015-06-18 19:31                     ` Ross Nicoll
2015-06-18 21:42                       ` Matt Whitlock
2015-06-18 21:49                         ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-06-18 21:58                           ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-18 22:33                             ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-06-18 22:52                               ` Jeff Garzik
2015-06-18 23:25                                 ` odinn
2015-06-18 23:16                               ` Ross Nicoll
2015-06-19  0:57                               ` Chris Pacia
2015-06-19  5:59                                 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-19  9:37                               ` Mike Hearn
2015-06-19  9:53                                 ` Benjamin
2015-06-19 10:08                                   ` GC
2015-06-19 10:19                                   ` Mike Hearn
2015-06-19 10:52                                 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-06-19 11:31                                 ` Jorge Timón
2015-06-19 12:26                                   ` GC
2015-06-19 11:48                                 ` Brooks Boyd
2015-06-21 14:45                                   ` Owen Gunden
2015-06-18 21:55                         ` Ross Nicoll
2015-06-18 19:24                   ` Matt Corallo
2015-06-18 19:32                     ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-06-18 12:38     ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-18 13:31     ` Mike Hearn
2015-06-18 13:50       ` Pieter Wuille
2015-06-18 15:03       ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-06-18 15:30         ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-18 15:46           ` Wladimir J. van der Laan
2015-06-18 16:05             ` Mike Hearn
2015-06-18 16:20               ` Wladimir J. van der Laan
2015-06-18 22:49               ` odinn
2015-06-18 16:11             ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-06-18 11:41   ` Lawrence Nahum
2015-06-18 14:33   ` Bryan Bishop
2015-06-18 18:09   ` Melvin Carvalho
2015-06-18 22:10   ` odinn

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=CANEZrP0zxfK_SqveYyaPxAxVn_kM2347VrjstmkbHkXJC9suZw@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=mike@plan99.net \
    --cc=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=laanwj@gmail.com \
    /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