Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2016-02-04 📝 Original message:On Thursday, February 04, ...
📅 Original date posted:2016-02-04
📝 Original message:On Thursday, February 04, 2016 5:45:38 PM Ryan Grant wrote:
> [BIP 2:]
> > A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it
> > achieves rough consensus on the mailing list.
>
> Is this mix of wiki and mailing list intentional? If so, the wiki
> talk page is meant to be a self-curated permanent record of support
> and dissent, but second-order reply commentary might fall either on
> the wiki or the mailing list?
The wiki page is meant to be a place to leave comments recommending or
discouraging adoption of a completed BIP, after discussion is over. For
example, many people seem to think BIP 38 is a good idea simply because it is
a Final BIP, whereas in general we would want to discourage using it since it
cannot really be used safely.
All review itself ought to remain on the ML.
> BIP 2 should ask that all current and future forums that BIP authors
> might choose for review have indisputable records of moderation and
> user edits.
Is this necessary considering the author-chosen forum may only be *in addition
to* the Bitcoin Wiki?
> Is dump.bitcoin.it a sufficient public record of contentious
> moderation or user cross-comment editing? It seems like as long as
> the wiki as a whole is verifiable, it would suffice.
It should be everything except accounts/passwords.
Luke
📝 Original message:On Thursday, February 04, 2016 5:45:38 PM Ryan Grant wrote:
> [BIP 2:]
> > A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it
> > achieves rough consensus on the mailing list.
>
> Is this mix of wiki and mailing list intentional? If so, the wiki
> talk page is meant to be a self-curated permanent record of support
> and dissent, but second-order reply commentary might fall either on
> the wiki or the mailing list?
The wiki page is meant to be a place to leave comments recommending or
discouraging adoption of a completed BIP, after discussion is over. For
example, many people seem to think BIP 38 is a good idea simply because it is
a Final BIP, whereas in general we would want to discourage using it since it
cannot really be used safely.
All review itself ought to remain on the ML.
> BIP 2 should ask that all current and future forums that BIP authors
> might choose for review have indisputable records of moderation and
> user edits.
Is this necessary considering the author-chosen forum may only be *in addition
to* the Bitcoin Wiki?
> Is dump.bitcoin.it a sufficient public record of contentious
> moderation or user cross-comment editing? It seems like as long as
> the wiki as a whole is verifiable, it would suffice.
It should be everything except accounts/passwords.
Luke