Proposed BIP editor: Kalle Alm
22 messages, 23 to 27 Apr 2021. Started by Luke Dashjr.
Luke Dashjr (3), Matt Corallo (3), John Newbery (2), W. J. van der Laan (2), Jeremy Rubin, Pindar Wong, Eric Martindale, Antoine Riard, +8 more
Unless there are objections, I intend to add Kalle Alm as a BIP editor to assist in merging PRs into the bips git repo.
Since there is no explicit process to adding BIP editors, IMO it should be fine to use BIP 2's Process BIP progression:
Quoted text (5 lines)
> A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it achieves > rough consensus on the mailing list. Such a proposal is said to have > rough consensus if it has been open to discussion on the development > mailing list for at least one month, and no person maintains any > unaddressed substantiated objections to it.
A Process BIP could be opened for each new editor, but IMO that is unnecessary. If anyone feels there is a need for a new Process BIP, we can go that route, but there is prior precedent for BIP editors appointing new BIP editors, so I think this should be fine.
Please speak up soon if you disagree.
Luke
ACK adding Kalle.
Kalle is a qualified reviewer / editor and well suited for this role.
ACK adding Kalle.
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 4:36 AM Jeremy via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (44 lines)
> ACK adding Kalle. > > Kalle is a qualified reviewer / editor and well suited for this role. > -- > @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin> > <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin> > > > On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 7:09 PM Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote: > >> Unless there are objections, I intend to add Kalle Alm as a BIP editor to >> assist in merging PRs into the bips git repo. >> >> Since there is no explicit process to adding BIP editors, IMO it should >> be >> fine to use BIP 2's Process BIP progression: >> >> > A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it achieves >> > rough consensus on the mailing list. Such a proposal is said to have >> > rough consensus if it has been open to discussion on the development >> > mailing list for at least one month, and no person maintains any >> > unaddressed substantiated objections to it. >> >> A Process BIP could be opened for each new editor, but IMO that is >> unnecessary. If anyone feels there is a need for a new Process BIP, we >> can go >> that route, but there is prior precedent for BIP editors appointing new >> BIP >> editors, so I think this should be fine. >> >> Please speak up soon if you disagree. >> >> Luke >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >
ACK.
p.
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 10:09 AM Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (27 lines)
> Unless there are objections, I intend to add Kalle Alm as a BIP editor to > assist in merging PRs into the bips git repo. > > Since there is no explicit process to adding BIP editors, IMO it should be > fine to use BIP 2's Process BIP progression: > > > A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it achieves > > rough consensus on the mailing list. Such a proposal is said to have > > rough consensus if it has been open to discussion on the development > > mailing list for at least one month, and no person maintains any > > unaddressed substantiated objections to it. > > A Process BIP could be opened for each new editor, but IMO that is > unnecessary. If anyone feels there is a need for a new Process BIP, we can > go > that route, but there is prior precedent for BIP editors appointing new > BIP > editors, so I think this should be fine. > > Please speak up soon if you disagree. > > Luke > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >
ACK. Kalle has been exceptional throughout his contributions — especially thankful for btcdeb 🙏
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 3:51 AM Pindar Wong via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (41 lines)
> ACK. > > p. > > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 10:09 AM Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote: > >> Unless there are objections, I intend to add Kalle Alm as a BIP editor to >> assist in merging PRs into the bips git repo. >> >> Since there is no explicit process to adding BIP editors, IMO it should >> be >> fine to use BIP 2's Process BIP progression: >> >> > A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it achieves >> > rough consensus on the mailing list. Such a proposal is said to have >> > rough consensus if it has been open to discussion on the development >> > mailing list for at least one month, and no person maintains any >> > unaddressed substantiated objections to it. >> >> A Process BIP could be opened for each new editor, but IMO that is >> unnecessary. If anyone feels there is a need for a new Process BIP, we >> can go >> that route, but there is prior precedent for BIP editors appointing new >> BIP >> editors, so I think this should be fine. >> >> Please speak up soon if you disagree. >> >> Luke >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >
Hi Luke,
For the records and the subscribers of this list not following #bitcoin-core-dev, this mail follows a discussion which did happen during yesterday irc meetings. Logs here : http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/2021-04-22.log
I'll reiterate my opinion expressed during the meeting. If this proposal to extend the bip editorship membership doesn't satisfy parties involved or anyone in the community, I'm strongly opposed to have the matter sliced by admins of the Bitcoin github org. I believe that defect or uncertainty in the BIP Process shouldn't be solved by GH janitorial roles and I think their roles don't bestow to intervene in case of loopholes. Further, you have far more contributors involved in the BIP Process rather than only Bitcoin Core ones. FWIW, such precedent merits would be quite similar to lobby directly GH staff...
