BIP3: An updated BIP Process

murchandamus commented at 9:52 pm on December 10, 2024: contributor

This Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) proposes new guidelines for the preparation of BIPs and policies relating to the publication of BIPs. If adopted, it would replace BIP 2.

murchandamus renamed this:
~~Draft an updated BIP Process~~
An updated BIP Process
on Dec 10, 2024

murchandamus force-pushed on Dec 10, 2024

in bip-update-process.md:55 in 47f52e594f outdated

50+#### Authors and Shepherds
51+
52+Authors may want additional support with the BIP process after writing an initial draft. In that case, they may assign
53+one or more Shepherds to their BIP. Shepherds are stand-in owners of a BIP who were not involved in writing the
54+document. They support the authors in advancing the proposal, or act as point-of-contact for the BIP in absence of the
55+authors. A shepherds may perform the role of an Author for any aspect of the BIP process unless overruled by an Author.

JeremyRubin commented at 3:56 pm on December 11, 2024:

s/A shepherds/Shepherds/

LarryRuane commented at 7:12 pm on December 11, 2024:

0authors. A Shepherd may perform the role of an Author for any aspect of the BIP process unless overruled by an Author.

I’m suggesting “a Shepherd” so it matches the plurality of “an Author”.

murchandamus commented at 7:27 pm on December 11, 2024:

Thanks, will fix that. As one of the people that were suggesting the addition of this secondary owner role, what do you think about the description of it?

JeremyRubin commented at 0:21 am on December 12, 2024:

sounds good to me.

murchandamus commented at 0:43 am on December 12, 2024:

Great, thanks

in bip-update-process.md:29 in 47f52e594f outdated

24+community. The BIP process as defined by BIP 2 thus far seems to have been fashioned to facilitate the design and
25+activation of protocol changes. In the past years, BIPs more often describe interoperable features beyond the base
26+protocol. The community has had multiple debates about the role of BIP Editors, and some aspects of the process
27+specified by BIP 2 that did not seem to achieve the intended goals. This proposal sunsets aspects of the BIP 2 process
28+that did not achieve broad adoption, reduces the judgment calls assigned to the BIP Editor role, and delineates the
29+BIP Types more expediently.

sipa commented at 5:46 pm on December 11, 2024:

“expediently” seems strange to me here. What about “explicitly” or “clearly”?

murchandamus commented at 6:18 pm on December 17, 2024:

Changed to “clearly”

in bip-update-process.md:69 in 47f52e594f outdated

64+
65+### What is the purpose of the BIP repository?
66+
67+The [BIP repository](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/) serves as a publication medium and archive for mature proposals.
68+Through its high visibility, it facilitates the community-wide consideration of BIPs and provides a well-established
69+source to retrieve the latest version of any BIP. The repository records all changes to each BIP transparently and

LarryRuane commented at 7:14 pm on December 11, 2024:

0source to retrieve the latest version of any BIP. The repository transparently records all changes to each BIP and

in bip-update-process.md:70 in 47f52e594f outdated

65+### What is the purpose of the BIP repository?
66+
67+The [BIP repository](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/) serves as a publication medium and archive for mature proposals.
68+Through its high visibility, it facilitates the community-wide consideration of BIPs and provides a well-established
69+source to retrieve the latest version of any BIP. The repository records all changes to each BIP transparently and
70+allows any community member to easily retain a complete copy of the archive.

LarryRuane commented at 7:15 pm on December 11, 2024:

0allows any community member to retain a complete copy of the archive easily.

in bip-update-process.md:86 in 47f52e594f outdated

81+
82+## BIP format and structure
83+
84+### Specification
85+
86+BIPs should be written in mediawiki or markdown[^markdown] format.

LarryRuane commented at 7:16 pm on December 11, 2024:

0BIPs should be written in MediaWiki or markdown[^markdown] format.

in bip-update-process.md:101 in 47f52e594f outdated

 96+* Specification -- The technical specification should describe the syntax and semantics of any new feature. The
 97+  specification should be detailed enough to enable any bitcoin project to create an interoperable implementation.
 98+* Rationale -- The rationale fleshes out the specification by describing what motivated the design and why particular
 99+  design decisions were made. It should describe related work and alternate designs that were considered. The rationale
100+  should record relevant objections or important concerns that were raised and addressed as this proposal was developed.
101+* Backward compatibility -- A section describing any backwards incompatibilities, their severity, and instructions how

LarryRuane commented at 7:17 pm on December 11, 2024:

0* Backward compatibility -- A section describing any backward incompatibilities, their severity, and instructions on how

in bip-update-process.md:149 in 47f52e594f outdated

144+    Random J. User <address@dom.ain>
145+
146+If there are multiple authors, each should be on a separate line following [RFC
147+2822](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2822.html) continuation line conventions.
148+
149+__Shepherds__: The Shepherds header lists additional owners of the BIP. Shepherds stand-in for the original authors of a

LarryRuane commented at 7:20 pm on December 11, 2024:

0__Shepherds__: The Shepherds header lists additional owners of the BIP. Shepherds stand in for the original authors of a

jonatack commented at 11:20 pm on January 7, 2025:

Larry is correct here: the verb is “to stand in” without a hyphen. That said, suggest dropping the shepherds.

in bip-update-process.md:167 in 47f52e594f outdated

162+See the [BIP Licensing](#bip-licensing) section below for a description of the acceptable Licenses and their SPDX
163+License Identifiers.
164+
165+If there are multiple licenses, each should be on a separate line.
166+
167+__Discussion__: The Discussion header is used to point the audience to relevant discussions of the BIP, e.g. the mailing

