BIP 2: Promote to Active Status #350

1. 
   luke-jr commented at 7:02 pm on March 8, 2016: member

   This requires rough consensus from the bitcoin-dev mailing list to proceed.
2. Add License header to BIPs that have a clear Copyright section 4850ffe10f
3. Add licenses to my BIPs missing them 3bc04a6b3e
4. QA: Check for proper License header 64f6569a0b
5. QA: Allow for Comments-Summary and Comments-URI header fields 33e21704cd
6. Add Comments-* headers to all BIPs, and require them in QA a79525f216
7. bip-0002: Update Status to Final 7d23e0f182
8. Merge branch 'master' into bip0002_final 06ce7391d1
9. bip-0133: Update for BIP 2 739bb95ae5
10. luke-jr added the label Pending acceptance on Mar 8, 2016
11. README: Update BIP 2 Status to Final df54dba804
12. 
    MarcoFalke commented at 7:28 pm on March 8, 2016: member

    So this would forbid to multi-license where one of the “licenses” is PD?
13. 
    luke-jr commented at 8:02 pm on March 8, 2016: member

    PD contradicts licensing, so it doesn’t make sense to “dual-license” with it.
14. 
    MarcoFalke commented at 8:14 pm on March 8, 2016: member

    Fine with me, just wanted to make sure this is intended.
15. 
    MarcoFalke commented at 8:14 pm on March 8, 2016: member

    ACK
16. 
    btcdrak commented at 8:41 pm on March 8, 2016: contributor

    NACK on links to bitcoin.it wiki, BIPs should be self contained (e.g. use this Github repo’s wiki).
17. 
    luke-jr commented at 8:46 pm on March 8, 2016: member

    @btcdrak The wiki links are for comments only. The BIP itself remains self-contained. (and <insert rant about not having brought this up on the ML, preferably back in early February>)
18. in bip-0018.mediawiki: in df54dba804 outdated

     1@@ -2,9 +2,12 @@
     2   BIP: 18
     3   Title: hashScriptCheck
     4   Author: Luke Dashjr <luke+bip17@dashjr.org>
     5+  Comments-Summary: No comments yet.
     6+  Comments-URI: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_Comments:BIP_0018
     7   Status: Draft
     8   Type: Standards Track
     9   Created: 2012-01-27
    10+  License: BSD-3-Clause
    

    ---

    ---

    

    btcdrak commented at 6:11 am on March 9, 2016:

    What is the providence of this license?

    Edit: I see, you changing the license of your own BIPs.

19. 
    luke-jr commented at 3:22 pm on March 9, 2016: member

    Please read the BIP and discuss on ML…
20. 
    MarcoFalke commented at 3:43 pm on March 9, 2016: member

    NACK on links to bitcoin.it wiki,

    What about only adding them when the accompanying wiki page exists? As I read BIP2, adding those is not mandatory:

    Each BIP should, in its preamble, link to a Bitcoin Wiki page

21. 
    laanwj commented at 12:07 pm on March 16, 2016: member

    As this is a process BIP, we’re not going to change the status to `Active’ like BIP1? ‘Final’ means it’s never meant to change again (just asking to be sure).

    Some Informational and Process BIPs may also have a status of “Active” if they are never meant to be completed. E.g. BIP 1 (this BIP).

22. 
    luke-jr commented at 7:18 pm on March 16, 2016: member

    @laanwj You’re right, my bad. This should be ->Active.
23. luke-jr renamed this:
    BIP 2: Promote to Final Status
    BIP 2: Promote to Active Status
    on Mar 16, 2016
24. BIP 2: Correct Status to Active 189ff30255
25. 
    luke-jr commented at 8:06 pm on March 18, 2016: member

    Superceded by #360 since there is irreconcilable disagreement.
26. luke-jr closed this on Mar 18, 2016

    ---

27. MarcoFalke cross-referenced this on Sep 23, 2016 from issue BIP 134: Flexible Transactions by zander

Contributors
luke-jr MarcoFalke btcdrak laanwj

Labels
Pending acceptance