Unless we harm Bitcoin users by not acting, I think we should always be respectful of procedural forms. And in the lack of such forms, stay patient until a solution satisfy everyone.
I would recommend the BIP editorship, once extended or not, to move in its own repository in the future.
Cheers, Antoine
Le jeu. 22 avr. 2021 à 22:09, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> a écrit :
Quoted text (27 lines)
> Unless there are objections, I intend to add Kalle Alm as a BIP editor to > assist in merging PRs into the bips git repo. > > Since there is no explicit process to adding BIP editors, IMO it should be > fine to use BIP 2's Process BIP progression: > > > A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it achieves > > rough consensus on the mailing list. Such a proposal is said to have > > rough consensus if it has been open to discussion on the development > > mailing list for at least one month, and no person maintains any > > unaddressed substantiated objections to it. > > A Process BIP could be opened for each new editor, but IMO that is > unnecessary. If anyone feels there is a need for a new Process BIP, we can > go > that route, but there is prior precedent for BIP editors appointing new > BIP > editors, so I think this should be fine. > > Please speak up soon if you disagree. > > Luke > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >
ACK adding Kalle
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 5:51 PM Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (66 lines)
> Hi Luke, > > For the records and the subscribers of this list not following > #bitcoin-core-dev, this mail follows a discussion which did happen during > yesterday irc meetings. > Logs here : http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/2021-04-22.log > > I'll reiterate my opinion expressed during the meeting. If this proposal > to extend the bip editorship membership doesn't satisfy parties involved or > anyone in the community, I'm strongly opposed to have the matter sliced by > admins of the Bitcoin github org. I believe that defect or uncertainty in > the BIP Process shouldn't be solved by GH janitorial roles and I think > their roles don't bestow to intervene in case of loopholes. Further, you > have far more contributors involved in the BIP Process rather than only > Bitcoin Core ones. FWIW, such precedent merits would be quite similar to > lobby directly GH staff... > > Unless we harm Bitcoin users by not acting, I think we should always be > respectful of procedural forms. And in the lack of such forms, stay patient > until a solution satisfy everyone. > > I would recommend the BIP editorship, once extended or not, to move in its > own repository in the future. > > Cheers, > Antoine > > > > > Le jeu. 22 avr. 2021 à 22:09, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> a écrit : > >> Unless there are objections, I intend to add Kalle Alm as a BIP editor to >> assist in merging PRs into the bips git repo. >> >> Since there is no explicit process to adding BIP editors, IMO it should >> be >> fine to use BIP 2's Process BIP progression: >> >> > A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it achieves >> > rough consensus on the mailing list. Such a proposal is said to have >> > rough consensus if it has been open to discussion on the development >> > mailing list for at least one month, and no person maintains any >> > unaddressed substantiated objections to it. >> >> A Process BIP could be opened for each new editor, but IMO that is >> unnecessary. If anyone feels there is a need for a new Process BIP, we >> can go >> that route, but there is prior precedent for BIP editors appointing new >> BIP >> editors, so I think this should be fine. >> >> Please speak up soon if you disagree. >> >> Luke >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >
There appears to be some severe lack of understanding of the point of the BIP process here.
The BIP process exists to be a place for those in the Bitcoin development community (which includes anyone who wishes to participate in it!) to place specifications which may be important for others in the Bitcoin development community to see, to ensure interoperability.
It does not, should not, and has never existed to take any positions on...anything. It has always existed to allow those who wish to participate in the Bitcoin development community to publish proposed standards or deployed protocols, in whatever form the authors of the BIPs seem fit.
If anyone suggests changes with a BIP's proposed form in a way the original author does not agree with, they have always been free to, and should simply create a new BIP with their proposed form.
The BIP editor's role has always been, and should continue to be, to encourage BIP authors to respond to (either by dismissing or accepting) feedback on their BIPs, and encourage formatting in a standard form. The BIP editor's role has never included, and should not include, taking a stance on substantive changes to a BIP's contents - those are up to the author(s) of a BIP, and always have been.
If the BIP editor is deliberately refusing to accept changes which the author's approval (which appears to be occurring here), the broader development community (us) should either remove the BIP editor and replace them, or simply ignore the BIP repository entirely (which seems like the most likely outcome here). There really should be no debate over this point, and I'm not entirely sure why anyone would think there should be.
