From 3b4421b7886662e4c97fe6f2bd5d2ac0db362529 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Dashjr Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 00:36:32 +0000 Subject: bip-0002: Prohibit the OPL in new BIPs --- bip-0002.mediawiki | 15 +++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/bip-0002.mediawiki b/bip-0002.mediawiki index 9d59405..c5274c0 100644 --- a/bip-0002.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0002.mediawiki @@ -172,7 +172,10 @@ For a later version (eg, GPL 3.0), you would increase the version number (and re License-Code: GPL-3.0 # This refers to GPL v3.0 *only*, no later license versions are acceptable. License-Code: GPL-3.0+ # This refers to GPL v3.0 *or later*. -In the event that the text or code is not available under common license terms, the list should instead be replaced with the single term "Complex", and full details provided in the Copyright section of the BIP. +In the event that the licensing for the text or code is too complicated to express with a simple list of alternatives, the list should instead be replaced with the single term "Complex". In all cases, details of the licensing terms must be provided in the Copyright section of the BIP. + +BIPs are not required to be *exclusively* licensed under approved terms, and may also be licensed under unacceptable licenses *in addition to* at least one acceptable license. +In this case, only the acceptable license(s) should be listed in the License and License-Code headers. ====Recommended licenses==== @@ -194,10 +197,14 @@ In addition, it is recommended that literal code included in the BIP be dual-lic * FDL-1.3: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.en.html GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.3] * GPL-2.0+: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html GNU General Public License (GPL), version 2 or newer] * LGPL-2.1+: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.en.html GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), version 2.1 or newer] -* OPL: [http://opencontent.org/openpub/ Open Publication License, version 1.0] -Additionally, PD is used to express that the work is placed in the public domain. -This may not be used for new BIPs, and is only defined for use by BIPs predating acceptance of this BIP. +====Not acceptable licenses==== + +All licenses not explicitly included in the above lists are not acceptable terms for a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal unless a later BIP extends this one to add them. +However, BIPs predating the acceptance of this BIP were allowed under other terms, and should use these abbreviation when no other license is granted: + +* OPL: [http://opencontent.org/openpub/ Open Publication License, version 1.0] +* PD: Released into the public domain ===Rationale=== -- cgit v1.2.3 From 9f0ef24770f9286f6753c881edc3f6609398dc33 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Dashjr Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 02:48:30 +0000 Subject: bip-0002: Move BIP Comments to GitHub bitcoin/bips wiki --- bip-0002.mediawiki | 22 ++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/bip-0002.mediawiki b/bip-0002.mediawiki index c5274c0..5704405 100644 --- a/bip-0002.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0002.mediawiki @@ -102,18 +102,25 @@ What if a BIP is proposed that only makes sense for a single specific project? ===Specification=== -Each BIP should, in its preamble, link to a Bitcoin Wiki page with a summary tone of the comments on that page. -Reviewers of the BIP who consider themselves qualified, should post their own comments on this wiki page in [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Talk_pages#Editing_conventions_on_talk_pages standard "Talk page" format]. +Each BIP should, in its preamble, link to a public wiki page with a summary tone of the comments on that page. +Reviewers of the BIP who consider themselves qualified, should post their own comments on this wiki page. The comments page should generally only be used to post final comments for a completed BIP. If a BIP is not yet completed, reviewers should instead post on the applicable development mailing list thread to allow the BIP author(s) to address any concerns or problems pointed out by the review. Some BIPs receive exposure outside the development community prior to completion, and other BIPs might not be completed at all. To avoid a situation where critical BIP reviews may go unnoticed during this period, reviewers may, at their option, still post their review on the comments page, provided they first post it to the mailing list and plan to later remove or revise it as applicable based on the completed version. Such revisions should be made by editing the previous review and updating the timestamp. Reviews made prior to the complete version may be removed if they are no longer applicable and have not been updated in a timely manner (eg, within one month). -Pages must be named after the full BIP number (eg, "BIP 0001") and placed in the "BIP Comments" namespace. For example, the link for BIP 1 will be https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_Comments:BIP_0001 . +Pages must be named after the full BIP number (eg, "BIP 0001") and placed in the "Comments" namespace. +For example, the link for BIP 1 will be https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0001 . -In order to avoid possible abuse of Bitcoin Wiki moderation, BIPs may choose to list a second forum for BIP comments, in addition to the Bitcoin Wiki. In this case, the second forum's URI should be listed below the Bitcoin Wiki's URI. +Comments posted to this wiki should use the following format: -Summary tones may be chosen from the following, but this BIP does not intend to cover all possible nuances: + --, + +BIPs may also choose to list a second forum for BIP comments, in addition to the BIPs wiki. +In this case, the second forum's URI should be listed below the primary wiki's URI. + +After some time, the BIP itself may be updated with a summary tone of the comments. +Summary tones may be chosen from the following, but this BIP does not intend to cover all possible nuances and other summaries may be used as needed: * No comments yet. * Unanimously Recommended for implementation @@ -124,7 +131,7 @@ Summary tones may be chosen from the following, but this BIP does not intend to For example, the preamble to BIP 1 might be updated to include the line: Comments-Summary: No comments yet. - Comments-URI: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_Comments:BIP_0001 + Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0001 https://some-other-wiki.org/BIP_1_Comments These fields must follow the "Discussions-To" header defined in BIP 1 (if that header is not present, it should follow the position where it would be present; generally this is immediately above the Status header). @@ -139,8 +146,7 @@ What is the purpose of BIP comments? Will BIP comments be censored or limited to particular participants/"experts"? -* The Bitcoin Wiki moderators have control over that venue and may make reasonable moderation attempts. Admitted non-experts should refrain from commenting outside of their area of knowledge. However, comments should not be censored, and participation should be open to the public. -* If the Bitcoin Wiki were to abuse its position, the venue for comments can always be changed. +* Participants should freely refrain from commenting outside of their area of knowledge or expertise. However, comments should not be censored, and participation should be open to the public. ==BIP licensing== -- cgit v1.2.3 From 5a066ea8fa3053bc4c72cf55b49b2e428e1ef416 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Dashjr Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 03:15:36 +0000 Subject: Copypaste BIP 1 into BIP 2 and aim for replacement --- README.mediawiki | 2 +- bip-0002.mediawiki | 168 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 2 files changed, 168 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/README.mediawiki b/README.mediawiki index 1b29321..6f3ee08 100644 --- a/README.mediawiki +++ b/README.mediawiki @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ Those proposing changes should consider that ultimately consent may rest with th | Active |- | [[bip-0002.mediawiki|2]] -| BIP Status and Comments +| BIP process, revised | Luke Dashjr | Process | Deferred diff --git a/bip-0002.mediawiki b/bip-0002.mediawiki index 5704405..7297bc0 100644 --- a/bip-0002.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0002.mediawiki @@ -1,20 +1,182 @@ 
   BIP: 2
-  Title: BIP Status and Comments
+  Title: BIP process, revised
   Author: Luke Dashjr 
   Status: Deferred
   Type: Process
   Created: 2016-02-03
+  Replaces: 1