LarryRuane commented at 7:20 pm on December 11, 2024:

0__Discussion__: The Discussion header is used to point the audience to relevant discussions of the BIP, e.g., the mailing

in bip-update-process.md:180 in 47f52e594f outdated

175+is provided as MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, e.g. `Revision: 2.3.1`.
176+
177+__Requires__: BIPs may have a Requires header to indicate existing BIPs the new proposal depends on. If multiple BIPs
178+are required, they should be listed in one line separated by a comma and space (e.g. "1, 2").
179+
180+__Replaces/Superseded-By__: BIPs may have a Replaces header that contains the number of an older BIP it renders

LarryRuane commented at 7:22 pm on December 11, 2024:

0__Replaces/Superseded-By__: BIPs may have a Replaces header that contains the number of an older BIP that it renders

in bip-update-process.md:181 in 47f52e594f outdated

176+
177+__Requires__: BIPs may have a Requires header to indicate existing BIPs the new proposal depends on. If multiple BIPs
178+are required, they should be listed in one line separated by a comma and space (e.g. "1, 2").
179+
180+__Replaces/Superseded-By__: BIPs may have a Replaces header that contains the number of an older BIP it renders
181+obsolete. A Superseded-By header indicates in turn that a BIP has been rendered obsolete by the later document with the

LarryRuane commented at 7:22 pm on December 11, 2024:

0obsolete. A Superseded-By header indicates, in turn, that a BIP has been rendered obsolete by the later document with the

murchandamus force-pushed on Dec 11, 2024

in bip-update-process.md:78 in 9e472b8877 outdated

73+providing a brief overview of BIP statuses (see [Workflow](#workflow) below) to the audience.
74+
75+### What is the scope of the BIP repository?
76+
77+The BIP repository is focused on information and technologies that aim to support and expand the utility of the bitcoin
78+currency. Related topics that are of interest to the bitcoin community may be acceptable. The scope of the BIP

LarryRuane commented at 7:31 pm on December 11, 2024:

0currency. Related topics that interest the bitcoin community may be acceptable. The scope of the BIP

murchandamus commented at 6:27 pm on December 17, 2024:

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but the original phrasing indicates that it is about relevance, whereas the proposed phrasing seems to emphasize a current action by the community. If I’m reading that right, I prefer the first.

in bip-update-process.md:213 in 9e472b8877 outdated

208+![Status Diagram](bip-update-process/status-diagram.png "Status Diagram for the BIP Workflow")
209+
210+### Ideation
211+
212+After having an idea, the authors should evaluate whether it meets the criteria to become a BIP, as described in this
213+BIP. The idea must be of interest to the broader community or relevant to multiple software projects. Small improvements

LarryRuane commented at 7:32 pm on December 11, 2024:

0BIP. The idea must interest the broader community or be relevant to multiple software projects. Minor improvements

murchandamus commented at 6:34 pm on December 17, 2024:

As above, I prefer “be of interest” over “interest”. I took “Minor” over “Small”

in bip-update-process.md:215 in 9e472b8877 outdated

210+### Ideation
211+
212+After having an idea, the authors should evaluate whether it meets the criteria to become a BIP, as described in this
213+BIP. The idea must be of interest to the broader community or relevant to multiple software projects. Small improvements
214+and matters concerning only a single project usually do not require standardization and should instead be brought up to
215+the relevant project directly.

LarryRuane commented at 7:42 pm on December 11, 2024:

0and matters concerning only a single project usually do not require standardization and should be brought up directly to
1the relevant project.

murchandamus commented at 6:37 pm on December 17, 2024:

“Instead” is meant to emphasize that such an issue would not be relevant, but I moved the “directly”.

in bip-update-process.md:218 in 9e472b8877 outdated

213+BIP. The idea must be of interest to the broader community or relevant to multiple software projects. Small improvements
214+and matters concerning only a single project usually do not require standardization and should instead be brought up to
215+the relevant project directly.
216+
217+The authors should first research whether an idea has been considered before. Ideas in bitcoin are often rediscovered,
218+and prior related discussions may inform the authors what issues may arise in its progression. After some investigation,

LarryRuane commented at 7:44 pm on December 11, 2024:

0and prior related discussions may inform the authors of the issues that may arise in its progression. After some investigation,

in bip-update-process.md:219 in 9e472b8877 outdated

214+and matters concerning only a single project usually do not require standardization and should instead be brought up to
215+the relevant project directly.
216+
217+The authors should first research whether an idea has been considered before. Ideas in bitcoin are often rediscovered,
218+and prior related discussions may inform the authors what issues may arise in its progression. After some investigation,
219+the novelty of an idea can be tested by posting about it to the [Bitcoin Development Mailing

LarryRuane commented at 7:45 pm on December 11, 2024:

0the novelty of an idea can be tested by posting on the [Bitcoin Development Mailing

in bip-update-process.md:223 in 9e472b8877 outdated

218+and prior related discussions may inform the authors what issues may arise in its progression. After some investigation,
219+the novelty of an idea can be tested by posting about it to the [Bitcoin Development Mailing
220+List](https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev). Prior correspondence can be found in the [mailing list
221+archive](https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/).
222+
223+Vetting an idea publicly before investing the time to formally describe the idea is meant to save both the authors and

LarryRuane commented at 7:47 pm on December 11, 2024:

0Vetting an idea publicly before investing the time to describe the idea formally is meant to save both the authors and

in bip-update-process.md:227 in 9e472b8877 outdated

222+
223+Vetting an idea publicly before investing the time to formally describe the idea is meant to save both the authors and
224+the broader community time. Not only may someone point out relevant discussion topics that were missed in the authors’
225+research, or that an idea is guaranteed to be rejected based on prior discussions, but describing an idea publicly also
226+tests whether it is of interest to more people besides the authors. After establishing that the idea may be of interest
227+to the bitcoin community, the authors should work on drafting a BIP.

