Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: š Original date posted:2016-06-23 š Original message:On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at ...
š
Original date posted:2016-06-23
š Original message:On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 02:01:10PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 01:30:45PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> > For the record, I think the idea of the bips repo being a pure publication
> > platform isn't a good one and doesn't match reality; like it or not by
> > accepting bips we're putting a stamp of some kind of approval on them.
>
> We? I don't feel like I have any authority to say what goes into that
> repository, and neither do you. We just give technical opinion on
> proposals. The fact that it's under the bitcoin organization on github
> is a historical artifact.
That's simply not how the rest of the community perceives bips, and until we
move them elsewhere that's not going to change.
No matter how much we scream that we don't have authority, the fact of the
matter is the bips are located under the github.com/bitcoin namespace, and we
do have editorial control over them.
> > I have zero issues with us exercising editorial control over what's in the bips
> > repo; us doing so doesn't in any way prevent other's from publishing elsewhere.
>
> Editorial control is inevitable to some extent, but I think that's
> more a matter of process than of opinion. Things like "Was there
> community discussion?", "Is it relevant?", "Is there a reference
> implementation?". I don't think that you objecting for moral reasons
> to an otherwise technically sound idea is a reason for removal of a
> BIP. You are of course free to propose alternatives, or recommend
> against its usage.
Right, so you accept that we'll exert some degree of editorial control; the
question now is what editorial policies should we exert?
My argument is that rejecting BIP75 is something we should do on
ethical/strategic grounds. You may disagree with that, but please don't troll
and call that "advocating censorship"
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160623/406e462b/attachment.sig>;
š Original message:On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 02:01:10PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 01:30:45PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> > For the record, I think the idea of the bips repo being a pure publication
> > platform isn't a good one and doesn't match reality; like it or not by
> > accepting bips we're putting a stamp of some kind of approval on them.
>
> We? I don't feel like I have any authority to say what goes into that
> repository, and neither do you. We just give technical opinion on
> proposals. The fact that it's under the bitcoin organization on github
> is a historical artifact.
That's simply not how the rest of the community perceives bips, and until we
move them elsewhere that's not going to change.
No matter how much we scream that we don't have authority, the fact of the
matter is the bips are located under the github.com/bitcoin namespace, and we
do have editorial control over them.
> > I have zero issues with us exercising editorial control over what's in the bips
> > repo; us doing so doesn't in any way prevent other's from publishing elsewhere.
>
> Editorial control is inevitable to some extent, but I think that's
> more a matter of process than of opinion. Things like "Was there
> community discussion?", "Is it relevant?", "Is there a reference
> implementation?". I don't think that you objecting for moral reasons
> to an otherwise technically sound idea is a reason for removal of a
> BIP. You are of course free to propose alternatives, or recommend
> against its usage.
Right, so you accept that we'll exert some degree of editorial control; the
question now is what editorial policies should we exert?
My argument is that rejecting BIP75 is something we should do on
ethical/strategic grounds. You may disagree with that, but please don't troll
and call that "advocating censorship"
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160623/406e462b/attachment.sig>;