==Abstract== +BIP stands for Bitcoin Improvement Proposal. A BIP is a design document providing information to the Bitcoin community, or describing a new feature for Bitcoin or its processes or environment. The BIP should provide a concise technical specification of the feature and a rationale for the feature. + +We intend BIPs to be the primary mechanisms for proposing new features, for collecting community input on an issue, and for documenting the design decisions that have gone into Bitcoin. The BIP author is responsible for building consensus within the community and documenting dissenting opinions. + +Because the BIPs are maintained as text files in a versioned repository, their revision history is the historical record of the feature proposal. + This BIP describes objective criteria that can be used to determine when a BIP Status should be changed, to ensure it is a reliable metric documenting actual usage of the proposal. It also adds a way for final comment on completed BIPs, by adding to them a reference to a wiki page and summary of the tone thereof. Finally, it extends the list of allowable BIP licenses to include many more popular options. ==Copyright== This BIP is dual-licensed under the Open Publication License and BSD 2-clause license. +==BIP workflow== + +The BIP process begins with a new idea for Bitcoin. Each potential BIP must have a champion -- someone who writes the BIP using the style and format described below, shepherds the discussions in the appropriate forums, and attempts to build community consensus around the idea. The BIP champion (a.k.a. Author) should first attempt to ascertain whether the idea is BIP-able. Posting to the [https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org] mailing list (and maybe the [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=6.0 Development & Technical Discussion] forum) is the best way to go about this. + +Vetting an idea publicly before going as far as writing a BIP is meant to save both the potential author and the wider community time. Many ideas have been brought forward for changing Bitcoin that have been rejected for various reasons. Asking the Bitcoin community first if an idea is original helps prevent too much time being spent on something that is guaranteed to be rejected based on prior discussions (searching the internet does not always do the trick). It also helps to make sure the idea is applicable to the entire community and not just the author. Just because an idea sounds good to the author does not mean it will work for most people in most areas where Bitcoin is used. Small enhancements or patches often don't need standardisation between multiple projects; these don't need a BIP and should be injected into the relevant Bitcoin development work flow with a patch submission to the applicable Bitcoin issue tracker. + +Once the champion has asked the Bitcoin community as to whether an idea has any chance of acceptance, a draft BIP should be presented to the [https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev] mailing list. This gives the author a chance to flesh out the draft BIP to make it properly formatted, of high quality, and to address additional concerns about the proposal. Following a discussion, the proposal should be sent to the bitcoin-dev list and the BIP editor with the draft BIP. This draft must be written in BIP style as described below, else it will be sent back without further regard until proper formatting rules are followed. + +BIP authors are responsible for collecting community feedback on both the initial idea and the BIP before submitting it for review. However, wherever possible, long open-ended discussions on public mailing lists should be avoided. Strategies to keep the discussions efficient include: setting up a separate SIG mailing list for the topic, having the BIP author accept private comments in the early design phases, setting up a wiki page or git repository, etc. BIP authors should use their discretion here. + +It is highly recommended that a single BIP contain a single key proposal or new idea. The more focused the BIP, the more successful it tends to be. If in doubt, split your BIP into several well-focused ones. + +The BIP editors assign BIP numbers and change their status. Please send all BIP-related email to the BIP editor, which is listed under [[#BIP_Editors|BIP Editors]] below. Also see [[#BIP_Editor_Responsibilities__Workflow|BIP Editor Responsibilities & Workflow]]. The BIP editor reserves the right to reject BIP proposals if they appear too unfocused or too broad. + +Authors MUST NOT self assign BIP numbers, but should use an alias such as "bip-johndoe-infinitebitcoins" which includes the author's name/nick and the BIP subject. + +If the BIP editor approves, he will assign the BIP a number, label it as Standards Track, Informational, or Process, give it status "Draft", and add it to the BIPs git repository. The BIP editor will not unreasonably deny a BIP. Reasons for denying BIP status include duplication of effort, disregard for formatting rules, being too unfocused or too broad, being technically unsound, not providing proper motivation or addressing backwards compatibility, or not in keeping with the Bitcoin philosophy. For a BIP to be accepted it must meet certain minimum criteria. It must be a clear and complete description of the proposed enhancement. The enhancement must represent a net improvement. The proposed implementation, if applicable, must be solid and must not complicate the protocol unduly. + +The BIP author may update the Draft as necessary in the git repository. Updates to drafts may also be submitted by the author as pull requests. + +Standards Track BIPs consist of two parts, a design document and a reference implementation. The BIP should be reviewed and accepted before a reference implementation is begun, unless a reference implementation will aid people in studying the BIP. Standards Track BIPs must include an implementation -- in the form of code, a patch, or a URL to same -- before it can be considered Final. + +Once a BIP has been accepted, the reference implementation must be completed. When the reference implementation is complete and accepted by the community, the status will be changed to "Final". + +A BIP can also be assigned status "Deferred". The BIP author or editor can assign the BIP this status when no progress is being made on the BIP. Once a BIP is deferred, the BIP editor can re-assign it to draft status. + +A BIP can also be "Rejected". Perhaps after all is said and done it was not a good idea. It is still important to have a record of this fact. + +BIPs can also be superseded by a different BIP, rendering the original obsolete. This is intended for Informational BIPs, where version 2 of an API can replace version 1. + +The possible paths of the status of BIPs are as follows: + + + +Some Informational and Process BIPs may also have a status of "Active" if they are never meant to be completed. E.g. BIP 1 (this BIP). + +===Transferring BIP Ownership=== + +It occasionally becomes necessary to transfer ownership of BIPs to a new champion. In general, we'd like to retain the original author as a co-author of the transferred BIP, but that's really up to the original author. A good reason to transfer ownership is because the original author no longer has the time or interest in updating it or following through with the BIP process, or has fallen off the face of the 'net (i.e. is unreachable or not responding to email). A bad reason to transfer ownership is because you don't agree with the direction of the BIP. We try to build consensus around a BIP, but if that's not possible, you can always submit a competing BIP. + +If you are interested in assuming ownership of a BIP, send a message asking to take over, addressed to both the original author and the BIP editor. If the original author doesn't respond to email in a timely manner, the BIP editor will make a unilateral decision (it's not like such decisions can't be reversed :). + +===BIP Editors=== + +The current BIP editor is Luke Dashjr who can be contacted at [[mailto:luke_bipeditor@dashjr.org|luke_bipeditor@dashjr.org]]. + +===BIP Editor Responsibilities & Workflow=== + +The BIP editor subscribes to the Bitcoin development mailing list. All BIP-related correspondence should be sent (or CC'd) to luke_bipeditor@dashjr.org. + +For each new BIP that comes in an editor does the following: + +* Read the BIP to check if it is ready: sound and complete. The ideas must make technical sense, even if they don't seem likely to be accepted. +* The title should accurately describe the content. +* Edit the BIP for language (spelling, grammar, sentence structure, etc.), markup (for reST BIPs), code style (examples should match BIP 8 & 7). + +If the BIP isn't ready, the editor will send it back to the author for revision, with specific instructions. + +Once the BIP is ready for the repository it should be submitted as a "pull request" to the [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips bitcoin/bips] repository on GitHub where it may get further feedback. + +The BIP editor will: + +* Assign a BIP number (almost always just the next available number, but sometimes it's a special/joke number, like 666 or 3141) in the pull request comments. + +* Merge the pull request when the author is ready (allowing some time for further peer review). + +* List the BIP in [[README.mediawiki]] + +* Send email back to the BIP author with next steps (post to bitcoin-dev mailing list). + +The BIP editors are intended to fulfill administrative and editorial responsibilities. The BIP editors monitor BIP changes, and correct any structure, grammar, spelling, or markup mistakes we see. + +==BIP format and structure== + +===Specification=== + +BIPs should be written in mediawiki or markdown format. + +Each BIP should have the following parts: + +* Preamble -- RFC 822 style headers containing meta-data about the BIP, including the BIP number, a short descriptive title (limited to a maximum of 44 characters), the names, and optionally the contact info for each author, etc. + +* Abstract -- a short (~200 word) description of the technical issue being addressed. + +* Copyright/public domain -- Each BIP must either be explicitly labelled as placed in the public domain (see this BIP as an example) or licensed under the Open Publication License. + +* Specification -- The technical specification should describe the syntax and semantics of any new feature. The specification should be detailed enough to allow competing, interoperable implementations for any of the current Bitcoin platforms (Satoshi, BitcoinJ, bitcoin-js, libbitcoin). + +* Motivation -- The motivation is