Author: Btc Drak 2015-09-04 19:20:58
Published on: 2015-09-04T19:20:58+00:00
In this context, the writer is perplexed about the need for a proposal to change the BIPs process. They note that anyone can currently publish a BIP easily and there is no real barrier to entry. Whether or not the ecosystem adopts a BIP is a separate matter from the BIPs project itself. The status of a BIP is determined by its adoption within the community. While the process may be loose, it is not necessarily broken as evidenced by the recent flood of BIPs added with zero bureaucracy or friction. BIP0001 defines the BIP process and the only controversial BIP in the system is one that aims to change the way BIPs are handled.The writer cautions against bringing administrative burdens to the process and suggests that common sense and consensus already play important roles. They believe that improvements can be made but they need to see what is broken before any judgment on a potential way forward can be made. The email thread attached to the context includes comments from Andy Chase on enforcement/organization and committee versus another approach. Chase believes that committees can filter a range of opinions down to a yes/no answer but acknowledges concerns around fear of committees working in the dark, centralization of power, and groupthink. Another possible approach could be micro votes which would allow each user to represent themselves without censorship but raises questions around proof and prevention of manipulation. Bryan Bishop offers some objections to committee design and proposes a mandatory requirement for ecosystem echo-chambers to make many attempts and efforts at steelman representations of alternative viewpoints. He also notes that the proposed process does not have to replace any particular BIP process as-is, but rather could be an alternative that proceeds on its own.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T22:06:15.014986+00:00