[bisq-network/proposals] Remove requirement for PR for listing an asset (#67)

[Chris Beams]

I don't have a strong opinion here. It's certainly the case that going back and forth on these PRs is more trouble than we'd hoped, even with very clear instructions, so I'm sympathetic to dropping the requirement for PRs and "just doing it ourselves", but those who want their assets listed still need to follow explicit instructions to specify the name of the asset, ticker symbol, block explorer, etc. I guess they can just do this in an issue (instead of a PR), and then somebody can implement that issue if they so choose. Indeed the party requesting to be listed could still submit a PR if they're capable, but otherwise it would be up to some Bisq dev to do it (or not).

So from my side, I'll give a +1 to this proposal, so long as it includes updating the "how to list an asset doc" to instruct users about the correct way to submit an issue, include all the right information, etc. The doc should also set expectations appropriately, i.e. that there are no guarantees that a coin listing will be implemented just because somebody added an issue requesting it. Some dev has to choose to implement the request, and if no one feels incentivized to do so, then it's not going to get done.

We should also add a specific issue template for asset listing requests. GitHub now supports multiple issue templates that you can choose from a list, so this particular issue template would be used only in these cases. See https://help.github.com/articles/creating-issue-templates-for-your-repository/ for details.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/67#issuecomment-455080448
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20190117/edb1607c/attachment.html>