critical for BIPs that want to change the Bitcoin protocol. It should clearly explain why the existing protocol specification is inadequate to address the problem that the BIP solves. BIP submissions without sufficient motivation may be rejected outright. + +* Rationale -- The rationale fleshes out the specification by describing what motivated the design and why particular design decisions were made. It should describe alternate designs that were considered and related work, e.g. how the feature is supported in other languages. + +* The rationale should provide evidence of consensus within the community and discuss important objections or concerns raised during discussion. + +* Backwards Compatibility -- All BIPs that introduce backwards incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their severity. The BIP must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. BIP submissions without a sufficient backwards compatibility treatise may be rejected outright. + +* Reference Implementation -- The reference implementation must be completed before any BIP is given status "Final", but it need not be completed before the BIP is accepted. It is better to finish the specification and rationale first and reach consensus on it before writing code. + +* The final implementation must include test code and documentation appropriate for the Bitcoin protocol. + +====BIP header preamble==== + +Each BIP must begin with an RFC 822 style header preamble. The headers must appear in the following order. Headers marked with "*" are optional and are described below. All other headers are required. + +
+  BIP: 
+  Title: 
+  Author: 
+* Discussions-To: 
+  Status: 
+  Type: 
+  Created: 
+* Post-History: 
+* Replaces: 
+* Superseded-By: 
+* Resolution: 
+
+ +The Author header lists the names, and optionally the email addresses of all the authors/owners of the BIP. The format of the Author header value must be + + Random J. User + +if the email address is included, and just + + Random J. User + +if the address is not given. + +If there are multiple authors, each should be on a separate line following RFC 2822 continuation line conventions. + +Note: The Resolution header is required for Standards Track BIPs only. It contains a URL that should point to an email message or other web resource where the pronouncement about the BIP is made. + +While a BIP is in private discussions (usually during the initial Draft phase), a Discussions-To header will indicate the mailing list or URL where the BIP is being discussed. No Discussions-To header is necessary if the BIP is being discussed privately with the author, or on the bitcoin email mailing lists. + +The Type header specifies the type of BIP: Standards Track, Informational, or Process. + +The Created header records the date that the BIP was assigned a number, while Post-History is used to record the dates of when new versions of the BIP are posted to bitcoin mailing lists. Both headers should be in yyyy-mm-dd format, e.g. 2001-08-14. + +BIPs may have a Requires header, indicating the BIP numbers that this BIP depends on. + +BIPs may also have a Superseded-By header indicating that a BIP has been rendered obsolete by a later document; the value is the number of the BIP that replaces the current document. The newer BIP must have a Replaces header containing the number of the BIP that it rendered obsolete. + +====Auxiliary Files==== + +BIPs may include auxiliary files such as diagrams. Image files should be included in a subdirectory for that BIP. Auxiliary files must be named BIP-XXXX-Y.ext, where "XXXX" is the BIP number, "Y" is a serial number (starting at 1), and "ext" is replaced by the actual file extension (e.g. "png"). + +==BIP types== + +There are three kinds of BIP: + +* A Standards Track BIP describes any change that affects most or all Bitcoin implementations, such as a change to the network protocol, a change in block or transaction validity rules, or any change or addition that affects the interoperability of applications using Bitcoin. +* An Informational BIP describes a Bitcoin design issue, or provides general guidelines or information to the Bitcoin community, but does not propose a new feature. Informational BIPs do not necessarily represent a Bitcoin community consensus or recommendation, so users and implementors are free to ignore Informational BIPs or follow their advice. +* A Process BIP describes a process surrounding Bitcoin, or proposes a change to (or an event in) a process. Process BIPs are like Standards Track BIPs but apply to areas other than the Bitcoin protocol itself. They may propose an implementation, but not to Bitcoin's codebase; they often require community consensus; unlike Informational BIPs, they are more than recommendations, and users are typically not free to ignore them. Examples include procedures, guidelines, changes to the decision-making process, and changes to the tools or environment used in Bitcoin development. Any meta-BIP is also considered a Process BIP. + ==BIP status field== ===Specification=== @@ -229,6 +391,10 @@ Why is Public Domain no longer acceptable for new BIPs? * In some jurisdictions, public domain is not recognised as a legitimate legal action, leaving the BIP simply copyrighted with no redistribution or modification allowed at all. +==History== + +This document was derived heavily from Python's PEP-0001. In many places text was simply copied and modified. Although the PEP-0001 text was written by Barry Warsaw, Jeremy Hylton, and David Goodger, they are not responsible for its use in the Bitcoin Improvement Process, and should not be bothered with technical questions specific to Bitcoin or the BIP process. Please direct all comments to the BIP editors or the Bitcoin development mailing list. + ==See Also== * [[bip-0001.mediawiki|BIP 1: BIP Purpose and Guidelines]] -- cgit v1.2.3 From f1ed5afd1fa4e4ea12c81883947c45bb18aaeab2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Dashjr Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 03:23:08 +0000 Subject: bip-0002: Revise for BIP 1 replacement --- bip-0002.mediawiki | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/bip-0002.mediawiki b/bip-0002.mediawiki index 7297bc0..3252d77 100644 --- a/bip-0002.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0002.mediawiki @@ -10,13 +10,13 @@ ==Abstract== -BIP stands for Bitcoin Improvement Proposal. A BIP is a design document providing information to the Bitcoin community, or describing a new feature for Bitcoin or its processes or environment. The BIP should provide a concise technical specification of the feature and a rationale for the feature. +A Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) is a design document providing information to the Bitcoin community, or describing a new feature for Bitcoin or its processes or environment. The BIP should provide a concise technical specification of the feature and a rationale for the feature. We intend BIPs to be the primary mechanisms for proposing new features, for collecting community input on an issue, and for documenting the design decisions that have gone into Bitcoin. The BIP author is responsible for building consensus within the community and documenting dissenting opinions. Because the BIPs are maintained as text files in a versioned repository, their revision history is the historical record of the feature proposal. -This BIP describes objective criteria that can be used to determine when a BIP Status should be changed, to ensure it is a reliable metric documenting actual usage of the proposal. It also adds a way for final comment on completed BIPs, by adding to them a reference to a wiki page and summary of the tone thereof. Finally, it extends the list of allowable BIP licenses to include many more popular options. +This particular BIP replaces BIP 1 with a more well-defined and clear process. ==Copyright== -- cgit v1.2.3 From deb036798acc61023636bae1886718e3386d4efb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Dashjr Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 03:24:28 +0000 Subject: bip-0002: Drop BitcoinTalk recommendation --- bip-0002.mediawiki | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/bip-0002.mediawiki b/bip-0002.mediawiki index 3252d77..59b6af0 100644 --- a/bip-0002.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0002.mediawiki @@ -24,7 +24,8 @@ This BIP is dual-licensed under the Open Publication License and BSD 2-clause li ==BIP workflow== -The BIP process begins with a new idea for Bitcoin. Each potential BIP must have a champion -- someone who writes the BIP using the style and format described below, shepherds the discussions in the appropriate forums, and attempts to build community consensus around the idea. The BIP champion (a.k.a. Author) should first attempt to ascertain whether the idea is BIP-able. Posting to the [https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org] mailing list (and maybe the [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=6.0 Development & Technical Discussion] forum) is the best way to go about this. +The BIP process begins with a new idea for Bitcoin. Each potential BIP must have a champion -- someone who writes the BIP using the style and format described below, shepherds the discussions in the appropriate forums, and attempts to build community consensus around the idea. The BIP champion (a.k.a. Author) should first attempt to ascertain whether the idea is BIP-able. +Posting to the [https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org] mailing list is the best way to go about this. Vetting an idea publicly before going as far as writing a BIP is meant to save both the potential author and the wider community time. Many ideas have been brought forward for changing Bitcoin that have been rejected for various reasons. Asking the Bitcoin community first if an idea is original helps prevent too much time being spent on something that is guaranteed to be rejected based on prior discussions (searching the internet does not always do the trick). It also helps to make sure the idea is applicable to the entire community and not just the author. Just because an idea sounds good to the author does not mean it will work for most people in most areas where Bitcoin is used. Small enhancements or patches often don't need standardisation between multiple projects; these don't need a BIP and should be injected into the relevant Bitcoin development work flow with a patch submission to the applicable Bitcoin issue tracker. -- cgit v1.2.3 From f0999cdcc1461c44c4f45f33d5c7b768aa80a906 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Dashjr Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 03:44:24 +0000 Subject: bip-0002: Language improvements for BIP workflow --- bip-0002.mediawiki | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/bip-0002.mediawiki b/bip-0002.mediawiki index 59b6af0..dc53d01 100644 --- a/bip-0002.