Good morning list, > We could use an identicon, we do that with the lightningnetwork repository. > An official logo is probably better - give the project a real symbol.
I attached an SVG file I have been working on for some time, for the amusement of all. It is unfortunately not square, and is very very simple, as well. Regards, ZmnSCPxj > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 10:37 PM Olaoluwa Osuntokun <laol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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
_______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