LarryRuane commented at 7:50 pm on December 11, 2024:

0tests whether it is of interest to more people besides the authors. After establishing that the idea may interest
1the bitcoin community, the authors should work on drafting a BIP.

sipa commented at 8:24 pm on December 11, 2024:

Should “Bitcoin community” not be capitalized?

murchandamus commented at 6:40 pm on December 17, 2024:

See above

murchandamus commented at 7:55 pm on December 17, 2024:

After changing everything to lowercase at behest of some earlier review, and now getting two comments requesting capitalization, I decided to go with what I have been doing for the last decade: Capitalize the abstract idea, network and system “Bitcoin”, lowercase the unit of the currency.

in bip-update-process.md:343 in 9e472b8877 outdated

338+obvious that the new attempt directly continues work on the same idea, in which case it may be reasonable to return the
339+Closed BIP to Draft status.
340+
341+### Changelog
342+
343+To help implementers understand updates to a BIP, any changes after it has reached Complete are tracked with version,

sipa commented at 8:42 pm on December 11, 2024:

If I read this section correctly, version numbers start at 1.0.0 (at promotion to complete), and changes/versions are not tracked before that point.

Would it make sense to allow/encourage (but not mandate) 0.x.y version numbers/changelog in the draft phase? For example BIP 327 has a significant, and useful, pre-Final version history today.

murchandamus commented at 7:45 pm on December 17, 2024:

Thanks, that’s a good clarification, I’ve made changes to this paragraph to permit the Changelog during the Draft phase and to explicitly require it after Complete has been reached.

in bip-update-process.md:37 in 9e472b8877 outdated

32+
33+### What is a BIP?
34+
35+BIPs cover the range of interests of the bitcoin community. The main topic is technology that supports the bitcoin
36+currency. Most BIPs provide a concise, self-contained, technical description of one new concept, feature, or standard.
37+Some BIPs describe processes, implementation guidelines, best practices, incident reports (e.g.

sipa commented at 8:44 pm on December 11, 2024:

μnit: comma after e.g. and i.e.

murchandamus commented at 6:21 pm on December 17, 2024:

TIL

sipa commented at 8:52 pm on December 11, 2024: member

This looks great. Just a few nits.

in bip-update-process.md:47 in 9e472b8877 outdated

42+documenting design decisions that have gone into implementations. BIPs may be submitted by anyone.
43+
44+### BIP Ownership
45+
46+Each BIP is primarily owned by its authors and represents the authors’ opinion or recommendation. The authors are
47+expected to foster discussion, address feedback and dissenting opinions, and, if applicable, advance the adoption of

EthanHeilman commented at 1:52 am on December 12, 2024:

To what degree do we want the BIP PR request to be the place where discussion about a BIP happens vs the mailinglist? Is it appropriate to suggest alternative designs in the PR comments?

murchandamus commented at 8:18 pm on December 17, 2024:

I am not sure that there is a clear line here. I’d say conceptual review and approach discussion should happen preferably in response to the initial presentation of the new idea, but it may still be on-topic in the pull request. If it requires a complete overhaul, it may be better to bring it to the mailing list, as an alternate design that requires a complete rewrite might not be actionable in the context of a pull request.

Do you think there is something missing here that should be clarified? Do you have a concrete suggestion?

EthanHeilman commented at 10:46 pm on December 17, 2024:

You answered my question. I wasn’t sure if this BIP was attempting provide a concrete position of type of feedback. That had been the case I would’ve recommend stating what is allowed more explicitly. However given that it isn’t the case, it is reasonable as written.

in bip-update-process.md:53 in 9e472b8877 outdated

48+their proposal within the bitcoin community.
49+
50+#### Authors and Shepherds
51+
52+Authors may want additional support with the BIP process after writing an initial draft. In that case, they may assign
53+one or more Shepherds to their BIP. Shepherds are stand-in owners of a BIP who were not involved in writing the

achow101 commented at 10:57 pm on December 16, 2024:

It’s unclear to me why there needs to be two different roles. In several of the BIPs I have written, other BIP owners were simply added as Authors even though they did not write any of the text. This description suggest that Shepherds can approve BIP text changes in the same way Authors can. So the separation does not seem all that useful to me.

I think that having a unified “Owner” would make more sense, if people would rather not be called Author if they did not write any of the text but ostensibly are an owner of the BIP.

real-or-random commented at 9:03 am on December 17, 2024:

The distinction can make a difference when it comes to copyright. I agree that a single role is simpler in terms of the process, but I believe this is what is implemented here. We have effectively a single Owner role (and the Owners are the union of Authors and Shepherds), but additionally an author field (which is pure metadata and doesn’t have implications for the process).

Now, I agree that this is a bit difficult to explain…

Perhaps there should just be two required fields “Owners” and “Authors”. This sounds like overkill because it leads to duplication. But if you think about it, I believe it’s simpler than the current draft: it avoids the term Shepherd entirely, and in the text, you can easily pick the appropriate term on a case-by-case basis.

