Dear list,
I would like to correct a small lapse I made in my email from November
4th. I mistakenly thought that the activation process for Process BIPs
was newly introduced with BIP 3, but reading BIP 2 again today, I
realized that it had been adapted from BIP 2.
BIP 2 says:
> A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it achieves
rough consensus on the mailing list. Such a proposal is said to have
rough consensus if it has been open to discussion on the development
mailing list for at least one month, and no person maintains any
unaddressed substantiated objections to it. Addressed or obstructive
objections may be ignored/overruled by general agreement that they have
been sufficiently addressed, but clear reasoning must be given in such
circumstances.
Meaning, that I was incorrect when I stated that “BIP 2 doesn’t specify
a procedure for activating Process BIPs”. My apologies.
Either way, the previously proposed motion to activate complies with
BIP 2, so I don’t think there is a need to revise the approach.
Cheers,
Murch
On 2025-11-04 17:10, Murch wrote:
Dear list,
After planned work on BIP 3⁰ finished in February, BIP 3 was advanced
to Proposed in March 2025¹. A few minor adjustments were made to BIP 3
since then (see below). I have since April maintained a pull request
that would activate BIP 3: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1820.
At this point, BIP 3 has received over 600 comments on GitHub and has
been discussed in multiple threads on this list. The proposal has been
Proposed for over seven months, and while several minor improvements
were proposed and processed, the proposal has no unaddressed
objections stated here or on the activation pull request. A growing
list of people has expressed explicit support for activating BIP 3 by
leaving an ACK on the pull request after reviewing the BIP:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1820#issue-2990155954
I formally propose a motion to adopt BIP 3 to replace BIP 2 as our
BIPs Process.
Since BIP 2 doesn’t specify a procedure for activating Process BIPs, I
suggest that people who wish to state their support leave an ACK on
#1820 or reply in this thread. Similarly, I would like to invite
anyone to state concerns or raise objections here or on #1820.
While BIP 3 has long been proposed and the activation PR has been open
for over half a year, I suggest that we give all would-be reviewers
another four weeks, until 2025-12-02, before evaluating whether there
is rough consensus for merging the activation pull request. This
should be ample time to review and discuss BIP 3 as well as the
activation PR, even for people that have so far not engaged with the
material.
Best,
Murch
----
Summary of changes since BIP 3 was advanced to Proposed:
- The License header now uses SPDX License Expressions²
- The License-Code header was dropped in favor of requiring that the
license terms of the auxiliary files be specified in the respective
directory or folder per a license header or LICENSE file²
- The “Created” header has been renamed to “Assigned”³
- The BIP text has been improved to clarify:
- the purpose of the BIPs repository⁴
- that authors should establish viability of their proposal on the
mailing list⁴
- the distinction between publication, acceptance, and adoption of
proposals⁴
- when Draft BIPs can be closed due to not making progress⁴
- that BIPs submissions may not be generated by AI/LLM⁵
⁰ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0003.md
¹ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1794
² https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1892
³ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1970
⁴ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1819
⁵ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/2006
--
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 email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/8aadd6bd-1cf4-4ba3-a1ab-f30ab06c89b9%40murch.one.