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0002.mediawiki @@ -25,25 +25,37 @@ This BIP is dual-licensed under the Open Publication License and BSD 2-clause li ==BIP workflow== The BIP process begins with a new idea for Bitcoin. Each potential BIP must have a champion -- someone who writes the BIP using the style and format described below, shepherds the discussions in the appropriate forums, and attempts to build community consensus around the idea. The BIP champion (a.k.a. Author) should first attempt to ascertain whether the idea is BIP-able. -Posting to the [https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org] mailing list is the best way to go about this. +Small enhancements or patches to a particular piece of software often don't require standardisation between multiple projects; these don't need a BIP and should be injected into the relevant project-specific development workflow with a patch submission to the applicable issue tracker. +Additionally, many ideas have been brought forward for changing Bitcoin that have been rejected for various reasons. +The first step should be to search past discussions to see if an idea has been considered before, and if so, what issues arose in its progression. +After investigating past work, the best way to proceed is by posting about the new idea to the [https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev Bitcoin development mailing list]. -Vetting an idea publicly before going as far as writing a BIP is meant to save both the potential author and the wider community time. Many ideas have been brought forward for changing Bitcoin that have been rejected for various reasons. Asking the Bitcoin community first if an idea is original helps prevent too much time being spent on something that is guaranteed to be rejected based on prior discussions (searching the internet does not always do the trick). It also helps to make sure the idea is applicable to the entire community and not just the author. Just because an idea sounds good to the author does not mean it will work for most people in most areas where Bitcoin is used. Small enhancements or patches often don't need standardisation between multiple projects; these don't need a BIP and should be injected into the relevant Bitcoin development work flow with a patch submission to the applicable Bitcoin issue tracker. +Vetting an idea publicly before going as far as writing a BIP is meant to save both the potential author and the wider community time. +Asking the Bitcoin community first if an idea is original helps prevent too much time being spent on something that is guaranteed to be rejected based on prior discussions (searching the internet does not always do the trick). +It also helps to make sure the idea is applicable to the entire community and not just the author. Just because an idea sounds good to the author does not mean it will work for most people in most areas where Bitcoin is used. -Once the champion has asked the Bitcoin community as to whether an idea has any chance of acceptance, a draft BIP should be presented to the [https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev] mailing list. This gives the author a chance to flesh out the draft BIP to make it properly formatted, of high quality, and to address additional concerns about the proposal. Following a discussion, the proposal should be sent to the bitcoin-dev list and the BIP editor with the draft BIP. This draft must be written in BIP style as described below, else it will be sent back without further regard until proper formatting rules are followed. +Once the champion has asked the Bitcoin community as to whether an idea has any chance of acceptance, a draft BIP should be presented to the [https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev Bitcoin development mailing list]. +This gives the author a chance to flesh out the draft BIP to make it properly formatted, of high quality, and to address additional concerns about the proposal. +Following a discussion, the proposal should be submitted to the [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips BIPs git repository] as a pull request. +This draft must be written in BIP style as described below, and named with an alias such as "bip-johndoe-infinitebitcoins" until the editor has assigned it a BIP number (authors MUST NOT self-assign BIP numbers). BIP authors are responsible for collecting community feedback on both the initial idea and the BIP before submitting it for review. However, wherever possible, long open-ended discussions on public mailing lists should be avoided. Strategies to keep the discussions efficient include: setting up a separate SIG mailing list for the topic, having the BIP author accept private comments in the early design phases, setting up a wiki page or git repository, etc. BIP authors should use their discretion here. It is highly recommended that a single BIP contain a single key proposal or new idea. The more focused the BIP, the more successful it tends to be. If in doubt, split your BIP into several well-focused ones. -The BIP editors assign BIP numbers and change their status. Please send all BIP-related email to the BIP editor, which is listed under [[#BIP_Editors|BIP Editors]] below. Also see [[#BIP_Editor_Responsibilities__Workflow|BIP Editor Responsibilities & Workflow]]. The BIP editor reserves the right to reject BIP proposals if they appear too unfocused or too broad. +When the BIP draft is complete, the BIP editor will assign the BIP a number, label it as Standards Track, Informational, or Process, and merge the pull request to the BIPs git repository. +The BIP editor will not unreasonably reject a BIP. +Reasons for rejecting BIPs include duplication of effort, disregard for formatting rules, being too unfocused or too broad, being technically unsound, not providing proper motivation or addressing backwards compatibility, or not in keeping with the Bitcoin philosophy. +For a BIP to be accepted it must meet certain minimum criteria. +It must be a clear and complete description of the proposed enhancement. +The enhancement must represent a net improvement. +The proposed implementation, if applicable, must be solid and must not complicate the protocol unduly. -Authors MUST NOT self assign BIP numbers, but should use an alias such as "bip-johndoe-infinitebitcoins" which includes the author's name/nick and the BIP subject. +The BIP author may update the Draft as necessary in the git repository. Updates to drafts should also be submitted by the author as pull requests. -If the BIP editor approves, he will assign the BIP a number, label it as Standards Track, Informational, or Process, give it status "Draft", and add it to the BIPs git repository. The BIP editor will not unreasonably deny a BIP. Reasons for denying BIP status include duplication of effort, disregard for formatting rules, being too unfocused or too broad, being technically unsound, not providing proper motivation or addressing backwards compatibility, or not in keeping with the Bitcoin philosophy. For a BIP to be accepted it must meet certain minimum criteria. It must be a clear and complete description of the proposed enhancement. The enhancement must represent a net improvement. The proposed implementation, if applicable, must be solid and must not complicate the protocol unduly. - -The BIP author may update the Draft as necessary in the git repository. Updates to drafts may also be submitted by the author as pull requests. - -Standards Track BIPs consist of two parts, a design document and a reference implementation. The BIP should be reviewed and accepted before a reference implementation is begun, unless a reference implementation will aid people in studying the BIP. Standards Track BIPs must include an implementation -- in the form of code, a patch, or a URL to same -- before it can be considered Final. +Standards Track BIPs consist of two parts, a design document and a reference implementation. +The reference implementation is not required to be begun until the BIP is accepted, unless having such an implementation will aid people in studying the BIP. +Standards Track BIPs must include an implementation -- in the form of code, a patch, or a URL to same -- before it can be considered Final. Once a BIP has been accepted, the reference implementation must be completed. When the reference implementation is complete and accepted by the community, the status will be changed to "Final". @@ -55,9 +67,9 @@ BIPs can also be superseded by a different BIP, rendering the original obsolete. The possible paths of the status of BIPs are as follows: - + -Some Informational and Process BIPs may also have a status of "Active" if they are never meant to be completed. E.g. BIP 1 (this BIP). +Some Informational and Process BIPs may also have a status of "Active" if they are never meant to be completed. E.g. BIP 2 (this BIP). ===Transferring BIP Ownership=== -- cgit v1.2.3 From efbbe30cce96a5fd0d6f30d6cb9bbbaef5bf521b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Dashjr Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 03:51:50 +0000 Subject: bip-0002: Clarify and update BIP editor role --- bip-0002.mediawiki | 17 +++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/bip-0002.mediawiki b/bip-0002.mediawiki index dc53d01..783ecc5 100644 --- a/bip-0002.