Moreover, there may be an author who is not an owner (anymore). Not sure if we’ll ever need this, but there’s no good reason to exclude it upfront.

murchandamus commented at 8:20 pm on December 17, 2024:

I added the additional role per the request of several reviewers. I don’t have strong feelings about this part: I would be happy with just “Owners” or “Authors”, I can also live with two roles. It seems to me that people might still be discovering their positions on this aspect, so if anyone has strong feelings, please feel free to discuss further, but I’m gonna give this discussion some time to develop before making additional changes.

jonatack commented at 11:22 pm on January 7, 2025:

I agree that a single role is simpler and would suggest a single Authors field.

in bip-update-process.md:123 in 9e472b8877 outdated

118+  Title: <BIP title (≤ 50 characters)>
119+  Authors: <Authors’ names and email addresses>
120+* Shepherds: <Shepherds’ names and email addresses>
121+  Status: <Draft | Complete | Deployed | Closed>
122+  Type: <Specification | Informational | Process>
123+  Created: <Date of number assignment (yyyy-mm-dd)>

achow101 commented at 11:06 pm on December 16, 2024:

Perhaps should also say ‘or “?” before assignment’ as otherwise I think people will just put whatever date they began writing the document (this is typically what I do).

murchandamus commented at 6:32 pm on December 17, 2024:

Good point, thanks.

in bip-update-process.md:147 in 9e472b8877 outdated

142+format of each authors header value must be
143+
144+    Random J. User <address@dom.ain>
145+
146+If there are multiple authors, each should be on a separate line following [RFC
147+2822](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2822.html) continuation line conventions.

achow101 commented at 11:15 pm on December 16, 2024:

AFAICT RFC 2822 doesn’t specify “continuation line conventions” with that phrasing. The word “continuation” only appears once in a footnote. Perhaps it should refer to the Long Header Fields section? Otherwise, it’s not entirely clear what the convention actually is, and whether that section describes the convention.

This sentence appears to be lifted from PEP 1, which provides equally vague guidance.

murchandamus commented at 8:10 pm on December 17, 2024:

Okay good, I replaced it with

0-If there are multiple authors, each should be on a separate line following [RFC
1-2822](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2822.html) continuation line conventions.
2+Multiple authors should be recorded on separate lines:
3+
4+    Authors: Random J. User <address@dom.ain>
5+             Anata Sample <anata@domain.example>

in bip-update-process.md:246 in 9e472b8877 outdated

241+
242+#### Draft
243+
244+After fleshing out the proposal further and ensuring that it is of high quality and properly formatted, the authors
245+should open a pull request to the [BIP repository](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips). The document must adhere to the
246+formatting requirements specified below and should be provided as a file named with a working title of the form

achow101 commented at 11:20 pm on December 16, 2024:

Formatting requirements are specified above.

in bip-update-process.md:261 in 9e472b8877 outdated

256+
257+Proposals are also not ready for number assignment if they duplicate efforts, disregard formatting rules, are too
258+unfocused or too broad, fail to provide proper motivation, fail to address backwards compatibility where necessary, or
259+fail to specify the feature clearly and comprehensively. Reviewers and BIP editors should provide guidance on how the
260+proposal may be improved to progress toward readiness. Pull requests that are proposing off-topic or unserious ideas or
261+have stopped to make progress may be closed.

achow101 commented at 11:22 pm on December 16, 2024:

“have stopped to make progress” reads weirdly to me. Perhaps “have stopped making progress”.

in bip-update-process.md:656 in 9e472b8877 outdated

651+    writing a new process document every time new situations arise, it seems preferable to allow the process to adapt to
652+    the concerns of the future in specific aspects. Therefore, Process BIPs are defined as living documents that remain
653+    open to amendment. If a Process BIP requires large modifications or even a complete overhaul, a new BIP should be
654+    preferred.
655+[^new-BIP]: **Why should the specification of an implemented BIP no longer be changed?**  
656+    After a Complete or Deployed BIP have been deployed by one or more implementations, breaking changes to the

achow101 commented at 11:25 pm on December 16, 2024:

s/have/has

in bip-update-process.md:494 in 9e472b8877 outdated

489+
490+A BIP editor will:
491+
492+* Assign a BIP number and BIP type in the pull request
493+* Merge the pull request when it is ready
494+* List the BIP in the [README](README.mediawiki)

achow101 commented at 11:37 pm on December 16, 2024:

Updating the README has been done by BIP authors in their PRs to add their BIP. Changing to having the BIP editors do this requires either the BIP editors make another PR or the BIP author allows Editors to modify their PR. I find either option to be undesirable. Also, the former would break CI.

Instead, I think this should be in the list above as something for the editors to check has been done correctly.

murchandamus commented at 6:46 pm on December 17, 2024:

Good point, thanks. I think so far it has been a mix, sometimes the BIP Editors added a commit to the pull request to list the BIP in the Readme, sometimes the authors do it. I changed it to “Ensure that the BIP is listed in the README” and put the line about merging last.

in bip-update-process.md:506 in 9e472b8877 outdated

501+original intent of the authors. Such a change must be recorded in the Changelog if it’s noteworthy per the criteria
502+mentioned in the [Changelog](#changelog) section.
503+
504+## Backward Compatibility
505+
506+### Changes from BIP 2

achow101 commented at 11:41 pm on December 16, 2024:

Another change is the definition of the Created header.

murchandamus commented at 6:48 pm on December 17, 2024:

No, BIP2 already defined the Created header as the date the number was assigned, this was just not consistently implemented.

