Oh, also there's currently this sort of placeholder logo from waaay back that's used as the org's avatar/image. Perhaps it's time we roll an "official" logo/avatar? Otherwise we can just switch over the randomly generated blocks thingy that Github uses when an account/org has no avatar.
-- Laolu On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 7:34 PM Olaoluwa Osuntokun <laol...@gmail.com> wrote: > Circling back to close the loop here: > > * The new Github org (https://github.com/lightning) now exists, and all > the > major implementation maintainers have been added to the organization as > admins. > > * A new blips repo (https://github.com/lightning/blips) has been > created to > continue the PR that was originally started in the lightning-rfc > repo. > > * The old lightning-rfc repo has been moved over, and been renamed to > "bolts" > (https://github.com/lightning/bolts -- should it be all caps? ) > > Thanks to all that participated in the discussion (particularly in > meatspace > during the recent protocol dev meetup!), happy we were able to resolve > things > and begin the next chapter in the evolution of the Lightning protocol! > > -- Laolu > > > On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 1:49 AM Fabrice Drouin <fabrice.dro...@acinq.fr> > wrote: > >> On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 21:57, Olaoluwa Osuntokun <laol...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Also note that lnd has _never_ referred to itself as the "reference" >> > implementation. A few years ago some other implementations adopted that >> > title themselves, but have since adopted softer language. >> >> I don't remember that but if you're referring to c-lightning it was >> the first lightning implementation, and the only one for a while, so >> in a way it was a "reference" at the time ? >> Or it could have been a reference to their policy of "implementing the >> spec, all the spec and nothing but the spec" ? >> >> > I think it's worth briefly revisiting a bit of history here w.r.t the >> github >> > org in question. In the beginning, the lightningnetwork github org was >> > created by Joseph, and the lightningnetwork/paper repo was added, the >> > manuscript that kicked off this entire thing. Later >> lightningnetwork/lnd was >> > created where we started to work on an initial implementation (before >> the >> > BOLTs in their current form existed), and we were added as owners. >> > Eventually we (devs of current impls) all met up in Milan and decided to >> > converge on a single specification, thus we added the BOLTs to the same >> > repo, despite it being used for lnd and knowingly so. >> >> Yes, work on c-lightning then eclair then lnd all began a long time >> before the BOLTs process was implemented, and we all set up repos, >> accounts... >> I agree that we all inherited things from the "pre-BOLTS" era and >> changing them will create some friction but I still believe it should >> be done. You also mentioned potential admin rights issues on the >> current specs repos which would be solved by moving them to a new >> clean repo. >> >> > As it seems the primary grievance here is collocating an implementation >> of >> > Lightning along with the _specification_ of the protocol, and given >> that the >> > spec was added last, how about we move the spec to an independent repo >> owned >> > by the community? I currently have github.com/lightning, and would be >> happy >> > to donate it to the community, or we could create a new org like >> > "lightning-specs" or something similar. >> >> Sounds great! github.com/lightning is nice (and I like Damian's idea >> of using github.com/lightning/bolts) and seems to please everyone so >> it looks that we have a plan! >> >> Fabrice >> >
_______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