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0002.mediawiki @@ -83,29 +83,30 @@ The current BIP editor is Luke Dashjr who can be contacted at [[mailto:luke_bipe ===BIP Editor Responsibilities & Workflow=== -The BIP editor subscribes to the Bitcoin development mailing list. All BIP-related correspondence should be sent (or CC'd) to luke_bipeditor@dashjr.org. +The BIP editor subscribes to the Bitcoin development mailing list. +Off-list BIP-related correspondence should be sent (or CC'd) to luke_bipeditor@dashjr.org. For each new BIP that comes in an editor does the following: * Read the BIP to check if it is ready: sound and complete. The ideas must make technical sense, even if they don't seem likely to be accepted. * The title should accurately describe the content. -* Edit the BIP for language (spelling, grammar, sentence structure, etc.), markup (for reST BIPs), code style (examples should match BIP 8 & 7). +* The BIP draft must have been sent to the Bitcoin development mailing list for discussion. +* Motivation and backward compatibility (when applicable) must be addressed. +* Licensing terms must be acceptable for BIPs. If the BIP isn't ready, the editor will send it back to the author for revision, with specific instructions. -Once the BIP is ready for the repository it should be submitted as a "pull request" to the [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips bitcoin/bips] repository on GitHub where it may get further feedback. +Once the BIP is ready for the repository it should be submitted as a "pull request" to the [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips BIPs git repository] where it may get further feedback. The BIP editor will: -* Assign a BIP number (almost always just the next available number, but sometimes it's a special/joke number, like 666 or 3141) in the pull request comments. +* Assign a BIP number in the pull request. -* Merge the pull request when the author is ready (allowing some time for further peer review). +* Merge the pull request when it is ready. * List the BIP in [[README.mediawiki]] -* Send email back to the BIP author with next steps (post to bitcoin-dev mailing list). - -The BIP editors are intended to fulfill administrative and editorial responsibilities. The BIP editors monitor BIP changes, and correct any structure, grammar, spelling, or markup mistakes we see. +The BIP editors are intended to fulfill administrative and editorial responsibilities. The BIP editors monitor BIP changes, and update BIP headers as appropriate. ==BIP format and structure== -- cgit v1.2.3 From c864f641fa4e7a7f1f048d8b7546647b327c3b89 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Dashjr Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 03:52:23 +0000 Subject: bip-0002: Disallow markdown format --- bip-0002.mediawiki | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/bip-0002.mediawiki b/bip-0002.mediawiki index 783ecc5..2fecad4 100644 --- a/bip-0002.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0002.mediawiki @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ The BIP editors are intended to fulfill administrative and editorial responsibil ===Specification=== -BIPs should be written in mediawiki or markdown format. +BIPs should be written in mediawiki format. Each BIP should have the following parts: -- cgit v1.2.3 From db70f458c81946064f580061bb2c9dd0af13a425 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Dashjr Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 03:59:16 +0000 Subject: bip-0002: Reduce unnecessary duplication in summary of BIP parts --- bip-0002.mediawiki | 20 ++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/bip-0002.mediawiki b/bip-0002.mediawiki index 2fecad4..4fed039 100644 --- a/bip-0002.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0002.mediawiki @@ -116,25 +116,21 @@ BIPs should be written in mediawiki format. Each BIP should have the following parts: -* Preamble -- RFC 822 style headers containing meta-data about the BIP, including the BIP number, a short descriptive title (limited to a maximum of 44 characters), the names, and optionally the contact info for each author, etc. +* Preamble -- Headers containing metadata about the BIP ([[#Preamble|see below]]). -* Abstract -- a short (~200 word) description of the technical issue being addressed. +* Abstract -- A short (~200 word) description of the technical issue being addressed. -* Copyright/public domain -- Each BIP must either be explicitly labelled as placed in the public domain (see this BIP as an example) or licensed under the Open Publication License. +* Copyright -- The BIP must be explicitly licensed under acceptable copyright terms ([[#TODO|see below]]). -* Specification -- The technical specification should describe the syntax and semantics of any new feature. The specification should be detailed enough to allow competing, interoperable implementations for any of the current Bitcoin platforms (Satoshi, BitcoinJ, bitcoin-js, libbitcoin). +* Specification -- The technical specification should describe the syntax and semantics of any new feature. The specification should be detailed enough to allow competing, interoperable implementations for any of the current Bitcoin platforms. -* Motivation -- The motivation is critical for BIPs that want to change the Bitcoin protocol. It should clearly explain why the existing protocol specification is inadequate to address the problem that the BIP solves. BIP submissions without sufficient motivation may be rejected outright. +* Motivation -- The motivation is critical for BIPs that want to change the Bitcoin protocol. It should clearly explain why the existing protocol is inadequate to address the problem that the BIP solves. -* Rationale -- The rationale fleshes out the specification by describing what motivated the design and why particular design decisions were made. It should describe alternate designs that were considered and related work, e.g. how the feature is supported in other languages. +* Rationale -- The rationale fleshes out the specification by describing what motivated the design and why particular design decisions were made. It should describe alternate designs that were considered and related work. The rationale should provide evidence of consensus within the community and discuss important objections or concerns raised during discussion. -* The rationale should provide evidence of consensus within the community and discuss important objections or concerns raised during discussion. +* Backwards compatibility -- All BIPs that introduce backwards incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their severity. The BIP must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. -* Backwards Compatibility -- All BIPs that introduce backwards incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their severity. The BIP must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. BIP submissions without a sufficient backwards compatibility treatise may be rejected outright. - -* Reference Implementation -- The reference implementation must be completed before any BIP is given status "Final", but it need not be completed before the BIP is accepted. It is better to finish the specification and rationale first and reach consensus on it before writing code. - -* The final implementation must include test code and documentation appropriate for the Bitcoin protocol. +* Reference implementation -- The reference implementation must be completed before any BIP is given status "Final", but it need not be completed before the BIP is accepted. It is better to finish the specification and rationale first and reach consensus on it before writing code. The final implementation must include test code and documentation appropriate for the Bitcoin protocol. ====BIP header preamble==== -- cgit v1.2.3 From 7027de2882c4788439ea7871c55cb6b11c4b416c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Dashjr Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 04:02:54 +0000 Subject: bip-0002: Expand on preamble headers for BIP/Title --- bip-0002.mediawiki | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/bip-0002.mediawiki b/bip-0002.mediawiki index 4fed039..632a112 100644 --- a/bip-0002.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0002.mediawiki @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ BIPs should be written in mediawiki format. Each BIP should have the following parts: -* Preamble -- Headers containing metadata about the BIP ([[#Preamble|see below]]). +* Preamble -- Headers containing metadata about the BIP ([[#BIP header preamble|see below]]). * Abstract -- A short (~200 word) description of the technical issue being addressed. @@ -137,8 +137,8 @@ Each BIP should have the following parts: Each BIP must begin with an RFC 822 style header preamble. The headers must appear in the following order. Headers marked with "*" are optional and are described below. All other headers are required. 
