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: > 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 <elombr...@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 <elombr...@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 > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
