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 アルム カールヨハン <k...@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 rejecting > > BIPs include duplication of effort, disregard for formatting rules, being > > too unfocused or too broad, being technically unsound, not providing proper > > 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 status, > > upon request by any person, if they have not made progress in three years. > > Such a BIP may be changed to Draft status if the champion provides > > revisions that meaningfully address public criticism of the proposal, or to > > Proposed 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". _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