-  BIP: 
-  Title: 
+  BIP: 
+  Title: 
   Author: 
 * Discussions-To: 
   Status: 
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 04:06:49 +0000
Subject: bip-0002: Add new preamble headers for comments/license

---
 bip-0002.mediawiki | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/bip-0002.mediawiki b/bip-0002.mediawiki
index 632a112..14877a7 100644
--- a/bip-0002.mediawiki
+++ b/bip-0002.mediawiki
@@ -141,10 +141,14 @@ Each BIP must begin with an RFC 822 style header preamble. The headers must appe
   Title: 
   Author: 
 * Discussions-To: 
+* Comments-Summary: 
+  Comments-URI: 
   Status: 
   Type: 
   Created: 
+  License: 
+* License-Code: 
 * Post-History: 
 * Replaces: 
 * Superseded-By: 
-- 
cgit v1.2.3


From 9b040c5042a21a5bee06df4974d32cf10545c1c6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Luke Dashjr 
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 04:07:56 +0000
Subject: bip-0002: Require email addresses for authors

---
 bip-0002.mediawiki | 11 +++--------
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/bip-0002.mediawiki b/bip-0002.mediawiki
index 14877a7..9a05fed 100644
--- a/bip-0002.mediawiki
+++ b/bip-0002.mediawiki
@@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ Each BIP must begin with an RFC 822 style header preamble. The headers must appe
 
   BIP: 
   Title: 
-  Author: 
+  Author: 
 * Discussions-To: 
 * Comments-Summary: 
   Comments-URI: 
@@ -155,16 +155,11 @@ Each BIP must begin with an RFC 822 style header preamble. The headers must appe
 * Resolution: 
 

 
-The Author header lists the names, and optionally the email addresses of all the authors/owners of the BIP. The format of the Author header value must be
+The Author header lists the names and email addresses of all the authors/owners of the BIP.
+The format of the Author header value must be
 
   Random J. User 
 
-if the email address is included, and just
-
-  Random J. User
-
-if the address is not given.
-
 If there are multiple authors, each should be on a separate line following RFC 2822 continuation line conventions.
 
 Note: The Resolution header is required for Standards Track BIPs only. It contains a URL that should point to an email message or other web resource where the pronouncement about the BIP is made.
-- 
cgit v1.2.3


From 7ca7445c80016fb7569903569338abb802ae742c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Luke Dashjr 
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 04:08:58 +0000
Subject: bip-0002: Drop unused and inapplicable Resolution header from
 preamble

---
 bip-0002.mediawiki | 3 ---
 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/bip-0002.mediawiki b/bip-0002.mediawiki
index 9a05fed..83b027c 100644
--- a/bip-0002.mediawiki
+++ b/bip-0002.mediawiki
@@ -152,7 +152,6 @@ Each BIP must begin with an RFC 822 style header preamble. The headers must appe
 * Post-History: 
 * Replaces: 
 * Superseded-By: 
-* Resolution:
The Author header lists the names and email addresses of all the authors/owners of the BIP. @@ -162,8 +161,6 @@ The format of the Author header value must be If there are multiple authors, each should be on a separate line following RFC 2822 continuation line conventions. -Note: The Resolution header is required for Standards Track BIPs only. It contains a URL that should point to an email message or other web resource where the pronouncement about the BIP is made. - While a BIP is in private discussions (usually during the initial Draft phase), a Discussions-To header will indicate the mailing list or URL where the BIP is being discussed. No Discussions-To header is necessary if the BIP is being discussed privately with the author, or on the bitcoin email mailing lists. The Type header specifies the type of BIP: Standards Track, Informational, or Process. -- cgit v1.2.3 From 44f85187fe06444d83d9a7250eedb66ebdb6bde2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Dashjr Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 04:11:10 +0000 Subject: bip-0002: Allow Post-History header to be a link as with BIPs 99, 122, and 124 --- bip-0002.mediawiki | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/bip-0002.mediawiki b/bip-0002.mediawiki index 83b027c..5455419 100644 --- a/bip-0002.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0002.mediawiki @@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ Each BIP must begin with an RFC 822 style header preamble. The headers must appe Created: License: * License-Code: -* Post-History: +* Post-History: * Replaces: * Superseded-By: @@ -165,7 +165,9 @@ While a BIP is in private discussions (usually during the initial Draft phase), The Type header specifies the type of BIP: Standards Track, Informational, or Process. -The Created header records the date that the BIP was assigned a number, while Post-History is used to record the dates of when new versions of the BIP are posted to bitcoin mailing lists. Both headers should be in yyyy-mm-dd format, e.g. 2001-08-14. +The Created header records the date that the BIP was assigned a number, while Post-History is used to record when new versions of the BIP are posted to bitcoin mailing lists. +Dates should be in yyyy-mm-dd format, e.g. 2001-08-14. +Post-History is permitted to be a link to a specific thread in a mailing list archive. BIPs may have a Requires header, indicating the BIP numbers that this BIP depends on. -- cgit v1.2.3 From 0c203dcfb6399ae98a3e7619ead1ec899ee5f736 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Dashjr Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 04:48:06 +0000 Subject: bip-0002: Allow non-images in bip-XXXX subdirectory --- bip-0002.mediawiki | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/bip-0002.mediawiki b/bip-0002.mediawiki index 5455419..0cab460 100644 --- a/bip-0002.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0002.mediawiki @@ -175,7 +175,7 @@ BIPs may also have a Superseded-By header indicating that a BIP has been rendere ====Auxiliary Files==== -BIPs may include auxiliary files such as diagrams. Image files should be included in a subdirectory for that BIP. Auxiliary files must be named BIP-XXXX-Y.ext, where "XXXX" is the BIP number, "Y" is a serial number (starting at 1), and "ext" is replaced by the actual file extension (e.g. "png"). +BIPs may include auxiliary files such as diagrams. Auxiliary files should be included in a subdirectory for that BIP, or must be named BIP-XXXX-Y.ext, where "XXXX" is the BIP number, "Y" is a serial number (starting at 1), and "ext" is replaced by the actual file extension (e.g. "png"). ==BIP types== -- cgit v1.2.3 From c59cfdb894f3ed1f7d068b5a53eac860674bb1df Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Dashjr Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 05:05:54 +0000 Subject: bip-0002: Remove/merge old BIP 1 Status stuff --- bip-0002.mediawiki | 27 +++++++-------------------- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) diff --git a/bip-0002.mediawiki b/bip-0002.mediawiki index 0cab460..593037e 100644 --- a/bip-0002.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0002.mediawiki @@ -51,25 +51,7 @@ It must be a clear and complete description of the proposed enhancement. The enhancement must represent a net improvement. The proposed implementation, if applicable, must be solid and must not complicate the protocol unduly. -The BIP author may update the Draft as necessary in the git repository. Updates to drafts should also be submitted by the author as pull requests. - -Standards Track BIPs consist of two parts, a design document and a reference implementation. -The reference implementation is not required to be begun until the BIP is accepted, unless having such an implementation will aid people in studying the BIP. -Standards Track BIPs must include an implementation -- in the form of code, a patch, or a URL to same -- before it can be considered Final. - -Once a BIP has been accepted, the reference implementation must be completed. When the reference implementation is complete and accepted by the community, the status will be changed to "Final". - -A BIP can also be assigned status "Deferred". The BIP author or editor can assign the BIP this status when no progress is being made on the BIP. Once a BIP is deferred, the BIP editor can re-assign it to draft status. - -A BIP can also be "Rejected". Perhaps after all is said and done it was not a good idea. It is still important to have a record of this fact. - -BIPs can also be superseded by a different BIP, rendering the original obsolete. This is intended for Informational BIPs, where version 2 of an API can replace version 1. - -The possible paths of the status of BIPs are as follows: - - - -Some Informational and Process BIPs may also have a status of "Active" if they are never meant to be completed. E.g. BIP 2 (this BIP). +The BIP author may update the draft as necessary in the git repository. Updates to drafts should also be submitted by the author as pull requests. ===Transferring BIP Ownership=== @@ -181,7 +163,7 @@ BIPs may include auxiliary files such as diagrams. Auxiliary files should be inc There are three kinds of BIP: -* A Standards Track BIP describes any change that affects most or all Bitcoin implementations, such