Luckily BIPs aren't really all that critical in this instance - they exist to communicate protocols for interoperability, and in this case the protocol changes as proposed have been broadly communicated already.
Still, given the apparent lack of desire to remove the BIP editor in this case, I'd suggest we all move on and simply ignore the BIP repository entirely. Simply sending notices of protocol systems to this mailing list is likely sufficient.
Matt
On 4/23/21 11:34, Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Quoted text (59 lines)
> Hi Luke, > > For the records and the subscribers of this list not following #bitcoin-core-dev, this mail follows a discussion which > did happen during yesterday irc meetings. > Logs here : http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/2021-04-22.log <http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/2021-04-22.log> > > I'll reiterate my opinion expressed during the meeting. If this proposal to extend the bip editorship membership doesn't > satisfy parties involved or anyone in the community, I'm strongly opposed to have the matter sliced by admins of the > Bitcoin github org. I believe that defect or uncertainty in the BIP Process shouldn't be solved by GH janitorial roles > and I think their roles don't bestow to intervene in case of loopholes. Further, you have far more contributors involved > in the BIP Process rather than only Bitcoin Core ones. FWIW, such precedent merits would be quite similar to lobby > directly GH staff... > > Unless we harm Bitcoin users by not acting, I think we should always be respectful of procedural forms. And in the lack > of such forms, stay patient until a solution satisfy everyone. > > I would recommend the BIP editorship, once extended or not, to move in its own repository in the future. > > Cheers, > Antoine > > > > > Le jeu. 22 avr. 2021 à  22:09, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> a écrit : > > Unless there are objections, I intend to add Kalle Alm as a BIP editor to > assist in merging PRs into the bips git repo. > > Since there is no explicit process to adding BIP editors, IMO it should be > fine to use BIP 2's Process BIP progression: > > > A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it achieves > > rough consensus on the mailing list. Such a proposal is said to have > > rough consensus if it has been open to discussion on the development > > mailing list for at least one month, and no person maintains any > > unaddressed substantiated objections to it. > > A Process BIP could be opened for each new editor, but IMO that is > unnecessary. If anyone feels there is a need for a new Process BIP, we can go > that route, but there is prior precedent for BIP editors appointing new BIP > editors, so I think this should be fine. > > Please speak up soon if you disagree. > > Luke > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev> > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >
On Sunday 25 April 2021 20:29:44 Matt Corallo wrote:
Quoted text (2 lines)
> If the BIP editor is deliberately refusing to accept changes which the > author's approval (which appears to be occurring here),
It isn't. I am triaging BIPs PRs the same as I have for years, and will get to them all in due time, likely before the end of the month.
Rather, what we have going on is a few bad actors trying to misportray the BIPs as an approval process so they can pretend ST is somehow official, or that the preexisting Core+Taproot client is "breaking" the spec. And to further their agenda, they have been harassing me demanding special treatment.
I will not become an accomplice to this deception by giving special treatment, and will process the BIP PR neutrally according to the currently-defined BIP process.
Despite the continual harassment, I have even made two efforts to try to (fairly) make things faster, and have been obstructed both times by ST advocates. It appears they intend to paint me as "deliberately refusing" (to use your words) in order to try to put Bitcoin and the BIP process under their control, and abuse it in the same manner in which they abused Bitcoin Core's usual standards (by releasing ST without community consensus).
Luke
On 4/25/21 17:00, Luke Dashjr wrote:
Quoted text (6 lines)
> On Sunday 25 April 2021 20:29:44 Matt Corallo wrote: >> If the BIP editor is deliberately refusing to accept changes which the >> author's approval (which appears to be occurring here), > > It isn't. I am triaging BIPs PRs the same as I have for years, and will get to > them all in due time, likely before the end of the month.
Please don't play dumb, it isn't a good look.
Quoted text (5 lines)
> Rather, what we have going on is a few bad actors trying to misportray the > BIPs as an approval process so they can pretend ST is somehow official, or > that the preexisting Core+Taproot client is "breaking" the spec. And to > further their agenda, they have been harassing me demanding special > treatment.
I'd be curious who is doing that, because obviously I'd agree that merging something in a BIP doesn't really have any special meaning. This, however, is a completely different topic from following the BIP process that you had a key hand in crafting.
Quoted text (3 lines)
> I will not become an accomplice to this deception by giving special treatment, > and will process the BIP PR neutrally according to the currently-defined BIP > process.
