Do you want more administrative overhead or less? If you want someone to "watch" pages that can be done on the NIPs repo (again, wiki software is better, but not essentially different). But this is a massive increase in overhead. The NIPs repo contributors aren't there to debate ideas (although that happens too), just to vet whether a NIP has the requisite number of implementations, and merge corrections. This is a pretty lightweight role, but still quite taxing. If you want a permissionless wiki, then use the one that currently exists at wikifreedia. No one is stopping you. In fact, fiatjaf drafted https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/pull/1214, and to my knowledge I'm the only one so far who has published a NUD there. But this presents the opposite problem of potentially too little curation. I'm all for trying it, because forks are cool, but I'm not convinced it will be easier to navigate or more useful than the NIPs repo.

Replies (4)

james r's avatar
james r 1 year ago
there are quite a few people ignoring the NIPs repo and making standards elsewhere and it's impossible to find them
I've noticed that too. This is not hard to solve, if the person writing the NIP wants it to be found. They can do a NUD, or they can submit a PR to the NIPs repo to link to an external NIP, which is also something that exists. But if people don't want to make sure people know about their own standards, there's not much anyone can do.
At that point, I'd also argue that naming should be descriptive. If you're not asking for change to the protocol, I don't see a need to stick to a convention.