as a change to the network protocol, a change in block or transaction validity rules, or any change or addition that affects the interoperability of applications using Bitcoin. +* A Standards Track BIP describes any change that affects most or all Bitcoin implementations, such as a change to the network protocol, a change in block or transaction validity rules, or any change or addition that affects the interoperability of applications using Bitcoin. Standards Track BIPs consist of two parts, a design document and a reference implementation. * An Informational BIP describes a Bitcoin design issue, or provides general guidelines or information to the Bitcoin community, but does not propose a new feature. Informational BIPs do not necessarily represent a Bitcoin community consensus or recommendation, so users and implementors are free to ignore Informational BIPs or follow their advice. * A Process BIP describes a process surrounding Bitcoin, or proposes a change to (or an event in) a process. Process BIPs are like Standards Track BIPs but apply to areas other than the Bitcoin protocol itself. They may propose an implementation, but not to Bitcoin's codebase; they often require community consensus; unlike Informational BIPs, they are more than recommendations, and users are typically not free to ignore them. Examples include procedures, guidelines, changes to the decision-making process, and changes to the tools or environment used in Bitcoin development. Any meta-BIP is also considered a Process BIP. @@ -189,7 +171,12 @@ There are three kinds of BIP: ===Specification=== +The possible paths of the status of BIPs are as follows: + + + Champions of a BIP may decide on their own to change the status between Draft, Deferred, or Withdrawn. +The BIP editor may also change the status to Deferred when no progress is being made on the BIP. A BIP may only change status from Draft (or Rejected) to Accepted, when the author deems it is complete, has a working implementation (where applicable), and has community plans to progress it to the Final status. -- cgit v1.2.3 From f2e6bbd2190060e2e9c769d8e2d5d7d2c4e30eb1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Dashjr Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 05:09:20 +0000 Subject: bip-0002: Remove useless History section --- bip-0002.mediawiki | 4 ---- 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/bip-0002.mediawiki b/bip-0002.mediawiki index 593037e..a98be7b 100644 --- a/bip-0002.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0002.mediawiki @@ -386,10 +386,6 @@ Why is Public Domain no longer acceptable for new BIPs? * In some jurisdictions, public domain is not recognised as a legitimate legal action, leaving the BIP simply copyrighted with no redistribution or modification allowed at all. -==History== - -This document was derived heavily from Python's PEP-0001. In many places text was simply copied and modified. Although the PEP-0001 text was written by Barry Warsaw, Jeremy Hylton, and David Goodger, they are not responsible for its use in the Bitcoin Improvement Process, and should not be bothered with technical questions specific to Bitcoin or the BIP process. Please direct all comments to the BIP editors or the Bitcoin development mailing list. - ==See Also== * [[bip-0001.mediawiki|BIP 1: BIP Purpose and Guidelines]] -- cgit v1.2.3 From 70747425d885a8b4a00f31dd64e682ecf751aaae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Dashjr Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 05:10:57 +0000 Subject: bip-0002: Mention OPL problems --- bip-0002.mediawiki | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/bip-0002.mediawiki b/bip-0002.mediawiki index a98be7b..c9e817d 100644 --- a/bip-0002.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0002.mediawiki @@ -375,6 +375,7 @@ BIP 1 allowed the Open Publication License or releasing into the public domain; * The OPL is generally regarded as obsolete, and not a license suitable for new publications. * Many are unfamiliar with the OPL terms, and may just prefer to use the public domain rather than license under uncertain terms. +* The OPL license terms allowed for the author to prevent publication and derived works, which was widely considered inappropriate for Bitcoin standards. * Public domain is not universally recognised as a legitimate action, thus it is inadvisable. Why are there software licenses included? -- cgit v1.2.3 From ad4f559976b653f1ed3702e9df8876c49d9e0cc6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Dashjr Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 05:19:34 +0000 Subject: bip-0002: Add summary of changes vs BIP 1 --- bip-0002.mediawiki | 12 ++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) diff --git a/bip-0002.mediawiki b/bip-0002.mediawiki index c9e817d..b73f2d4 100644 --- a/bip-0002.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0002.mediawiki @@ -387,6 +387,18 @@ Why is Public Domain no longer acceptable for new BIPs? * In some jurisdictions, public domain is not recognised as a legitimate legal action, leaving the BIP simply copyrighted with no redistribution or modification allowed at all. +==Changes from BIP 1== + +* Acceptable licenses are redefined entirely, allowing a wide variety of open licenses, while prohibiting the problematic older choices. +* An implementation is now required (when applicable) before BIPs can proceed to Accepted Status. +* The License preamble headers have been added. +* BIP Comments are newly introduced. +* Non-image auxiliary files are permitted in the bip-XXXX subdirectory. +* The Post-History header may be provided as a link instead of a simple date. +* The Resolution header has been dropped, as it is not applicable to a decentralised system where no authority exists to make final decisions. +* Email addresses are now required for authors. +* Markdown format is no longer permitted for BIPs. + ==See Also== * [[bip-0001.mediawiki|BIP 1: BIP Purpose and Guidelines]] -- cgit v1.2.3 From 3f4750f0b9c7464a47429e9ed18387eddfd78256 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Dashjr Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 05:20:14 +0000 Subject: bip-0002: Link Copyright "see below" --- bip-0002.mediawiki | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/bip-0002.mediawiki b/bip-0002.mediawiki index b73f2d4..899bc72 100644 --- a/bip-0002.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0002.mediawiki @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ Each BIP should have the following parts: * Abstract -- A short (~200 word) description of the technical issue being addressed. -* Copyright -- The BIP must be explicitly licensed under acceptable copyright terms ([[#TODO|see below]]). +* Copyright -- The BIP must be explicitly licensed under acceptable copyright terms ([[#BIP licensing|see below]]). * Specification -- The technical specification should describe the syntax and semantics of any new feature. The specification should be detailed enough to allow competing, interoperable implementations for any of the current Bitcoin platforms. -- cgit v1.2.3 From e528af13b7eb1f728b6abef6839ea92a6bbdf16b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Dashjr Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 05:57:31 +0000 Subject: bip-0002: Replace Status chart with SVG --- bip-0002.mediawiki | 2 +- bip-0002/process.png | Bin 0 -> 15586 bytes bip-0002/process.svg | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 bip-0002/process.png create mode 100644 bip-0002/process.svg diff --git a/bip-0002.mediawiki b/bip-0002.mediawiki index 899bc72..7c0c557 100644 --- a/bip-0002.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0002.mediawiki @@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ There are three kinds of BIP: The possible paths of the status of BIPs are as follows: - + Champions of a BIP may decide on their own to change the status between Draft, Deferred, or Withdrawn. The BIP editor may also change the status to Deferred when no progress is being made on the BIP. diff --git a/bip-0002/process.png b/bip-0002/process.png new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6b1925e Binary files /dev/null and b/bip-0002/process.png differ diff --git a/bip-0002/process.svg b/bip-0002/process.svg new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bb61e8e --- /dev/null +++ b/bip-0002/process.svg @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@ + + + + + + + + + + Draft + + + Accepted + + + Final + + + Replaced + + + + Rejected + + + + + Withdrawn + + + + Deferred + + + + Active + -- cgit v1.2.3 From 0ee015209f0615bc8074de81ebfae4cbd054f4ac Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Dashjr Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 06:18:33 +0000 Subject: bip-0002: graph only shows typical paths, not all possible --- bip-0002.mediawiki | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/bip-0002.mediawiki b/bip-0002.mediawiki index 7c0c557..8dd8bf2 100644 --- a/bip-0002.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0002.mediawiki @@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ There are three kinds of BIP: ===Specification=== -The possible paths of the status of BIPs are as follows: +The typical paths of the status of BIPs are as follows: -- cgit v1.2.3 From be3260ecd58228a6c1a4ddb80f8f5eaece20cc69 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Dashjr Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 06:19:36 +0000 Subject: bip-0002: Graph: Collapse Active into Final box --- bip-0002/process.png | Bin 15586 -> 15691 bytes bip-0002/process.svg | 5 +---- 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/bip-0002/process.png b/bip-0002/process.png index 6b1925e..2f86230 100644 Binary files a/bip-0002/process.png and b/bip-0002/process.png differ diff --git a/bip-0002/process.svg b/bip-0002/process.svg index bb61e8e..b8c8a4c 100644 --- a/bip-0002/process.svg +++ b/bip-0002/process.svg @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ Accepted - Final + Final/Active Replaced @@ -46,7 +46,4 @@ Deferred - - - Active -- cgit v1.2.3 From 95c8f65b11cb782df299ea99fd56a1b3735ec5a0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Dashjr Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 06:22:33 +0000 Subject: bip-0002: Rename Accepted Status to Proposed --- bip-0002.mediawiki | 13 +++++++------ bip-0002/process.png | Bin 15691 -> 15714 bytes bip-0002/process.svg | 2 +- 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/bip-0002.mediawiki b/bip-0002.mediawiki index 8dd8bf2..897ba05 100644 --- a/bip-0002.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0002.mediawiki @@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ Each BIP must begin with an RFC 822 style header preamble. The headers must appe * Discussions-To: * Comments-Summary: Comments-URI: - Status: Type: Created: @@ -178,11 +178,11 @@ The typical paths of the status of BIPs are as follows: Champions of a BIP may decide on their own to change the status between Draft, Deferred, or Withdrawn. The BIP editor may also change the status to Deferred when no progress is being made on the BIP. -A BIP may only change status from Draft (or Rejected) to Accepted, when the author deems it is complete, has a working implementation (where applicable), and has community plans to progress it to the Final status. +A BIP may only change status from Draft (or Rejected) to Proposed, when the author deems it is complete, has a working implementation (where applicable), and has community plans to progress it to the Final status. -BIPs should be changed from Draft or Accepted status, to Rejected status, upon request by any person, if they have not made progress in three years. Such a BIP may be changed to Draft status if the champion provides revisions that meaningfully address public criticism of the proposal, or to Accepted status if it meets the criteria required as described in the previous paragraph. +BIPs should be changed from Draft or Proposed status, to Rejected status, upon request by any person, if they have not made progress in three years. Such a BIP may be changed to Draft status if the champion provides revisions that meaningfully address public criticism of the proposal, or to Proposed status if it meets the criteria required as described in the previous paragraph. -An Accepted BIP may progress to Final only when specific criteria reflecting real-world adoption has occurred. This is different for each BIP depending on the nature of its proposed changes, which will be expanded on below. Evaluation of this status change should be objectively verifiable, and/or be discussed on the development mailing list. +An Proposed BIP may progress to Final only when specific criteria reflecting real-world adoption has occurred. This is different for each BIP depending on the nature of its proposed changes, which will be expanded on below. Evaluation of this status change should be objectively verifiable, and/or be discussed on the development mailing list. When a Final BIP is no longer relevant, its status may be changed to Replaced or Obsolete (which is equivalent to Replaced). This change must also be objectively verifiable and/or discussed. @@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ These criteria are considered objective ways to observe the de facto adoption of Why is this necessary at all? -* BIP 1 defines an ambiguous criteria for the Status field of BIPs, which is often a source of confusion. As a result, many BIPs with significant real-world use have been left as Draft or Accepted status longer than appropriate. By giving objective criteria to judge the progression of BIPs, this proposal aims to help keep the Status accurate and up-to-date. +* BIP 1 defines an ambiguous criteria for the Status field of BIPs, which is often a source of confusion. As a result, many BIPs with significant real-world use have been left as Draft or Proposed status longer than appropriate. By giving objective criteria to judge the progression of BIPs, this proposal aims to help keep the Status accurate and up-to-date. How is the entire Bitcoin economy defined by people selling goods/services and holders? @@ -390,7 +390,7 @@ Why is Public Domain no longer acceptable for new BIPs? ==Changes from BIP 1== * Acceptable licenses are redefined entirely, allowing a wide variety of open licenses, while prohibiting the problematic older choices. -* An implementation is now required (when applicable) before BIPs can proceed to Accepted Status. +* An implementation is now required (when applicable) before BIPs can proceed to Proposed Status. * The License preamble headers have been added. * BIP Comments are newly introduced. * Non-image auxiliary files are permitted in the bip-XXXX subdirectory. @@ -398,6 +398,7 @@ Why is Public Domain no longer acceptable for new BIPs? * The Resolution header has been dropped, as it is not applicable to a decentralised system where no authority exists to make final decisions. * Email addresses are now required for authors. * Markdown format is no longer permitted for BIPs. +* Accepted Status has been renamed to Proposed. ==See Also== diff --git a/bip-0002/process.png b/bip-0002/process.png index 2f86230..a834947 100644 Binary files a/bip-0002/process.png and b/bip-0002/process.png differ diff --git a/bip-0002/process.svg b/bip-0002/process.svg index b8c8a4c..efaa02b 100644 --- a/bip-0002/process.svg +++ b/bip-0002/process.svg @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ Draft - Accepted + Proposed Final/Active -- cgit v1.2.3 From 894b6ea66cb87601e244c6c4667b60c61aa51ae4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Dashjr Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 06:22:48 +0000 Subject: bip-0002: Sort changes vs BIP 1 by relevance --- bip-0002.mediawiki | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/bip-0002.mediawiki b/bip-0002.mediawiki index 897ba05..c8c9de4 100644 --- a/bip-0002.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0002.mediawiki @@ -389,16 +389,16 @@ Why is Public Domain no longer acceptable for new BIPs? ==Changes from BIP 1== -* Acceptable licenses are redefined entirely, allowing a wide variety of open licenses, while prohibiting the problematic older choices. +* Acceptable licenses are entirely rechosen, allowing a wide variety of open licenses, while prohibiting the problematic older choices. +* Accepted Status has been renamed to Proposed. * An implementation is now required (when applicable) before BIPs can proceed to Proposed Status. -* The License preamble headers have been added. * BIP Comments are newly introduced. +* The License preamble headers have been added. * Non-image auxiliary files are permitted in the bip-XXXX subdirectory. -* The Post-History header may be provided as a link instead of a simple date. -* The Resolution header has been dropped, as it is not applicable to a decentralised system where no authority exists to make final decisions. * Email addresses are now required for authors. +* The Post-History header may be provided as a link instead of a simple date. * Markdown format is no longer permitted for BIPs. -* Accepted Status has been renamed to Proposed. +* The Resolution header has been dropped, as it is not applicable to a decentralised system where no authority exists to make final decisions. ==See Also== -- cgit v1.2.3 From e89b98facd4b52e0d248ca7dfc6f60a030d4cc59 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Dashjr Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 06:27:51 +0000 Subject: bip0002: Status Deferred->Draft --- README.mediawiki | 2 +- bip-0002.mediawiki | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/README.mediawiki b/README.mediawiki index 6f3ee08..c80d3ea 100644 --- a/README.mediawiki +++ b/README.mediawiki @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ Those proposing changes should consider that ultimately consent may rest with th | BIP process, revised | Luke Dashjr | Process -| Deferred +| Draft |- style="background-color: #cfffcf" | [[bip-0009.mediawiki|9]] | Version bits with timeout and delay diff --git a/bip-0002.mediawiki b/bip-0002.mediawiki index c8c9de4..64eaf36 100644 --- a/bip-0002.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0002.mediawiki @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ BIP: 2 Title: BIP process, revised Author: Luke Dashjr - Status: Deferred + Status: Draft Type: Process Created: 2016-02-03 Replaces: 1 -- cgit v1.2.3