Skip to content

BIP 3: mention posting a dedicated ML thread#2020

Merged
murchandamus merged 1 commit intobitcoin:masterfrom
jonatack:2025-10-bip3-dedicated-ML-thread
Nov 13, 2025
Merged

BIP 3: mention posting a dedicated ML thread#2020
murchandamus merged 1 commit intobitcoin:masterfrom
jonatack:2025-10-bip3-dedicated-ML-thread

Conversation

@jonatack
Copy link
Member

Clarify that the BIP author(s) post a new, dedicated thread on the mail list to present the idea.

Address situations like #2017 (comment).

@jonatack jonatack added Proposed BIP modification Pending acceptance This BIP modification requires sign-off by the champion of the BIP being modified labels Oct 27, 2025
@dathonohm
Copy link
Contributor

To anyone wanting to avoid the delay I experienced on #2017, make sure you subscribe to the ML before posting the PR. It took a day or so for the mods to approve me to post on the ML, then another day or so for them to approve my actual BIP announcement. During this time I had to repeatedly submit subscription requests and the announcement email, because there is not really clear feedback about whether the request succeeded.

I'm not sure, but just in case, I also recommend not using an @proton.me address, as this appears to trigger Google's defenses.

This was the cause for the delay.

@jonatack
Copy link
Member Author

It is a requirement in BIPs 2 and 3 that BIP draft ideas begin with a mail list discussion. The idea here is to clarify that the required discussion be in its own dedicated thread, rather than a possibly tangential comment in a different thread, to give the idea sufficient exposure and discussion.

(Yes, best to hold off on opening a PR until after a discussion on the mail list.)

@dathonohm
Copy link
Contributor

Now that you mention it, yes, I should have posted perhaps a day or two in advance on the ML before posting on Github.

For future reference, how much discussion do you think would have been necessary? I naively attempted to send the ML post at the same time as the PR on Github, but the first was immediately published while the second took much longer.

My apologies for overlooking that requirement.

@jonatack
Copy link
Member Author

how much discussion do you think would have been necessary?

Quite a bit, normally. Suggest searching on the word "list" in the BIP2 text.

@luke-jr
Copy link
Member

luke-jr commented Oct 31, 2025

Seems fine, though I don't think it would have avoided the example situation. That had a dedicated thread (started by PortlandHodl), even if the top post wasn't the specific rules that got adapted - and that's likely to be the case for many BIPs.

@jonatack
Copy link
Member Author

jonatack commented Nov 1, 2025

The example situation is what this change intends to avoid, by stipulating that a thread dedicated to the actual BIP draft idea or proposal in question be opened to have a discussion on that particular proposal as required in BIPs 2 and 3.

If the wording here isn't clear, how can we make it more clear?

Copy link
Member

@murchandamus murchandamus left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This sounds like an improvement to me.

@instagibbs
Copy link
Member

makes sense; makes discoverability significantly higher

Copy link
Member

@murchandamus murchandamus left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don’t think it is unclear, and since multiple people seem to think that it is an improvement while it’s such a minor change, I’ll accept and merge it at this point.

@murchandamus murchandamus merged commit bbaea31 into bitcoin:master Nov 13, 2025
4 checks passed
@murchandamus murchandamus removed the Pending acceptance This BIP modification requires sign-off by the champion of the BIP being modified label Nov 13, 2025
@jonatack jonatack deleted the 2025-10-bip3-dedicated-ML-thread branch November 13, 2025 01:04
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants