<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Luke Dashjr <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:luke@dashjr.org" target="_blank">luke@dashjr.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">BIP Comments are not a part of the BIP itself, merely post-completion notes<br>
from various external parties. So having them external does not make the BIP<br>
any less self-contained. Right now, this information takes the form of<br>
reddit/forum comments, IRC chats, etc.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>BIP2 does not state the comments section is where discussion happens for the BIP, but for a sort of final summary.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
It is important that the forum for comments have a low barrier of use. The<br>
Bitcoin Wiki requires only a request for editing privileges, whereas GitHub<br>
wiki would require reading and agreeing to a lengthy Terms of Service<br>
contract.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Seems weak, it's much easier to sign up for a Github account and most have one already. It's certainly easier than either paying to get edit privileges on the Bitcoin Wiki find someone to convince you're genuine an obscure IRC channel.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
In terms of staleness, the Wiki has been shown to stand the test of time, and<br>
is frankly less likely to move than the GitHub repository.<br>
<br>
The BIP process originated on the Wiki, and was only moved to GitHub because<br>
stronger moderation was needed (eg, to prevent random other people from<br>
editing someone else's BIP; number self-assignments; etc). Such moderation is<br>
not only unnecessary for BIP Comments, but would be an outright nuisance.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm not sure that is the reason why, but in any case, Github is a more sensible place because of the collaborative features which is why they became the centre of OSS software development for hundreds of thousands of projects.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I hope this addresses all your concerns and we can move forward with BIP 2<br>
unmodified?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I am sorry but it has not. I still strongly object to using the Bitcoin Wiki or any external source source for the commentary part of BIP2. I believe it should be done on using the Wiki feature at bitcoin/bips. If that is not acceptable, then I would suggest a separate page in the bip assets folder, called bip<nnnn>/<a href="http://comments.md">comments.md</a>. On a side note, more complex reference implementation code should be stored in that folder too.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
(On another note, I wonder if we should recommend non-reference implementation<br>
lists/links be moved to BIP Comments rather than constantly revising the BIPs<br>
with them...)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Certainly those could be on the comments page.</div></div></div></div>