Conversation
|
This is one point where the conflict arises. The established process is:
You repeat 1.-4. until the BAIP has reached the status "Accepted". Then, and only then, the BAIP is put up for voting on the blockchain. This is how our process ensures quality of BAIPs. Please reconsider to follow this procedure for BAIP-02. In particular, this means: Open a new PR, address the review from the previews PR (even if it is only to add clarification in the text), and add the status change from "Draft" to "Accepted". This is especially crucial for controversial decisions, and BSIP-76 shows how much of a conflict it creates. The review is not that extensive, and I've heard already that many people agree with BAIP-02. We need to stick to proper process to ensure we are all pulling the same string, ensure quality in our governance procedure and reduce points of conflict. I do not say that to annoy you, or to cause you unnecessary work. It will give your BAIP a much better standing (no one can call it invalid), and improve credibility of the authors. |
According to BAIP Purpose and Guidelines: |
No reference implementation was demonstrated by BAIP2, instead the responsibility to create a reference implementation was delegated to price feed publishers. |
|
@sschiessl-bcp I think it's better to finalize BSIP-01 first. See #11 (comment). |
BAIP7:Proposal on bitASSETS dividend and BTS destruction
No description provided.