{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2016-06-23\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 02:01:10PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:\n\u003e On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 01:30:45PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:\n\u003e \u003e For the record, I think the idea of the bips repo being a pure publication\n\u003e \u003e platform isn't a good one and doesn't match reality; like it or not by\n\u003e \u003e accepting bips we're putting a stamp of some kind of approval on them.\n\u003e \n\u003e We? I don't feel like I have any authority to say what goes into that\n\u003e repository, and neither do you. We just give technical opinion on\n\u003e proposals. The fact that it's under the bitcoin organization on github\n\u003e is a historical artifact.\n\nThat's simply not how the rest of the community perceives bips, and until we\nmove them elsewhere that's not going to change.\n\nNo matter how much we scream that we don't have authority, the fact of the\nmatter is the bips are located under the github.com/bitcoin namespace, and we\ndo have editorial control over them.\n\n\u003e \u003e I have zero issues with us exercising editorial control over what's in the bips\n\u003e \u003e repo; us doing so doesn't in any way prevent other's from publishing elsewhere.\n\u003e \n\u003e Editorial control is inevitable to some extent, but I think that's\n\u003e more a matter of process than of opinion. Things like \"Was there\n\u003e community discussion?\", \"Is it relevant?\", \"Is there a reference\n\u003e implementation?\". I don't think that you objecting for moral reasons\n\u003e to an otherwise technically sound idea is a reason for removal of a\n\u003e BIP. You are of course free to propose alternatives, or recommend\n\u003e against its usage.\n\nRight, so you accept that we'll exert some degree of editorial control; the\nquestion now is what editorial policies should we exert?\n\nMy argument is that rejecting BIP75 is something we should do on\nethical/strategic grounds. You may disagree with that, but please don't troll\nand call that \"advocating censorship\"\n\n-- \nhttps://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 455 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160623/406e462b/attachment.sig\u003e"}