Good morning Michael, Thanks for sharing the summary about BIP process meeting.
> However, zero filters creates a Ethereum style bewildering number of BIPs of > varying quality that all need to be stored and maintained. The option of > being able to store a BIP in any repo doesn’t appear to offer material upside > (michaelfolkson). It still needs to get a BIP number from the BIP editors and > if the alternative repo is deleted or the BIP champion becomes unresponsive > there is the problem of changing the location of where the BIP is stored. It > is much easier to monitor a single repo rather than an infinite number of > repos that contain BIPs. 1.I want to avoid mentioning projects that are not decentralized however the thing you mentioned is a feature not a bug. Neither anyone needs "quality" certificates from anyone nor approval. People are free to propose anything as improvement for Bitcoin. What gets implemented is a different thing. Also BIP number doesn't make something legit, BIPs can have any names. Example: If I ever create draft a proposal to improve Bitcoin, it will be in my own repository and with a unique name. 2.I am surprised that few influential developers that wanted to improve BIP process earlier by making it more decentralized were not present in either meeting. Also no follow up here on mailing list. So decentralization was only required when you had some issues with Luke Dashjr? Few things are so obvious that even a newbie who starts researching about Bitcoin from today can observe such things. I tried my best to ask more people to participate in the meeting by tweeting, requested Christopher to attend the meeting and share his thoughts. Thanks everyone who was part of this meeting. -- Prayank A3B1 E430 2298 178F
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
