What solutions were suggested to improve BIP process and avoid controversies in future by different developers in last meeting?
Asked
Active
Viewed 71 times
1 Answers
0
This should have been mentioned in other Q&A by Michael Folkson.
Below are the solutions suggested by different developers to improve BIP process:
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.
We add additional BIP editors, starting with Kalle Alm (if there are no continuing significant objections).
We seek Luke Dashjr's resignation as BIPs editor.
We begin treating protocol documents outside the BIPs repository as first-class BIP documentation.
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 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.
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.
These developers were not present in the BIP process meeting. Solutions were suggested on Bitcoin dev mailing list. Christopher Allen (Blockchain Commons) and I had the similar opinion about making things decentralized. While Michael Folkson and BIP editors (Luke Dashjr and Kalle Alm) were happy with the current repository with minor changes.