Delivery-date: Mon, 13 May 2024 12:05:32 -0700
Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of murch@murch.one designates 185.26.156.235 as permitted sender) client-ip=185.26.156.235;
Message-ID: <0bc47189-f9a6-400b-823c-442974c848d5@murch.one>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 14:33:57 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
From: Murch <murch@murch.one>
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Time for an update to BIP2?
To: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
References: <e4048607-64b7-4772-b74e-4566a4b50bc0n@googlegroups.com>
 <9288df7b-f2e9-4106-b843-c1ff8f8a62a3@dashjr.org>
 <42e6c1d1d39d811e2fe7c4c5ce6e09c705bd3dbb.camel@timruffing.de>
 <d1e7183c-30e6-4f1a-8fd6-cddc46f129a2n@googlegroups.com>
 <52a0d792-d99f-4360-ba34-0b12de183fef@murch.one>
 <f9435999-42df-46b5-86e2-7ba0336a9bf2@mattcorallo.com>
 <ZgWRu32FXzqqg69V@console>
 <9ebd08b0-7680-4896-aad3-1c225b764bcb@mattcorallo.com>
 <59fa94cea6f70e02b1ce0da07ae230670730171c.camel@timruffing.de>
 <4pVUOTuyyAbTJB_rTGNWS_TuR39NS5OoJvaSCyqjezAg265kPnCjXvqohFmWQ5ITb7XFZCJie-uV1AG3pVCI5H54dDuFP4OyomC9yiWDot0=@wuille.net>
 <Zg4z7P+MKzEfCkdM@erisian.com.au>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <Zg4z7P+MKzEfCkdM@erisian.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com

Hey everyone,

I have spent some time going over comments about the BIP process in this=20
thread and a few open pull requests in the BIPs repository. Thank you=20
all for sharing your thoughts.

Below I summarized suggestions from those conversations. I started work=20
on drafting a proposal to succeed BIP-2 and will consider all these=20
suggestions with the intention of incorporating many of them.

If you are interested in collaborating on an updated Process BIP, I am=20
open to one or two co-authors. I will also consider any further comments=20
here on the mailing list, and look forward to the eventual review from=20
any interested parties. I will start a first draft in my own BIPs=20
repository after this email. Once the proposal is a bit more mature, I=20
will open a pull request against the main BIPs repository.

These are my take-aways and open questions so far:

1. Process

What should the role of the editors be?

- The process should minimize judgment calls from editors
- Editors should focus on formal criteria and editorial qualities
- The audience rather than editors should evaluate technical soundness

What criteria distinguish Standards Track and Informational type BIPs?

- If deviation breaks compatibility, it should be "Standards Track"

Open questions:

- What changes to BIPs are acceptable at what stage of the process?
- Which changes need sign-off from the Champion?
- How can we make the process more robust in face of an absent Champion?

2. BIP Statuses

- Excessive count of statuses
- Meaning of statuses should be more clearly defined
- Criteria for status transitions should be clarified
- There have been multiple recommendations to reduce the statuses to:
DRAFT, PROPOSED, WITHDRAWN, with some disagreement on whether ACTIVE or=20
FINAL would be useful in addition
- Get rid of the REJECTED status and drop the rule to move proposals to=20
REJECTED due to time passing

Open questions:

- Is it a problem if a BIP is stuck in "DRAFT" or "PROPOSED" indefinitely?

3. Other format issues

- Comments and Comment Summary are largely being ignored, they do not=20
seem to fulfill their intended purpose
- Backwards compatibility section is often forgotten
- Remove "Other Implementations" sections from documents
- Some suggested licenses may not be acceptable to license plain text

4. Scope of the Repository

- Only accept proposals that pass some bar of interest
- Require "a need for standardization", it must be relevant to multiple=20
implementations or a broader audience
- Clarify purpose of repository; it is often misunderstand in how far=20
BIPs "represent community consensus or recommendations"
- Focus on the proposals, explicitly stop guessing at acceptance and=20
tracking of adoption

Open questions:

- Both a tightening and a broadening of the scope have been suggested:
Do BIPs need to be "related to the Bitcoin ecosystem", "related to=20
technology that supports the bitcoin currency", or some other criterion?
- What does "keeping with the Bitcoin philosophy" mean?
- Where should adoption of BIPs be tracked? Should the BIPs repository=20
offer an overview of BIP implementations separate from the author documents=
?

If you have input on open questions, or alternative suggestions to the=20
summarized points, please let me know. As Tim before me, I would=20
appreciate that you read BIP-2=C2=B9 carefully before replying.

=C2=B9 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0002.mediawiki

Best,
Murch

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/=
bitcoindev/0bc47189-f9a6-400b-823c-442974c848d5%40murch.one.