Again, please don't play dumb, no one watching believes this - you've been active on the BIP repo on numerous PRs and this has never in the past been the case.
Quoted text (9 lines)
> Despite the continual harassment, I have even made two efforts to try to > (fairly) make things faster, and have been obstructed both times by ST > advocates. It appears they intend to paint me as "deliberately refusing" (to > use your words) in order to try to put Bitcoin and the BIP process under > their control, and abuse it in the same manner in which they abused Bitcoin > Core's usual standards (by releasing ST without community consensus). > > Luke >
On Sunday 25 April 2021 21:14:08 Matt Corallo wrote:
Quoted text (8 lines)
> On 4/25/21 17:00, Luke Dashjr wrote: > > I will not become an accomplice to this deception by giving special > > treatment, and will process the BIP PR neutrally according to the > > currently-defined BIP process. > > Again, please don't play dumb, no one watching believes this - you've been > active on the BIP repo on numerous PRs and this has never in the past been > the case.
I started going through PRs a few days ago, in order of "Recently updated" on GitHub, starting with the least-recent following the last one I triaged a month ago that hasn't seen activity.. the same as I have been doing month after month prior to this.
If you don't believe me, feel free to look through the repo history.
Luke
Alright, let's see...
Sorting by most recently updated... https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pulls?page=1&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc+updated%3A%3E2021-01-01
#1104 has been updated nearly daily for the past many weeks. You commented 12 days ago saying "Concept NACK" (which isn't a thing on BIPs - huh? they're author documents, as you're well aware), and nothing further.
#1105 which is less recently updated by one on the above list has a comment from you 19 hours ago.
I'm really not sure what playing dumb gets you, here. Its really transparent and isn't helpful in any way to anything.
In general, I think its time we all agree the BIP process has simply failed and move on. Luckily its not really all that critical and proposed protocol documents can be placed nearly anywhere with the same effect.
Matt
On 4/25/21 17:22, Luke Dashjr wrote:
Quoted text (19 lines)
> On Sunday 25 April 2021 21:14:08 Matt Corallo wrote: >> On 4/25/21 17:00, Luke Dashjr wrote: >>> I will not become an accomplice to this deception by giving special >>> treatment, and will process the BIP PR neutrally according to the >>> currently-defined BIP process. >> >> Again, please don't play dumb, no one watching believes this - you've been >> active on the BIP repo on numerous PRs and this has never in the past been >> the case. > > I started going through PRs a few days ago, in order of "Recently updated" on > GitHub, starting with the least-recent following the last one I triaged a > month ago that hasn't seen activity.. the same as I have been doing month > after month prior to this. > > If you don't believe me, feel free to look through the repo history. > > Luke >
ACK for adding Kalle.
Recent drama aside, having a single editor is not ideal. There's currently 110 open pull requests to the BIPs repo.
- Sjors
Quoted text (26 lines)
> Op 23 apr. 2021, om 04:09 heeft Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> het volgende geschreven: > > Unless there are objections, I intend to add Kalle Alm as a BIP editor to > assist in merging PRs into the bips git repo. > > Since there is no explicit process to adding BIP editors, IMO it should be > fine to use BIP 2's Process BIP progression: > >> A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it achieves >> rough consensus on the mailing list. Such a proposal is said to have >> rough consensus if it has been open to discussion on the development >> mailing list for at least one month, and no person maintains any >> unaddressed substantiated objections to it. > > A Process BIP could be opened for each new editor, but IMO that is > unnecessary. If anyone feels there is a need for a new Process BIP, we can go > that route, but there is prior precedent for BIP editors appointing new BIP > editors, so I think this should be fine. > > Please speak up soon if you disagree. > > Luke > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
ACK for Kalle.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 09:55 Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (43 lines)
> ACK for adding Kalle. > > Recent drama aside, having a single editor is not ideal. There's currently > 110 open pull requests to the BIPs repo. > > - Sjors > > > Op 23 apr. 2021, om 04:09 heeft Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> het volgende geschreven: > > > > Unless there are objections, I intend to add Kalle Alm as a BIP editor to > > assist in merging PRs into the bips git repo. > > > > Since there is no explicit process to adding BIP editors, IMO it should > be > > fine to use BIP 2's Process BIP progression: > > > >> A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it achieves > >> rough consensus on the mailing list. Such a proposal is said to have > >> rough consensus if it has been open to discussion on the development > >> mailing list for at least one month, and no person maintains any > >> unaddressed substantiated objections to it. > > > > A Process BIP could be opened for each new editor, but IMO that is > > unnecessary. If anyone feels there is a need for a new Process BIP, we > can go > > that route, but there is prior precedent for BIP editors appointing new > BIP > > editors, so I think this should be fine. > > > > Please speak up soon if you disagree. > > > > Luke > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >
On Friday, April 23rd, 2021 at 4:09 AM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (2 lines)
> Unless there are objections, I intend to add Kalle Alm as a BIP editor to > assist in merging PRs into the bips git repo.
