Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed BIP status changes

2014-10-16 Thread Wladimir
Shouldn't we be doing this in a GitHub PR rather than spamming up the ML? Not really. BIP changes should be discussed on the mailing list, that's the way to get community consensus (as specified in BIP1). Wladimir --

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposed BIP status changes

2014-10-16 Thread Luke Dashjr
On Thursday, October 16, 2014 6:22:04 AM Wladimir wrote: Shouldn't we be doing this in a GitHub PR rather than spamming up the ML? Not really. BIP changes should be discussed on the mailing list, that's the way to get community consensus (as specified in BIP1). Wladimir Discussion vs

Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP process

2014-10-16 Thread Thomas Zander
On Wednesday 15. October 2014 11.36.58 Wladimir wrote: We're also having problems with people failing to comment on things, not even I looked at this and have no opinion, which is really obstructing things. Well - the only way to avoid that is to set a reasonable deadline, after which

Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP process

2014-10-16 Thread Thomas Zander
On Wednesday 15. October 2014 20.13.11 Mike Hearn wrote: Plus its moderation features suck, its mail archiving features suck, etc. It essentially has no redeeming features at all. Other than it being open source, an open platform with no lock-in 'features' and it works with everyone that uses

Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP process

2014-10-16 Thread Oliver Egginger
15.10.2014 at 20:13 Mike Hearn wrote: For a project that is based on digital signatures, it's really bad that the mailing list is incompatible with Yahoo's mail signatures must be valid policy. # Mailman: Do not break existing DKIM signatures DEFAULT_SUBJECT_PREFIX = DEFAULT_MSG_HEADER =