From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:08:19 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.13-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; )
References: <201602012253.18009.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CABsx9T2X+2Vnwd3RJJvRpNKbO2S1kY8JS2YqHEKUmAhYSNpkBg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T2X+2Vnwd3RJJvRpNKbO2S1kY8JS2YqHEKUmAhYSNpkBg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201602021908.20547.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Process: Status, comments,
	and copyright licenses
Precedence: list

On Tuesday, February 02, 2016 3:58:21 PM Gavin Andresen wrote:
> I don't like the definition of "consensus".  I think the definition
> described gives too much centralized control to whoever controls the
> mailing list and the wiki.

How can I improve this? Inevitably, every medium of communications will be 
controlled by someone (even if unmoderated, it becomes effectively controlled 
by trolls who spam it with garbage).

I think it's important to note that this is also only for updating the status 
of BIPs, and is not in any way relevant to such proposals *actually* being 
accepted. So if the BIP process were to breakdown on this or any other point, 
it isn't somehow controlling the actual reality. To explicitly clarify this 
point, I have added to the end of the section:
    "These criteria are considered objective ways to observe the de facto
     adoption of the BIP, and are not to be used as reasons to oppose or
     reject a BIP. Should a BIP become actually and unambiguously adopted
     despite not meeting the criteria outlined here, it should still be
     updated to Final status."
Does that help?

Thanks,

Luke