📅 Original date posted:2015-06-18
📝 Original message:>
> So then: make a proposal for a better process, post it to this list.
>
Alright. Here is a first cut of my proposal. It can be inserted into an
amended BIP 1 after "What belongs in a successful BIP?". Let me know what
you think.
The following section applies to BIPs that affect the block chain consensus
rules or the peer to peer protocol and thus require changes to Bitcoin
Core.
Once a draft BIP has been submitted to bitcoin-development for
consideration, the Bitcoin Core maintainer will deliver a preliminary
yes/no verdict within three weeks. This verdict may be informed by the
debate that has taken part in the previous three weeks. If more time is
required, the maintainer is required to request an extension from the BIP
author, who may then elect to force an immediate decision (risking a no),
or choosing to allow more time.
The verdict will meet the following criteria:
- It will address the latest version of the BIP at the time the verdict
is rendered.
- In case of a rejection, it will spell out and describe the technical
rationale for this decision. Opinions held by other people are not
considered technical rationales: if the maintainer agrees with a technical
point made during discussion, he must own that opinion for himself.
Therefore no BIP will be rejected on grounds of controversy, disagreement,
lack of consensus or otherwise.
- In case of rejection, the maintainer will provide a clear, specific
list of actionable steps the BIP author can take next. For example, a list
of what changes would address the technical objections raised. In case the
maintainer believes no change could ever make the BIP acceptable, the list
must consist of instructions for how to create a patch set and, in the case
of changes to the consensus rules, how to initiate a hard fork.
A BIP, even once rejected, may live on in the BIPS repository, though its
entry in the index may be sorted below others. The BIP author may update
the BIP with a summary of any resulting discussion. As such a summary may
be inherently contentious in case of a dispute, the authors wording of that
summary is final and may not be subject to meta-debate.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150618/d9c01029/attachment.html>;
Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] /
npub17t…4qgyd
2023-06-07 17:38:42
in reply to nevent1q…vd8a
Author Public Key
npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydPublished at
2023-06-07 17:38:42Event JSON
{
"id": "cc6eb3e7d80696e232144d435480f3a7d37e005762cb87ec86f64586c7128c75",
"pubkey": "f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2",
"created_at": 1686152322,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"23c1bb2f25b9e7356b48aa2a86751c4f26fb3977b440917a1cb3512c200b0b2f",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"ee80e2daaefd56ca78f7d881a104559f0ba587ed741edc65c73b43e1afa85d6b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5c0b7fca51fd4830b4d9f840de063faebeeabd3bb5dd118de9cdf50a6feaaf98"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-18\n📝 Original message:\u003e\n\u003e So then: make a proposal for a better process, post it to this list.\n\u003e\n\nAlright. Here is a first cut of my proposal. It can be inserted into an\namended BIP 1 after \"What belongs in a successful BIP?\". Let me know what\nyou think.\n\n\n\nThe following section applies to BIPs that affect the block chain consensus\nrules or the peer to peer protocol and thus require changes to Bitcoin\nCore.\n\nOnce a draft BIP has been submitted to bitcoin-development for\nconsideration, the Bitcoin Core maintainer will deliver a preliminary\nyes/no verdict within three weeks. This verdict may be informed by the\ndebate that has taken part in the previous three weeks. If more time is\nrequired, the maintainer is required to request an extension from the BIP\nauthor, who may then elect to force an immediate decision (risking a no),\nor choosing to allow more time.\n\nThe verdict will meet the following criteria:\n\n - It will address the latest version of the BIP at the time the verdict\n is rendered.\n\n - In case of a rejection, it will spell out and describe the technical\n rationale for this decision. Opinions held by other people are not\n considered technical rationales: if the maintainer agrees with a technical\n point made during discussion, he must own that opinion for himself.\n Therefore no BIP will be rejected on grounds of controversy, disagreement,\n lack of consensus or otherwise.\n\n - In case of rejection, the maintainer will provide a clear, specific\n list of actionable steps the BIP author can take next. For example, a list\n of what changes would address the technical objections raised. In case the\n maintainer believes no change could ever make the BIP acceptable, the list\n must consist of instructions for how to create a patch set and, in the case\n of changes to the consensus rules, how to initiate a hard fork.\n\nA BIP, even once rejected, may live on in the BIPS repository, though its\nentry in the index may be sorted below others. The BIP author may update\nthe BIP with a summary of any resulting discussion. As such a summary may\nbe inherently contentious in case of a dispute, the authors wording of that\nsummary is final and may not be subject to meta-debate.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150618/d9c01029/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "c1a061c56dbb2b5ff4cd319110c6177467e38e633ac034cc0ae6f8c62fbe4142ff029e871837331b99bebc60cd4caf949aa9a997d5d1d4e776be5164608d7b93"
}