ACK on adding Kalle.
I'm happy to finally see someone else interested in BIP maintainer role, for years no one really seemed to care about doing this mostly procedural/bureaucratic function, which is (part of) the reason Luke-Jr ended up as the only BIP maintainer for such a long time.
And I disagree that a bot could do this just as well. Auto-merging would open it up to all kinds of DoS attacks, vandalism, and low-effort scams that a person can easily ward against.
-W
On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 05:31:50PM -0400, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Quoted text (3 lines)
> In general, I think its time we all agree the BIP process has simply failed > and move on. Luckily its not really all that critical and proposed protocol > documents can be placed nearly anywhere with the same effect.
I recommend:
1. We add additional BIP editors, starting with Kalle Alm (if there are no continuing significant objections).
2. We seek Luke Dashjr's resignation as BIPs editor.
3. We begin treating protocol documents outside the BIPs repository as first-class BIP documentation.
The first recommendation permits continued maintenance of existing BIPs plus gives the additional maintainers an opportunity to rebuild the credibility of the repository.
The second recommendation addresses the dissatisfaction of many BIP authors and potential authors with the current editor, which I think will discourage many of them from making additional significant contributions to the repository. It also seems to me to be a better use of Luke's talents and interests for him to focus on protocol research and review rather than procedurally checking whether a bunch of documents are well formed.
The third recommendation provides an escape hatch for anyone, such as Matt, who currently thinks the process has failed, or for anyone who comes to that same conclusion in the future under a different editing team. My specific recommendations there are:
a. Anyone writing protocol documentation in the spirit of the BIP process can post their idea to this mailing list like we've always done and, when they've finished collecting initial feedback, they can assign themselves a unique decentralized identifier starting with "bip-". They may also define a shorter alias that they encourage people to use in cases where the correct document can be inferred from context. E.g.,
bip-wuille-taproot (bip-taproot)
bip-towns-versionbits-min-activation-height (bip-vbmah)
bip-todd-harding-opt-in-replace-by-fee (bip-opt-in-rbf)
b. The author then publishes the document to any place they'd like, although they are strongly encouraged to make any document source available under an open license to ensure others can create their own modifications.
c. Implementations of BIPs, whether original repository BIPs or decentralized BIPs, link to the BIPs they implement to ensure researchers and developers can find the relevant protocol documentation. E.g., https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/fe5e495c31de47b0ec732b943db11fe345d874af/doc/bips.md
(It may also be advisable for implementations to mirror copies of
the BIPs they implement so later modifications to the document
don't confuse anyone. For this reason, extremely liberal
licensing of BIP documents is encouraged.)
d. To help maintain quality and consistency between documentation, the BIP editors provide a BIP document template, guidelines similar to the existing BIP2, and an easy-to-run format linter.
I think this decentralized BIPs alternative also helps address some longstanding problems with the BIPs system: that many casual Bitcoin users and developers think of documents in the BIPs repo as authoritative and that there are some development teams (such as for LN) that have already abandoned the BIPs process because, in part, they want complete control over their own documentation.
The recommendations above were developed based on conversations I had with a few stakeholders in the BIPs process, but I did not attempt a comprehensive survey and I certainly don't claim to speak for anyone else. I hope the recommendations are satisfactory and I look forward to your feedback.
Thanks,
-Dave
I endorse Harding's recommendations. On the point about mirroring, one thing to keep in mind is that the other repositories may go offline.
