Splitting BIPs
4 messages, 24 to 29 Aug 2015. Started by Eric Lombrozo.
Eric Lombrozo (3), Jorge Timón
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.
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:
Quoted text (18 lines)
> > 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. >
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:
Quoted text (26 lines)
> 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. >> >
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:
Quoted text (41 lines)
> 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 >