See BIP 2:

murchandamus commented at 7:01 pm on December 17, 2024: contributor

I have addressed the minor items from review, will now start going through the more subjective and complex issues.

murchandamus commented at 8:23 pm on December 17, 2024: contributor

Okay, I should have addressed all open review comments. Thank you for your review, @JeremyRubin, @larryruane, @sipa, @EthanHeilman, and @achow101.

in bip-update-process.md:8 in f52a0c0621 outdated

0@@ -0,0 +1,708 @@
1+```
2+BIP: ?
3+Title: Updated BIP Process
4+Author: Murch <murch@murch.one>
5+Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-Updated-BIP-Process
6+Status: Draft
7+Type: Process
8+Created: 2024-05-13

jonatack commented at 9:29 pm on December 17, 2024:

Note to replace this date with the day a number is assigned.

murchandamus commented at 3:53 pm on December 19, 2024:

Replaced with “?” for the time being.

in bip-update-process.md:26 in f52a0c0621 outdated

21+## Motivation
22+
23+BIP 2 is over eight years old and was written when different concerns were pressing to the Bitcoin[^capitalization]
24+community. The BIP process as defined by BIP 2 thus far seems to have been fashioned to facilitate the design and
25+activation of protocol changes. In the past years, BIPs more often describe interoperable features beyond the base
26+protocol. The community has had multiple debates about the role of BIP Editors, and some aspects of the process

jonatack commented at 9:32 pm on December 17, 2024:

prefer direct over passive voice and other grammar fixups

0protocol. The community has debated repeatedly about the role of the BIP Editors and aspects of the process

in bip-update-process.md:24 in f52a0c0621 outdated

19+address the evolving needs of the BIP process.
20+
21+## Motivation
22+
23+BIP 2 is over eight years old and was written when different concerns were pressing to the Bitcoin[^capitalization]
24+community. The BIP process as defined by BIP 2 thus far seems to have been fashioned to facilitate the design and

jonatack commented at 9:34 pm on December 17, 2024:

0community. The BIP process as defined by BIP 2 aimed to facilitate the design and

in bip-update-process.md:25 in f52a0c0621 outdated

20+
21+## Motivation
22+
23+BIP 2 is over eight years old and was written when different concerns were pressing to the Bitcoin[^capitalization]
24+community. The BIP process as defined by BIP 2 thus far seems to have been fashioned to facilitate the design and
25+activation of protocol changes. In the past years, BIPs more often describe interoperable features beyond the base

jonatack commented at 9:36 pm on December 17, 2024:

BIPs involving protocol changes are still being proposed, so I’m not sure about this sentence and if it is necessary.

0activation of protocol changes. In the past years, BIPs have more often described interoperational standards beyond the base

in bip-update-process.md:27 in f52a0c0621 outdated

22+
23+BIP 2 is over eight years old and was written when different concerns were pressing to the Bitcoin[^capitalization]
24+community. The BIP process as defined by BIP 2 thus far seems to have been fashioned to facilitate the design and
25+activation of protocol changes. In the past years, BIPs more often describe interoperable features beyond the base
26+protocol. The community has had multiple debates about the role of BIP Editors, and some aspects of the process
27+specified by BIP 2 that did not seem to achieve the intended goals. This proposal sunsets aspects of the BIP 2 process

jonatack commented at 9:37 pm on December 17, 2024:

0specified by BIP 2 that did not seem to achieve the intended goals. This BIP sunsets aspects of the BIP 2 process

in bip-update-process.md:39 in f52a0c0621 outdated

34+
35+BIPs cover the range of interests of the Bitcoin community. The main topic is technology that supports the Bitcoin
36+currency. Most BIPs provide a concise, self-contained, technical description of one new concept, feature, or standard.
37+Some BIPs describe processes, implementation guidelines, best practices, incident reports (e.g.
38+[BIP 50](bip-0050.mediawiki)), or other information relevant to the Bitcoin community. However, any topics related to
39+the Bitcoin protocol, Bitcoin’s peer-to-peer network, and Bitcoin client software may be acceptable.

jonatack commented at 9:39 pm on December 17, 2024:

0the Bitcoin protocol, peer-to-peer network, and client software may be acceptable.

in bip-update-process.md:53 in f52a0c0621 outdated

48+their proposal within the Bitcoin community.
49+
50+#### Authors and Shepherds
51+
52+Authors may want additional support with the BIP process after writing an initial draft. In that case, they may assign
53+one or more Shepherds to their BIP. Shepherds are stand in owners of a BIP who were not involved in writing the

jonatack commented at 9:40 pm on December 17, 2024:

0one or more Shepherds to their BIP. Shepherds are stand-in owners of a BIP who were not involved in writing the

in bip-update-process.md:54 in f52a0c0621 outdated

49+
50+#### Authors and Shepherds
51+
52+Authors may want additional support with the BIP process after writing an initial draft. In that case, they may assign
53+one or more Shepherds to their BIP. Shepherds are stand in owners of a BIP who were not involved in writing the
54+document. They support the authors in advancing the proposal, or act as point-of-contact for the BIP in absence of the

jonatack commented at 9:41 pm on December 17, 2024:

0document. They support the authors in advancing the proposal, or act as a point of contact for the BIP in the absence of the

in bip-update-process.md:56 in f52a0c0621 outdated

51+
52+Authors may want additional support with the BIP process after writing an initial draft. In that case, they may assign
53+one or more Shepherds to their BIP. Shepherds are stand in owners of a BIP who were not involved in writing the
54+document. They support the authors in advancing the proposal, or act as point-of-contact for the BIP in absence of the
55+authors. Shepherds may perform the role of Authors for any aspect of the BIP process unless overruled by an Author.
56+Shepherds share ownership of the BIP at the discretion of the Authors.

jonatack commented at 9:42 pm on December 17, 2024:

Can an author revoke the shepherds? What if there are several authors?