Modification confusion could be avoided by recording what revision (commit hash) was current at the time of inclusion, but the document going offline can only be protected against by maintaining a copy somewhere.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 7:44 PM David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (85 lines)
> > On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 05:31:50PM -0400, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > In general, I think its time we all agree the BIP process has simply failed > > and move on. Luckily its not really all that critical and proposed protocol > > documents can be placed nearly anywhere with the same effect. > > I recommend: > > 1. We add additional BIP editors, starting with Kalle Alm (if there are > no continuing significant objections). > > 2. We seek Luke Dashjr's resignation as BIPs editor. > > 3. We begin treating protocol documents outside the BIPs repository as > first-class BIP documentation. > > The first recommendation permits continued maintenance of existing BIPs > plus gives the additional maintainers an opportunity to rebuild the > credibility of the repository. > > The second recommendation addresses the dissatisfaction of many BIP > authors and potential authors with the current editor, which I think > will discourage many of them from making additional significant > contributions to the repository. It also seems to me to be a better use > of Luke's talents and interests for him to focus on protocol research > and review rather than procedurally checking whether a bunch of > documents are well formed. > > The third recommendation provides an escape hatch for anyone, such as > Matt, who currently thinks the process has failed, or for anyone who > comes to that same conclusion in the future under a different editing > team. My specific recommendations there are: > > a. Anyone writing protocol documentation in the spirit of the BIP > process can post their idea to this mailing list like we've always > done and, when they've finished collecting initial feedback, they can > assign themselves a unique decentralized identifier starting with > "bip-". They may also define a shorter alias that they encourage > people to use in cases where the correct document can be inferred > from context. E.g., > > bip-wuille-taproot (bip-taproot) > bip-towns-versionbits-min-activation-height (bip-vbmah) > bip-todd-harding-opt-in-replace-by-fee (bip-opt-in-rbf) > > b. The author then publishes the document to any place they'd like, although > they are strongly encouraged to make any document source available > under an open license to ensure others can create their own > modifications. > > c. Implementations of BIPs, whether original repository BIPs or > decentralized BIPs, link to the BIPs they implement to ensure > researchers and developers can find the relevant protocol > documentation. E.g., > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/fe5e495c31de47b0ec732b943db11fe345d874af/doc/bips.md > > (It may also be advisable for implementations to mirror copies of > the BIPs they implement so later modifications to the document > don't confuse anyone. For this reason, extremely liberal > licensing of BIP documents is encouraged.) > > d. To help maintain quality and consistency between documentation, the > BIP editors provide a BIP document template, guidelines similar to > the existing BIP2, and an easy-to-run format linter. > > I think this decentralized BIPs alternative also helps address some > longstanding problems with the BIPs system: that many casual Bitcoin > users and developers think of documents in the BIPs repo as > authoritative and that there are some development teams (such as for LN) > that have already abandoned the BIPs process because, in part, they want > complete control over their own documentation. > > The recommendations above were developed based on conversations I had > with a few stakeholders in the BIPs process, but I did not attempt a > comprehensive survey and I certainly don't claim to speak for anyone > else. I hope the recommendations are satisfactory and I look forward to > your feedback. > > Thanks, > > -Dave > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
On Monday, April 26th, 2021 at 9:43 PM, David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (8 lines)
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 05:31:50PM -0400, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > > In general, I think its time we all agree the BIP process has simply failed > > > > and move on. Luckily its not really all that critical and proposed protocol > > > > documents can be placed nearly anywhere with the same effect. >
I like the idea of decentralizing the BIPs process. It is a historical artifact that the bips repository is part of the same organization that bitcoin core is part of. But there shouldn't be the perception that standardization is driven by that, or that there is any kind of (non-trivial) gatekeeping.
I understand where this perception is coming from, though. There being 111 PRs open at https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pulls indicates that there is some kind of bottleneck. I hope adding more BIP editors can mitigate this somewhat.
Though it also happens that the BIP author simply don't care about changes anymore and doesn't respond, in which case the PR lingers without any fault from the BIPs maintainer. So something is to be said of having the BIP repository mirror/aggregate author's own work trees, and changes needing to be proposed there instead of "upstream".
