Skip to content
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

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

kallewoof
Copy link
Member

@kallewoof kallewoof commented Oct 14, 2020

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.

@michaelfolkson
Copy link
Contributor

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.

@maflcko
Copy link
Member

maflcko commented May 7, 2021

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
Copy link
Contributor

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 :)

Copy link
Contributor

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.

Copy link
Member Author

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.

@michaelfolkson
Copy link
Contributor

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.

@kallewoof
Copy link
Member Author

@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.

@kallewoof kallewoof closed this Oct 4, 2021
@kallewoof kallewoof deleted the 202010-process-bip branch October 4, 2021 11:31
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants