MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALJw2w5bvLFeBAdWs=zQhR+hTcXqV18ntV3+tC-DzBuzCWPTOg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALJw2w5bvLFeBAdWs=zQhR+hTcXqV18ntV3+tC-DzBuzCWPTOg@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?44Ki44Or44Og44CA44Kr44O844Or44Oo44OP44Oz?= <karl@dglab.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 21:11:40 +0900
Message-ID: <CALJw2w4fA_QyjdE9KX7thh2gB13BqZ701g311GPeCyQGG3AvhQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC BIP-0002: Defer, not reject.
Precedence: list

Follow-up to this: there is now an alternative to this which proposes
that the rejection criteria in BIP 2 is updated to require there to be
an actual concern. This is here:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1016

Please nod or something at either or both of them.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 7:06 PM =E3=82=A2=E3=83=AB=E3=83=A0=E3=80=80=E3=82=
=AB=E3=83=BC=E3=83=AB=E3=83=A8=E3=83=8F=E3=83=B3 <karl@dglab.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am making a minor proposed change to BIP-0002
>
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1012
>
> I propose that we change the 3-year-rule to allow anyone to change the
> status of a BIP to "Deferred", rather than "Rejected".
>
> Rejecting a BIP already has ambiguous meaning in BIP-0002 as it
> stands, with "hard" rejects:
>
> > The BIP editor will not unreasonably reject a BIP. Reasons for rejectin=
g BIPs include duplication of effort, disregard for formatting rules, being=
 too unfocused or too broad, being technically unsound, not providing prope=
r motivation or addressing backwards compatibility, or not in keeping with =
the Bitcoin philosophy.
>
> and "soft" rejects:
>
> > BIPs should be changed from Draft or Proposed status, to Rejected statu=
s, upon request by any person, if they have not made progress in three year=
s. Such a BIP may be changed to Draft status if the champion provides revis=
ions that meaningfully address public criticism of the proposal, or to Prop=
osed status if it meets the criteria required as described in the previous =
paragraph.
>
> My proposal is that we disambiguate the second into "deferred" instead.
>
> Alternatively, we add a new status e.g. "Inactive".