Not sure if the addition of shepherds is useful, nor worth the additional process complexity.

The notion of herding sheep…heh :)

murchandamus commented at 4:18 pm on December 19, 2024:

Can an author revoke the shepherds?

Yes, an author can revoke Shepherds.

What if there are several authors?

I don’t think we have to litigate every possible interaction of Authors and Shepherds. If the Authors agreed to add Shepherds but then fight over the approach of the Shepherds, the involved people should figure it out. In the worst case someone should open a second BIP with the alternate approach.

The notion of herding sheep…heh :)

I was thinking about “shepherding a process”, but if that first association is shared more commonly, maybe it should be “Stewards” after all.

Regarding whether or not to have a second owner role in the first place: It was requested by several BIP contributors. I don’t feel strongly about it either way. I think it’s a bit convoluted, but I see that such a role would have been used a few times in the past years. If it need some minor clarifications, I’m happy to review suggestions, but if the addition of the Shepherds role would require several more paragraphs to litigate its scope and interactions with the Authors role, I’d prefer just dropping it altogether.

jonatack commented at 5:42 pm on January 4, 2025:

…I’d prefer just dropping it altogether.

I’d drop it for now in the name of simplicity, which I believe is also a primary goal of this BIP.

in bip-update-process.md:65 in f52a0c0621 outdated

60+BIPs do not define what Bitcoin is: individual BIPs do not represent Bitcoin community consensus or a general
61+recommendation for implementation. A BIP represents a personal recommendation by the BIP authors to the Bitcoin
62+community. Some BIPs may never be adopted. Some BIPs may be adopted by one or more Bitcoin clients or other related
63+software. Some may even end up changing the consensus rules that the Bitcoin ecosystem jointly enforces.
64+
65+### What is the purpose of the BIP repository?

jonatack commented at 9:47 pm on December 17, 2024:

Here and throughout this document.

0### What is the purpose of the BIPs repository?

murchandamus commented at 10:23 pm on December 18, 2024:

I had just changed that the other way per request of @real-or-random here: https://github.com/murchandamus/bips/pull/2#discussion_r1778753665. How about you two discuss here? ^^

murchandamus commented at 7:38 pm on December 26, 2024:

Thinking more about this, I would say “the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal repository”, not “the Bitcoin Improvement Proposals repository”, so seems right to me?

jonatack commented at 5:40 pm on January 4, 2025:

Per https://github.com/bitcoin/bips, the url and repo are named bips and the longer title is “Bitcoin Improvement Proposals”. Furthermore, “proposals” in the plural form would be correct here. Thus, the comment stands.

murchandamus commented at 7:52 pm on January 15, 2025:

Okay, changed it back to “BIPs repository” throughout

murchandamus commented at 7:52 pm on January 15, 2025:

Changed it back to “BIPs repository” across the document

in bip-update-process.md:67 in f52a0c0621 outdated

62+community. Some BIPs may never be adopted. Some BIPs may be adopted by one or more Bitcoin clients or other related
63+software. Some may even end up changing the consensus rules that the Bitcoin ecosystem jointly enforces.
64+
65+### What is the purpose of the BIP repository?
66+
67+The [BIP repository](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/) serves as a publication medium and archive for mature proposals.

jonatack commented at 9:47 pm on December 17, 2024:

0The [BIPs repository](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/) serves as a publication medium and archive for mature proposals.

in bip-update-process.md:70 in f52a0c0621 outdated

65+### What is the purpose of the BIP repository?
66+
67+The [BIP repository](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/) serves as a publication medium and archive for mature proposals.
68+Through its high visibility, it facilitates the community-wide consideration of BIPs and provides a well-established
69+source to retrieve the latest version of any BIP. The repository transparently records all changes to each BIP and
70+allows any community member to retain a complete copy of the archive easily.

jonatack commented at 9:49 pm on December 17, 2024:

0allows any community member to easily retain a complete copy of the archive.

murchandamus commented at 10:25 pm on December 18, 2024:

Y’all are killing me :grin:, @LarryRuane: #1712 (review)

murchandamus commented at 4:19 pm on December 19, 2024:

I don’t care one way or the other. Gonna leave it as is.

in bip-update-process.md:80 in f52a0c0621 outdated

75+### What is the scope of the BIP repository?
76+
77+The BIP repository is focused on information and technologies that aim to support and expand the utility of the bitcoin
78+currency. Related topics that are of interest to the Bitcoin community may be acceptable. The scope of the BIP
79+repository is limited to BIPs that do not oppose the fundamental principle that Bitcoin constitutes a peer-to-peer
80+electronic cash system for the bitcoin currency.

jonatack commented at 9:53 pm on December 17, 2024:

Line 33-42 above also appear to discuss the scope. Suggest a single point of truth in this document that defines the scope of BIPs.

murchandamus commented at 4:34 pm on December 19, 2024:

Okay, folded this section into “What is a BIP?”

in bip-update-process.md:86 in f52a0c0621 outdated

81+
82+## BIP format and structure
83+
84+### Specification
85+
86+BIPs should be written in MediaWiki or Markdown[^markdown] format.

jonatack commented at 9:54 pm on December 17, 2024:

0Authors may choose to submit BIPs in MediaWiki or Markdown[^markdown] format.

jonatack commented at 9:54 pm on December 17, 2024: member

Began WIP re-review of the latest version. In some places the writing can be pithier (more concise/direct). See also the comments below pertaining to the repo name, the shepherds, and the BIPs scope.

in bip-update-process.md:211 in f52a0c0621 outdated

206+
207+The BIP process starts with a new idea for Bitcoin. Each potential BIP must have authors—people who write the BIP,
208+gather feedback, shepherd the discussion in the appropriate forums, and finally recommend a mature proposal to the
209+community.
210+
211+![Status Diagram](bip-update-process/status-diagram.png "Status Diagram for the BIP Workflow")

katesalazar commented at 4:59 pm on December 18, 2024:

this is readable when using dark mode, but a bit low contrast. What do you think?

