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 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