-W
ACK. These seem like very reasonable next steps.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 8:43 PM David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (90 lines)
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 05:31:50PM -0400, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > In general, I think its time we all agree the BIP process has simply > failed > > and move on. Luckily its not really all that critical and proposed > protocol > > documents can be placed nearly anywhere with the same effect. > > I recommend: > > 1. We add additional BIP editors, starting with Kalle Alm (if there are > no continuing significant objections). > > 2. We seek Luke Dashjr's resignation as BIPs editor. > > 3. We begin treating protocol documents outside the BIPs repository as > first-class BIP documentation. > > The first recommendation permits continued maintenance of existing BIPs > plus gives the additional maintainers an opportunity to rebuild the > credibility of the repository. > > The second recommendation addresses the dissatisfaction of many BIP > authors and potential authors with the current editor, which I think > will discourage many of them from making additional significant > contributions to the repository. It also seems to me to be a better use > of Luke's talents and interests for him to focus on protocol research > and review rather than procedurally checking whether a bunch of > documents are well formed. > > The third recommendation provides an escape hatch for anyone, such as > Matt, who currently thinks the process has failed, or for anyone who > comes to that same conclusion in the future under a different editing > team. My specific recommendations there are: > > a. Anyone writing protocol documentation in the spirit of the BIP > process can post their idea to this mailing list like we've always > done and, when they've finished collecting initial feedback, they can > assign themselves a unique decentralized identifier starting with > "bip-". They may also define a shorter alias that they encourage > people to use in cases where the correct document can be inferred > from context. E.g., > > bip-wuille-taproot (bip-taproot) > bip-towns-versionbits-min-activation-height (bip-vbmah) > bip-todd-harding-opt-in-replace-by-fee (bip-opt-in-rbf) > > b. The author then publishes the document to any place they'd like, > although > they are strongly encouraged to make any document source available > under an open license to ensure others can create their own > modifications. > > c. Implementations of BIPs, whether original repository BIPs or > decentralized BIPs, link to the BIPs they implement to ensure > researchers and developers can find the relevant protocol > documentation. E.g., > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/fe5e495c31de47b0ec732b943db11fe345d874af/doc/bips.md > > (It may also be advisable for implementations to mirror copies of > the BIPs they implement so later modifications to the document > don't confuse anyone. For this reason, extremely liberal > licensing of BIP documents is encouraged.) > > d. To help maintain quality and consistency between documentation, the > BIP editors provide a BIP document template, guidelines similar to > the existing BIP2, and an easy-to-run format linter. > > I think this decentralized BIPs alternative also helps address some > longstanding problems with the BIPs system: that many casual Bitcoin > users and developers think of documents in the BIPs repo as > authoritative and that there are some development teams (such as for LN) > that have already abandoned the BIPs process because, in part, they want > complete control over their own documentation. > > The recommendations above were developed based on conversations I had > with a few stakeholders in the BIPs process, but I did not attempt a > comprehensive survey and I certainly don't claim to speak for anyone > else. I hope the recommendations are satisfactory and I look forward to > your feedback. > > Thanks, > > -Dave > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >
seems like this is solved by a workflow where a maintainer who requests changes clearly tags every entry as "changes needed" or "review requested",, and then the author can resolve/remove the tag after the changes are made.
not sure PR's are the right tech here.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 6:28 AM W. J. van der Laan via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (23 lines)
> > On Monday, April 26th, 2021 at 9:43 PM, David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 05:31:50PM -0400, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > > > > In general, I think its time we all agree the BIP process has simply failed > > > > > > and move on. Luckily its not really all that critical and proposed protocol > > > > > > documents can be placed nearly anywhere with the same effect. > > > > I like the idea of decentralizing the BIPs process. It is a historical artifact that the bips repository is part of the same organization that bitcoin core is part of. But there shouldn't be the perception that standardization is driven by that, or that there is any kind of (non-trivial) gatekeeping. > > I understand where this perception is coming from, though. There being 111 PRs open at https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pulls indicates that there is some kind of bottleneck. I hope adding more BIP editors can mitigate this somewhat. > > Though it also happens that the BIP author simply don't care about changes anymore and doesn't respond, in which case the PR lingers without any fault from the BIPs maintainer. So something is to be said of having the BIP repository mirror/aggregate author's own work trees, and changes needing to be proposed there instead of "upstream". > > -W > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Quoted text (9 lines)
> Despite the continual harassment, I have even made two efforts to try to > (fairly) make things faster, and have been obstructed both times by ST > advocates. It appears they intend to paint me as "deliberately refusing" > (to > use your words) in order to try to put Bitcoin and the BIP process under > their control, and abuse it in the same manner in which they abused > Bitcoin > Core's usual standards (by releasing ST without community consensus). >
I haven'tpaying attention to the BIPs. But I just want to say I agree it is the case that speed trial didn't have consensus and had many good and logical arguments against it. Sadly discussions around taproot activation I've been lacking logic and having too many irrational arguments appealing to emotions.
I'm really disapointed at the community right now. I'm sorry for luke and others defending lot=true (the whole point of bip8 anyway), but I feel ignored and frustrated when I try to participate in these irrational debates. I miss the rational debates here.
But if we're gping to turn this list into an irrational place, with ad hominem fallacies and insults, I guess I can say my subjective personal opinion about other people too. I think it is you, Matt, who is playing dumb, not Luke.