EthanHeilman commented at 5:20 pm on December 18, 2024:

Is there a reason Closed is grey font, grey lines but all the other states are black font, black lines?

murchandamus commented at 4:55 pm on December 19, 2024:

No strong reasons. I changed it to black.

jonatack added the label New BIP on Dec 18, 2024

in bip-update-process.md:10 in f52a0c0621 outdated

 5+Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-Updated-BIP-Process
 6+Status: Draft
 7+Type: Process
 8+Created: 2024-05-13
 9+License: BSD-2-Clause
10+Post-History: https://github.com/murchandamus/bips/pull/2

murchandamus commented at 3:54 pm on December 19, 2024:

Added the mailing list discussion about “Time for an update to BIP 2?”

murchandamus commented at 4:56 pm on December 19, 2024: contributor

I addressed all open feedback. Thanks @jonatack, @katesalazar, and @EthanHeilman.

JeremyRubin commented at 5:46 pm on December 21, 2024: contributor

Thanks for adding Sheperd, I think it’s good enough as written and the name is fine. Rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.

The only other alternative I could think of would be to make Author a newly optional field, and have a new field (e.g., Proposers) be the sub-in for the current meaning of author. This would also serve to separate authorship and champion-ship cleanly. But that’s more confusing and a more major change. So I think Sheperd solves the problem.

murchandamus added the label Needs number assignment on Dec 27, 2024

in bip-update-process.md:43 in d6e4b5a2ae outdated

38+Some BIPs describe processes, implementation guidelines, best practices, incident reports (e.g.,
39+[BIP 50](bip-0050.mediawiki)), or other information relevant to the Bitcoin community. However, any topics related to
40+the Bitcoin protocol, peer-to-peer network, and client software may be acceptable.
41+
42+BIPs are intended to be the primary mechanism for proposing new protocol features, coordinating client standards, and
43+documenting design decisions that have gone into implementations. BIPs may be submitted by anyone.

kanzure commented at 9:59 pm on December 31, 2024:

“primary mechanism” might be overly strong here, and might point to levels of processes that don’t exist.

murchandamus commented at 7:22 pm on January 15, 2025:

Okay, I replaced it with “a means”:

0BIPs are intended to be a means for proposing new protocol features, coordinating client standards, and
1documenting design decisions that have gone into implementations. BIPs may be submitted by anyone.

in bip-update-process.md:78 in d6e4b5a2ae outdated

73+Through its high visibility, it facilitates the community-wide consideration of BIPs and provides a well-established
74+source to retrieve the latest version of any BIP. The repository transparently records all changes to each BIP and
75+allows any community member to retain a complete copy of the archive easily.
76+
77+The BIP repository is not a tool to track acceptance[^acceptance], adoption, or community consensus on BIPs, beyond
78+providing a brief overview of BIP statuses (see [Workflow](#workflow) below) to the audience.

kanzure commented at 10:02 pm on December 31, 2024:

I would enjoy a stronger statement here to remind unfamiliar readers that there is no organization formal or otherwise that guides bitcoin through improvement proposals or improvement deployments/implementations. Uninitiated readers may not be familiar with these more arcane matters of bitcoin development.

murchandamus commented at 8:27 pm on January 15, 2025:

It seems to me that the prior section “What is the significance of BIPs?” gets into this a bit. However, I added

0The BIP repository is not a tool to track acceptance[^acceptance], adoption, or community consensus on BIPs, beyond
1providing a brief overview of BIP statuses (see [Workflow](#workflow) below) to the audience.
2There is no formal or informal decision body that governs Bitcoin development or decides acceptance of BIPs. Bitcoin
3development emerges from the participation of shareholders across the ecosystem.

I’m open to suggestions, if you have a concrete idea how to further improve this.

in bip-update-process.md:387 in d6e4b5a2ae outdated

382+### Specification
383+
384+Each new BIP must identify at least one acceptable license in its preamble. Licenses must be referenced per their
385+respective [SPDX License identifier](https://spdx.org/licenses). New BIPs may be accepted with the licenses described
386+below.
387+

kanzure commented at 10:06 pm on December 31, 2024:

One or two sentences about the motivation behind our interest in freely licensed BIPs could be helpful to include.

murchandamus commented at 9:22 pm on January 15, 2025:

Added a couple sentences about open standards and freely licensed BIPs. As above, if you have a concrete suggestion how to improve the text, please feel free to suggest it.

in bip-update-process.md:489 in d6e4b5a2ae outdated

484+* Motivation, Rationale, and Backward Compatibility have been addressed
485+* Specification provides sufficient detail for implementation
486+* The defined Layer header must be correctly assigned for the given specification
487+* The BIP is ready: it is comprehensible, technically feasible, and all aspects are addressed as necessary
488+
489+Editors do NOT evaluate whether the proposal is likely to be adopted.

kanzure commented at 10:08 pm on December 31, 2024:

