Splitting BIPs

Splitting BIPs
2015-08-24 23:25 ` Eric Lombrozo
  
From: Eric Lombrozo @ 2015-08-24 21:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 555 bytes --]

Seems like a lot of effort and goodwill is being wasted on contention over
things we don't really need to agree upon. In order to help us better
prioritize, I propose adding an extra attribute to BIPs indicating their
"level" which is split into five as follows:

1. Consensus (hard/soft fork)
2. Peer Services
3. RPC
4. Implementations
5. Applications

I posted an example of what such a table might look like here: http://
blockhawk.net/bitcoin-dev/bipwiki.html

If other folks also think this is a good idea I'll start working on a BIP
draft for this.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 727 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-08-24 21:01 [bitcoin-dev] Splitting BIPs Eric Lombrozo

  2015-08-27 20:51   ` Eric Lombrozo
  
From: Eric Lombrozo @ 2015-08-24 23:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 956 bytes --]

Also, the current "type" attribute needs modification. There are different
degrees of "standard". Just because a lot of people do X doesn't need to
mean that doing X is "officially" endorsed by any other devs. At most
levels below 1, disagreements might be entirely tolerable for many things.

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 2:06 PM Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail•com> wrote:

>
> Seems like a lot of effort and goodwill is being wasted on contention over
> things we don't really need to agree upon. In order to help us better
> prioritize, I propose adding an extra attribute to BIPs indicating their
> "level" which is split into five as follows:
>
> 1. Consensus (hard/soft fork)
> 2. Peer Services
> 3. RPC
> 4. Implementations
> 5. Applications
>
> I posted an example of what such a table might look like here: http://
> blockhawk.net/bitcoin-dev/bipwiki.html
>
> If other folks also think this is a good idea I'll start working on a BIP
> draft for this.
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1391 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-08-24 23:25 ` Eric Lombrozo

  2015-08-29 23:37     ` Jorge Timón
  
From: Eric Lombrozo @ 2015-08-27 20:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1243 bytes --]

I posted a new draft of the proposal:
http://blockhawk.net/bitcoin-dev/bipwiki.html

The subsections still need to be fleshed out a bit more. I'd love any
comments or suggestions.

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 4:30 PM Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail•com> wrote:

> Also, the current "type" attribute needs modification. There are different
> degrees of "standard". Just because a lot of people do X doesn't need to
> mean that doing X is "officially" endorsed by any other devs. At most
> levels below 1, disagreements might be entirely tolerable for many things.
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 2:06 PM Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail•com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Seems like a lot of effort and goodwill is being wasted on contention
>> over things we don't really need to agree upon. In order to help us better
>> prioritize, I propose adding an extra attribute to BIPs indicating their
>> "level" which is split into five as follows:
>>
>> 1. Consensus (hard/soft fork)
>> 2. Peer Services
>> 3. RPC
>> 4. Implementations
>> 5. Applications
>>
>> I posted an example of what such a table might look like here: http://
>> blockhawk.net/bitcoin-dev/bipwiki.html
>>
>> If other folks also think this is a good idea I'll start working on a BIP
>> draft for this.
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1987 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2015-08-27 20:51   ` Eric Lombrozo

  
From: Jorge Timón @ 2015-08-29 23:37 UTC ( / )
  To: Eric Lombrozo;  Bitcoin Dev

Concept ACK. As suggested in the other thread, maybe it is worth to
start a new BIP draft for this?


On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I posted a new draft of the proposal:
> http://blockhawk.net/bitcoin-dev/bipwiki.html
>
> The subsections still need to be fleshed out a bit more. I'd love any
> comments or suggestions.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 4:30 PM Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail•com> wrote:
>>
>> Also, the current "type" attribute needs modification. There are different
>> degrees of "standard". Just because a lot of people do X doesn't need to
>> mean that doing X is "officially" endorsed by any other devs. At most levels
>> below 1, disagreements might be entirely tolerable for many things.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 2:06 PM Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail•com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Seems like a lot of effort and goodwill is being wasted on contention
>>> over things we don't really need to agree upon. In order to help us better
>>> prioritize, I propose adding an extra attribute to BIPs indicating their
>>> "level" which is split into five as follows:
>>>
>>> 1. Consensus (hard/soft fork)
>>> 2. Peer Services
>>> 3. RPC
>>> 4. Implementations
>>> 5. Applications
>>>
>>> I posted an example of what such a table might look like here:
>>> http://blockhawk.net/bitcoin-dev/bipwiki.html
>>>
>>> If other folks also think this is a good idea I'll start working on a BIP
>>> draft for this.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>