-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
BIP: Process, revision 3 #1015
BIP: Process, revision 3 #1015
Conversation
441f30e
to
43f0681
Compare
Concept ACK I think this (a BIP process revision) is warranted. Perhaps we should have a future community meeting to discuss finalizing this when (hopefully) you have been confirmed as an additional BIP editor @kallewoof and people have calmed down re Taproot activation. No rush, I expect people to still be emotional for at least a few weeks yet. |
Tend to NACK to write a new meta process BIP for simple changes like this that are not a complete re-write. I prefer #1012 See #1116 (comment) for rationale. |
@@ -0,0 +1,423 @@ | |||
<pre> | |||
BIP: 3 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
From the text: "(authors MUST NOT self-assign BIP numbers)". Set the example you want people to follow :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this is just a joke :) but just in case it isn't BIP editors assign BIP numbers. A BIP process revision needs a BIP editor to assign a number to it. If we were to be really pedantic Luke should assign the BIP number so Kalle isn't assigning his own BIP number. It seems clear though that 1-7 have been reserved for revised BIP processes and that a proposed revised BIP process to BIP 2 is obviously going to be BIP 3.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I missed the initial comment. Yeah, I shouldn't have done that. Will address if I reopen this.
I think we can start to tentatively add to this PR based on the discussions from the BIP process meetings (1, 2). Are you going to add to this PR @kallewoof or would you rather review PRs to your branch from the outset? As a reminder there is a #bitcoin-dev Libera IRC channel too for discussion based on the meetings to keep comments on this PR manageable. |
@michaelfolkson You're the biggest driving force behind this change, so I think the best course of action is closing this and having you open an alternative PR based on the meetings/conclusions. |
Update: this is, at the moment / subject to change, the starting point for the revisal of the BIP process e.g. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/BIP-Process-wishlist
I'm not sure this is warranted, but for ease of comparison, I am opening up a replacement BIP of BIP 2, an alternative to the modification pull request #1012.
Note: I didn't realize there was an .svg source for the process.png file, so I rewrote the thing from scratch in latex. The .tex file is added in this commit. If people prefer, I will try to rewrite in the .svg format, but I put some effort into it so please compare the tex version first.