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 at 22:08, Greg Maxwell via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (9 lines)
> I endorse Harding's recommendations. On the point about mirroring, > one thing to keep in mind is that the other repositories may go > offline. > > Modification confusion could be avoided by recording what revision > (commit hash) was current at the time of inclusion, but the document > going offline can only be protected against by maintaining a copy > somewhere. >
One could partially solve the mirroring issue by giving each decentralized BIP (optionally) a genesis transaction ID, that moved in time on the block chain
This can be made to mirror / witness the evolution in git of the BIP using git commit hashes (in time), and then matching those commit hashes in the block chain by tweaking the public key address by the same amount (with no change address)
What would occur then would be a genesis and current definitive HEAD of a BIP, and the history it's gone through. The whole history can be reconstructed from any one transaction. This is quite similar to Peter Todd's single use seals, and the work done on RGB
Regarding commit trees going offline, they can be mirrored, hosted on popular sites (github/gitlab) and it's natural that popular repos in git are cloned
This also provides a little skin in the game and prevents some sybil attacks, because you need to spend money on a TX
In this way whole BIPs can have a life cycle outside of any official body, but also be assigned BIP numbers in the bitcoin repo
This mainly an informational idea, however, I have been working on some code and early prototypes to do this, so feel free to message me off-list if there's additional interest
Quoted text (99 lines)
> > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 7:44 PM David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 05:31:50PM -0400, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > > In general, I think its time we all agree the BIP process has simply > failed > > > and move on. Luckily its not really all that critical and proposed > protocol > > > documents can be placed nearly anywhere with the same effect. > > > > I recommend: > > > > 1. We add additional BIP editors, starting with Kalle Alm (if there are > > no continuing significant objections). > > > > 2. We seek Luke Dashjr's resignation as BIPs editor. > > > > 3. We begin treating protocol documents outside the BIPs repository as > > first-class BIP documentation. > > > > The first recommendation permits continued maintenance of existing BIPs > > plus gives the additional maintainers an opportunity to rebuild the > > credibility of the repository. > > > > The second recommendation addresses the dissatisfaction of many BIP > > authors and potential authors with the current editor, which I think > > will discourage many of them from making additional significant > > contributions to the repository. It also seems to me to be a better use > > of Luke's talents and interests for him to focus on protocol research > > and review rather than procedurally checking whether a bunch of > > documents are well formed. > > > > The third recommendation provides an escape hatch for anyone, such as > > Matt, who currently thinks the process has failed, or for anyone who > > comes to that same conclusion in the future under a different editing > > team. My specific recommendations there are: > > > > a. Anyone writing protocol documentation in the spirit of the BIP > > process can post their idea to this mailing list like we've always > > done and, when they've finished collecting initial feedback, they can > > assign themselves a unique decentralized identifier starting with > > "bip-". They may also define a shorter alias that they encourage > > people to use in cases where the correct document can be inferred > > from context. E.g., > > > > bip-wuille-taproot (bip-taproot) > > bip-towns-versionbits-min-activation-height (bip-vbmah) > > bip-todd-harding-opt-in-replace-by-fee (bip-opt-in-rbf) > > > > b. The author then publishes the document to any place they'd like, > although > > they are strongly encouraged to make any document source available > > under an open license to ensure others can create their own > > modifications. > > > > c. Implementations of BIPs, whether original repository BIPs or > > decentralized BIPs, link to the BIPs they implement to ensure > > researchers and developers can find the relevant protocol > > documentation. E.g., > > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/fe5e495c31de47b0ec732b943db11fe345d874af/doc/bips.md > > > > (It may also be advisable for implementations to mirror copies of > > the BIPs they implement so later modifications to the document > > don't confuse anyone. For this reason, extremely liberal > > licensing of BIP documents is encouraged.) > > > > d. To help maintain quality and consistency between documentation, the > > BIP editors provide a BIP document template, guidelines similar to > > the existing BIP2, and an easy-to-run format linter. > > > > I think this decentralized BIPs alternative also helps address some > > longstanding problems with the BIPs system: that many casual Bitcoin > > users and developers think of documents in the BIPs repo as > > authoritative and that there are some development teams (such as for LN) > > that have already abandoned the BIPs process because, in part, they want > > complete control over their own documentation. > > > > The recommendations above were developed based on conversations I had > > with a few stakeholders in the BIPs process, but I did not attempt a > > comprehensive survey and I certainly don't claim to speak for anyone > > else. I hope the recommendations are satisfactory and I look forward to > > your feedback. > > > > Thanks, > > > > -Dave > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >