From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF4A7C000D for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 04:03:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A217040652 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 04:03:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tutanota.de Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uMQvcbHeg0li for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 04:02:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from w1.tutanota.de (w1.tutanota.de [81.3.6.162]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10D874063A for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 04:02:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from w3.tutanota.de (unknown [192.168.1.164]) by w1.tutanota.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FE60FBF572; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 04:02:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1633492975; s=s1; d=tutanota.de; h=From:From:To:To:Subject:Subject:Content-Description:Content-ID:Content-Type:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Cc:Date:Date:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Message-ID:Reply-To:References:Sender; bh=6ynn8IuXMz8Z80KjIrlEBN5PQ2XCOMyA6RoJfYdv3vE=; b=LzM+rt/RrxZbic2LsS6C1qQ88zSw/aqfiLCyMdG2JKcsKjiOEvwDFsZgDJ4pRPar hzbnFkRY5MFT4Y6VHSJZSQYcEhc9vby2N8USe8Ziaz4zbp1FG916uQ3Lr0aYL2iL8CR bCq1ce0CuHg+7KBsJsn9lUNSks5bxGecw2yvP8LOzQemwexPjjxS4/MgYApUC14FS9G nVcUF6e6B7aGuSnCyk5zHtjm4v8MZYrxM90I7MJya12coIvNiq69joPfDiXAufLCwMo tlVvzjyvpA+j8XIk0Lg1Vhorxc/Ns+LTXrQ+667w8h3yI/HONYvOXNlKVhXYGJDr9eE LhhilGVl/w== Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 06:02:55 +0200 (CEST) From: Prayank To: Michael Folkson Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1057770_905323235.1633492976046" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 06 Oct 2021 07:35:42 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] =?utf-8?q?Wednesday=E2=80=99s_second_BIP_process_me?= =?utf-8?q?eting?= X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2021 04:03:00 -0000 ------=_Part_1057770_905323235.1633492976046 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Good morning Michael, Thanks for sharing the summary about BIP process meeting.=20 > However, zero filters creates a Ethereum style bewildering number of BIPs= of varying quality that all need to be stored and maintained. The option o= f being able to store a BIP in any repo doesn=E2=80=99t appear to offer mat= erial upside (michaelfolkson). It still needs to get a BIP number from the = BIP editors and if the alternative repo is deleted or the BIP champion beco= mes unresponsive there is the problem of changing the location of where the= BIP is stored. It is much easier to monitor a single repo rather than an i= nfinite number of repos that contain BIPs. 1.I want to avoid mentioning projects that are not decentralized however th= e thing you mentioned is a feature not a bug. Neither anyone needs "quality= " certificates from anyone nor approval. People are free to propose anythin= g as improvement for Bitcoin. What gets implemented is a different thing. A= lso BIP number doesn't make something legit, BIPs can have any names. Examp= le: If I ever create draft a proposal to improve Bitcoin, it will be in my = own repository and with a unique name. 2.I am surprised that few influential developers that wanted to improve BIP= process earlier by making it more decentralized were not present in either= meeting. Also no follow up here on mailing list. So decentralization was o= nly required when you had some issues with Luke Dashjr? Few things are so o= bvious that even a newbie who starts researching about Bitcoin from today c= an observe such things. I tried my best to ask more people to participate in the meeting by tweetin= g, requested Christopher to attend the meeting and share his thoughts. Than= ks everyone who was part of this meeting. --=20 Prayank A3B1 E430 2298 178F ------=_Part_1057770_905323235.1633492976046 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Good morning Michael,

Thanks for sharing the summary about BIP process meeting.
=

> However, zero filters cr= eates a Ethereum style bewildering number of BIPs of varying quality that a= ll need to be stored and maintained. The option of being able to store a BI= P in any repo doesn=E2=80=99t appear to offer material upside (michaelfolks= on). It still needs to get a BIP number from the BIP editors and if the alt= ernative repo is deleted or the BIP champion becomes unresponsive there is = the problem of changing the location of where the BIP is stored. It is much= easier to monitor a single repo rather than an infinite number of repos th= at contain BIPs.

1.I= want to avoid mentioning projects that are not decentralized however the t= hing you mentioned is a feature not a bug. Neither anyone needs "quality" c= ertificates from anyone nor approval. People are free to propose anything a= s improvement for Bitcoin. What gets implemented is a different thing. Also= BIP number doesn't make something legit, BIPs can have any names. Example:= If I ever create draft a proposal to improve Bitcoin, it will be in my own= repository and with a unique name.

2.I am surprised that few influential developers that wante= d to improve BIP process earlier by making it more decentralized were not p= resent in either meeting. Also no follow up here on mailing list. So decent= ralization was only required when you had some issues with Luke Dashjr? Few= things are so obvious that even a newbie who starts researching about Bitc= oin from today can observe such things.

I tried my best to ask more people to participate in th= e meeting by tweeting, requested Christopher to attend the meeting and shar= e his thoughts. Thanks everyone who was part of this meeting.


--
Prayank

A3B1 E430 2298 178F
------=_Part_1057770_905323235.1633492976046--