BIP: Process, revision 3 #1015

1. 
   kallewoof commented at 10:15 am on October 14, 2020: member

   Update: this is, at the moment / subject to change, the starting point for the revisal of the BIP process e.g. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/BIP-Process-wishlist

   I’m not sure this is warranted, but for ease of comparison, I am opening up a replacement BIP of BIP 2, an alternative to the modification pull request #1012.

   Note: I didn’t realize there was an .svg source for the process.png file, so I rewrote the thing from scratch in latex. The .tex file is added in this commit. If people prefer, I will try to rewrite in the .svg format, but I put some effort into it so please compare the tex version first.

2. BIP: Process, revision 3 43f06813eb
3. kallewoof force-pushed on Oct 15, 2020
4. 
   michaelfolkson commented at 12:42 pm on April 27, 2021: contributor

   Concept ACK

   I think this (a BIP process revision) is warranted. Perhaps we should have a future community meeting to discuss finalizing this when (hopefully) you have been confirmed as an additional BIP editor @kallewoof and people have calmed down re Taproot activation. No rush, I expect people to still be emotional for at least a few weeks yet.

5. kallewoof cross-referenced this on Apr 27, 2021 from issue BIP-0002: Update Rejection criteria to require there to be an actual … by kallewoof
6. kallewoof marked this as a draft on Apr 28, 2021
7. michaelfolkson cross-referenced this on May 7, 2021 from issue Add Kalle Alm as BIP editor by jnewbery
8. 
   MarcoFalke commented at 1:37 pm on May 7, 2021: member

   Tend to NACK to write a new meta process BIP for simple changes like this that are not a complete re-write. I prefer #1012

   See #1116 (comment) for rationale.

9. in bip-process-revised.mediawiki:2 in 43f06813eb

   0@@ -0,0 +1,423 @@
   1+<pre>
   2+  BIP: 3
   

   ---

   ---

   

   ajtowns commented at 2:37 pm on September 15, 2021:

   From the text: “(authors MUST NOT self-assign BIP numbers)”. Set the example you want people to follow :)

   ---

   

   michaelfolkson commented at 11:04 am on October 4, 2021:

   I think this is just a joke :) but just in case it isn’t BIP editors assign BIP numbers. A BIP process revision needs a BIP editor to assign a number to it. If we were to be really pedantic Luke should assign the BIP number so Kalle isn’t assigning his own BIP number. It seems clear though that 1-7 have been reserved for revised BIP processes and that a proposed revised BIP process to BIP 2 is obviously going to be BIP 3.

   ---

   

   kallewoof commented at 11:30 am on October 4, 2021:

   I missed the initial comment. Yeah, I shouldn’t have done that. Will address if I reopen this.
10. 
    michaelfolkson commented at 11:12 am on October 4, 2021: contributor

    I think we can start to tentatively add to this PR based on the discussions from the BIP process meetings (1, 2).

    Are you going to add to this PR @kallewoof or would you rather review PRs to your branch from the outset?

    As a reminder there is a #bitcoin-dev Libera IRC channel too for discussion based on the meetings to keep comments on this PR manageable.

11. 
    kallewoof commented at 11:30 am on October 4, 2021: member

    @michaelfolkson You’re the biggest driving force behind this change, so I think the best course of action is closing this and having you open an alternative PR based on the meetings/conclusions.
12. kallewoof closed this on Oct 4, 2021

    ---

13. kallewoof deleted the branch on Oct 4, 2021

Contributors
kallewoof michaelfolkson MarcoFalke ajtowns