…concern
Right now, BIPs may be Rejected simply due to the passing of time. The intent was to close BIPs with outstanding issues that were not adequately addressed within a given amount of time. This changes the wording to reflect this criteria.
Ping @maaku, @harding, @michaelfolkson.
Alternative to #1012.
ACK. I think is preferable over #1012 as it limits status transitions to those we can all (or mostly) agree upon. It also looks to me like just a clarification to BIP2, so (IMO) it eliminates the issue about whether or not BIP2 should be materially edited—we’ve been accepting small clarifications to accepted BIPs since these documents were hosted on the wiki.
I do continue to agree with several of @gmaxwell’s points from the previous conversation that it’s useful to communicate to readers how much community acceptance there is of a BIP—but I think that can be done using the existing BIP2 Comments-Summary field. I’ll try to make more of an effort to curate existing BIP feedback on the comments pages so that the BIPs editors can produce those summaries.
Right now, BIPs may be Rejected simply due to the passing of time. The intent was to close BIPs with outstanding issues that were not adequately addressed within a given amount of time. This changes the wording to reflect this criteria.
This gets resolved either by making a change to the Rejection criteria such as the one in this PR (which is deliberately minimal, ACKed by @harding with @luke-jr feedback addressed) or by stress testing the process of moving out of Rejected and back into Draft.
If people think it is important not to change the Rejection criteria or that we should discuss for weeks/months what the change should be then we can do the latter instead.
In that case we would need the BIP champion to provide “revisions that meaningfully address public criticism of the proposal”. This will take time (for the BIP champion and reviewers). The only motivation I can see for doing this is that “Rejected” BIPs somehow provide a defense against bad ideas being implemented in Bitcoin.
Three years is very easy to judge. What isn’t easy to judge is how to “meaningfully address public criticism of the proposal” to get out of Rejected status and back to Draft status.
If there isn’t consensus to allow a BIP to move back out of Rejected status to Draft status it stays Rejected. Maybe you think that’s a good thing. I just think it is infuriating for the BIP authors and poses very little upside.
You mention that the feedback from Luke was addressed. I don’t see how.
Luke was concerned over the word “adequately”. The word was removed.
To attempt to move this along. As I understand @ysangkok and @luke-jr are of the opinion that the “three year” rule should stay, certain BIPs that have passed the “three years” should be Rejected and the authors of those BIPs should then begin the process of attempting to get their Rejected BIPs back to Draft status. Is that a correct summary of your opinions?
To reiterate, there will be judgement calls. They can’t be avoided. Whether it is a judgement call to Reject a BIP or a judgement call to move a Rejected BIP back to Draft there is judgement required.
To attempt to move this along. As I understand @ysangkok and @luke-jr are of the opinion that the “three year” rule should stay, certain BIPs that have passed the “three years” should be Rejected and the authors of those BIPs should then begin the process of attempting to get their Rejected BIPs back to Draft status. Is that a correct summary of your opinions?
That makes no sense. The rejections were invalid to begin with. This PR is intended to address that.
The rejections were invalid to begin with.
Technically the rejections weren’t invalid at the time. The three year rule applied and hadn’t been changed. But if @luke-jr (as the BIP 2 author) wants to keep that three year rule he needs to explicitly say that he does. And then we have to proceed from there. At the moment this is just stuck in a logjam.
if @luke-jr (as the BIP 2 author) wants to keep that three year rule he needs to explicitly say that he does
Why is Luke obligated to do this? Shouldn’t it be the obligation of Kalle to show consensus for the changes within this change? Luke may be a committer, but I don’t understand why this implies that he has to reject a proposal before one can infer that there is insufficient consensus for it.
At the moment this is just stuck in a logjam.
If this is the case, I don’t think it should mean that existing BIP-0002 rules stop applying.
How do you show consensus? That’s proving a negative, a lack of criticism.
On Feb 5, 2021, at 1:20 PM, Janus Troelsen notifications@github.com wrote:
if @luke-jr (as the BIP 2 author) wants to keep that three year rule he needs to explicitly say that he does
Why is Luke obligated to do this? Shouldn’t it be the obligation of Kalle to show consensus for the changes within this change? Luke may be a committer, but I don’t understand why this implies that he has to reject a proposal before one can infer that there is insufficient consensus for it.
At the moment this is just stuck in a logjam.
If this is the case, I don’t think it should mean that existing BIP-0002 rules stop applying.
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
