On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Andy Chase via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I wrote the BIP mostly to stir the pot on ideas of governance
Some quick comments: I have some objects that I am not ready to put into words, but I do think there are easily some major objections to committee design. If I vanish and never respond with my objections, perhaps there's an IETF RFC about this already.... Something that may mitigate my possible objections would be some mandatory requirement about ecosystem echo-chambers making many attempts and efforts at steelman representations of alternative viewpoints. Understanding objections at a fundamental level, enough to make strong steelman statements, is very important to ensure that the competing opinions are not censored from consideration. Pathological integration and internalization of these steelman arguments can be very useful, even if the process looks unusual. Your process does not have to replace any particular BIP process as-is, but rather could be an alternative that proceeds on its own perhaps indefinitely without replacement. I don't think too many BIP processes are necessarily incompatible except by namespace collision. https://gist.github.com/andychase/dddb83c294295879308b#gistcomment-1566432 - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
