On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 02:24:04PM -0700, Murch wrote: > I get the concern that in the case of the BIP Owners disagreeing with > critics about a raised issue or whether it has been addressed > satisfactorily, the issue may not be recorded in a manner that the critics > would consider comprehensive. > > Maybe directly starting with the summaries would work better than gathering > comments from random people, but given the low participation in the > repository I’m still not convinced that there would be significant interest > in contributing to these summaries. So, I’m still convinced that it would > most likely become an additional burden for the BIP Editors to collect, > curate, and referee these submissions, and would probably still be slanted > to the opinions of a few active participants like in the prior system. > > I agree that needing to dig through so many different sources sucks and a > better system would be better. I’m not sure that just having the BIP Editors > curate submissions is enough. > > I’m gonna mull more on this and would be curious what others have to say.
(In case it wasn't obvious, that's not much different from where I sit: I think this is an interesting approach worth thinking more about, but I'm not sure if it's the best approach or even necessarily a good one. I think it makes pretty good sense for BIP 39 since adding a "shortcomings" section was previously suggested, and the the current state of affairs is pretty confusing at best) Cheers, aj -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/aiK12iWhAIVierZM%40erisian.com.au.
