Rusty Russell [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2018-11-26 📝 Original message: Hi all, As you may know, ...
📅 Original date posted:2018-11-26
📝 Original message:
Hi all,
As you may know, for 1.0 spec we had a biweekly Google Hangout,
at 5:30am Adelaide time (Monday 19:00 UTC, or 20:00 UTC Q3/4). You can
see the minutes of all meetings here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oU4wxzGsYd0T084rTXJbedb7Gvdtj4ax638nMkYUmco
The current process rules are:
1. Any substantive spec change requires unanimous approval at the
meeting before application.
2. Any implementation changes generally require two interoperable
implementations before they are considered final.
3. "typo, formatting and spelling" fixes which can be applied after two
acks without a meeting necessary.
It's time to revisit this as we approach 1.1:
1. Should we move to an IRC meeting? Bitcoin development does this.
It's more inclusive, and better recorded. But it can be
lower-bandwidth.
2. Should we have a more formal approval method for PRs, eg. a
"CONSENSUS:YES" tag we apply once we have acks from two teams and no
Naks, then a meeting to review consensus, followed by "FINAL" tag and
commit the next meeting? That gives you at least two weeks to
comment on the final draft.
Side note: I've added milestones to PRs as 1.0/1.1; I'm hoping to clear
all 1.0 PRs this week for tagging in the next meeting, then we can start
on 1.1 commits.
Thanks!
Rusty.
📝 Original message:
Hi all,
As you may know, for 1.0 spec we had a biweekly Google Hangout,
at 5:30am Adelaide time (Monday 19:00 UTC, or 20:00 UTC Q3/4). You can
see the minutes of all meetings here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oU4wxzGsYd0T084rTXJbedb7Gvdtj4ax638nMkYUmco
The current process rules are:
1. Any substantive spec change requires unanimous approval at the
meeting before application.
2. Any implementation changes generally require two interoperable
implementations before they are considered final.
3. "typo, formatting and spelling" fixes which can be applied after two
acks without a meeting necessary.
It's time to revisit this as we approach 1.1:
1. Should we move to an IRC meeting? Bitcoin development does this.
It's more inclusive, and better recorded. But it can be
lower-bandwidth.
2. Should we have a more formal approval method for PRs, eg. a
"CONSENSUS:YES" tag we apply once we have acks from two teams and no
Naks, then a meeting to review consensus, followed by "FINAL" tag and
commit the next meeting? That gives you at least two weeks to
comment on the final draft.
Side note: I've added milestones to PRs as 1.0/1.1; I'm hoping to clear
all 1.0 PRs this week for tagging in the next meeting, then we can start
on 1.1 commits.
Thanks!
Rusty.