Hi all, Just under three years ago there was some discussion about the BIPs repo, with the result that Kalle became a BIPs editor in addition to Luke, eg:
* https://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/2021-04-22.log * https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-April/018859.html It remains, however, quite hard to get BIPs merged into the repo, eg the following PRs have been open for quite some time: * #1408: Ordinal Numbers; opened 2023-01-21, editors comments: Kalle: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1408#issuecomment-1421641390 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1408#issuecomment-1435389476 Luke: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1408#issuecomment-1429146796 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1408#issuecomment-1438831607 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1408#issuecomment-1465016571 * #1489: Taproot Assets Protocol; opened 2023-09-07, editors comments: Kalle: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1489#issuecomment-1855079626 Luke: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1489#issuecomment-1869721535j * #1500: OP_TXHASH; opened 2023-09-30, editors comments: Luke: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1500#pullrequestreview-1796550166 https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/1735701932520382839 The range of acceptable BIPs seems to also be becoming more limited, such that mempool/relay policy is out of scope: * https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1524#issuecomment-1869734387 Despite having two editors, only Luke seems to be able to assign new numbers to BIPs, eg: * https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1458#issuecomment-1597917780 There's also been some not very productive delays due to the editors wanting backwards compatibility sections even if authors don't think that's necessary, eg: * https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1372#issuecomment-1439132867 Even working out whether to go back to allowing markdown as a text format is a multi-month slog due to process confusion: * https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1504 Anyway, while it's not totally dysfunctional, it's very high friction. There are a variety of recent proposals that have PRs open against inquisition; up until now I've been suggesting people write a BIP, and have been keying off the BIP number to signal activation. But that just seems to be introducing friction, when all I need is a way of linking an arbitrary number to a spec. So I'm switching inquisition over to having a dedicated "IANA"-ish thing that's independent of BIP process nonsense. It's at: * https://github.com/bitcoin-inquisition/binana If people want to use it for bitcoin-related proposals that don't have anything to do with inquisition, that's fine; I'm intending to apply the policies I think the BIPs repo should be using, so feel free to open a PR, even if you already know I think your idea is BS on its merits. If someone wants to write an automatic-merge-bot for me, that'd also be great. If someone wants to reform the BIPs repo itself so it works better, that'd be even better, but I'm not volunteering for that fight. Cheers, aj (It's called "numbers and names" primarily because that way the acronym amuses me, but also in case inquisition eventually needs an authoritative dictionary for what "cat" or "txhash" or similar terms refer to) _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