“The idea must be of interest to the broader community or relevant to multiple software projects.”

murchandamus commented at 9:23 pm on January 15, 2025:

Whether something only pertains to a single project seems orthogonal to whether a proposal is going to be adopted. Could you elaborate what action you would like me to take?

in bip-update-process.md:115 in d6e4b5a2ae outdated

110+appear in the following order. Headers marked with "\*" are optional. All other headers are required. The overview is
111+followed by an explanation for each header.
112+
113+```
114+  BIP: <BIP number, or "?" before assignment>
115+* Layer: <Consensus (soft fork) | Consensus (hard fork) | Peer Services | API/RPC | Applications>

kanzure commented at 10:10 pm on December 31, 2024:

Given that this is intended to replace bip2, I wonder if there should be a header indicating which bip rule regime the bip was originally intended for (bip1, bip2, bip-update-process, etc).

murchandamus commented at 8:31 pm on January 15, 2025:

I don’t think that this is necessary. As there will only be one BIP Process active at the same time, and the Backward Compatibility section prescribes how preambles should be adapted with the activation of BIP3, I doubt that we would gain much.

in bip-update-process.md:28 in d6e4b5a2ae outdated

23+
24+BIP 2 is over eight years old and was written when different concerns were pressing to the Bitcoin[^capitalization]
25+community. The BIP process as defined by BIP 2 aimed to facilitate the design and
26+activation of protocol changes. In the past years, BIPs have more often described interoperational standards beyond the base
27+protocol. The community has debated repeatedly about the role of the BIP Editors, and aspects of the process
28+specified by BIP 2 that did not seem to achieve the intended goals. This BIP sunsets aspects of the BIP 2 process

jonatack commented at 5:35 pm on January 4, 2025:

Suggest keeping only the last sentence of this paragraph.

Also, as mentioned in #1712 (review), we are seeing quite a few new BIPs for protocol changes nowadays.

murchandamus commented at 6:48 pm on January 15, 2025:

I think I get the confusion now. I meant “more often than before”, not “more often than not”. I have restated what I wanted to convey here.

jonatack commented at 5:44 pm on January 4, 2025: member

Am re-reviewing this BIP today. A few initial comments.

in bip-update-process.md:120 in d6e4b5a2ae outdated

115+* Layer: <Consensus (soft fork) | Consensus (hard fork) | Peer Services | API/RPC | Applications>
116+  Title: <BIP title (≤ 50 characters)>
117+  Authors: <Authors’ names and email addresses>
118+* Shepherds: <Shepherds’ names and email addresses>
119+  Status: <Draft | Complete | Deployed | Closed>
120+  Type: <Specification | Informational | Process>

jonatack commented at 11:08 pm on January 7, 2025:

This line replaces “Standards Track” with “Specification”. However, “Specification” is also a section in the list above that is frequently present in BIPs. It would seem both clearer and (much) simpler to leave “Standards Track” unchanged, unless there is a very compelling reason to change it?

murchandamus commented at 8:36 pm on January 15, 2025:

As you probably remember, there seems to be irreconcilable disagreement among BIP Editors what constitutes a “standard”. Given that there are also numerous BIPs that are currently mislabeled as “Informational” while containing a technical specification that implementation can be in compliance with, it seems cleaner to introduce a new Type as a means to mend both of these issues. I could live with applying a new definition to the existing Standards Track Type, and relabeling existing BIPs should BIP3 be adopted, but I would consider it a failure if retaining the old Type led to lots of technical specifications remaining mislabeled as Informational.

in bip-update-process.md:121 in d6e4b5a2ae outdated

116+  Title: <BIP title (≤ 50 characters)>
117+  Authors: <Authors’ names and email addresses>
118+* Shepherds: <Shepherds’ names and email addresses>
119+  Status: <Draft | Complete | Deployed | Closed>
120+  Type: <Specification | Informational | Process>
121+  Created: <Date of number assignment, or "?" before assignment>

jonatack commented at 11:11 pm on January 7, 2025:

It would be clearer to keep here the date format of ISO 8601 (yyyy-mm-dd) as currently specified in BIP2.

Edit: I see that it is mentioned further below but am unsure of the utility of these duplicate sections for some of these fields. Perhaps only add duplicate sections that add useful additional information that cannot fit on one line.

murchandamus commented at 8:37 pm on January 15, 2025:

Mh, yeah, maybe these should just be folded into one rather than the current split and mix with enumerations and brief descriptions followed by longer descriptions. Will have to spend some time on thinking this through.

in bip-update-process.md:125 in d6e4b5a2ae outdated

120+  Type: <Specification | Informational | Process>
121+  Created: <Date of number assignment, or "?" before assignment>
122+  License: <Identifier(s) of acceptable license(s)>
123+* License-Code: <Identifier(s) for Code under different acceptable license(s)>
124+* Discussion: <Mailing list thread(s), or other noteworthy discussion(s) in "date: URL" format>
125+* Revision: <Version number (MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH)>

jonatack commented at 11:18 pm on January 7, 2025:

As the Changelog lists dates/versions/descriptions and follows semver, would call this field “Version” and mention here that it follows semver.

in bip-update-process.md:196 in d6e4b5a2ae outdated

191+### BIP types
192+
193+* A **Specification BIP** defines a set of technical rules affecting the interoperability of implementations. The
194+  distinguishing feature of a Specification BIP is that it can be implemented, and implementations can be compliant with
195+  it. Specification BIPs should come with or refer to a reference implementation and preferably provide test vectors.
196+* An **Informational BIP** describes a Bitcoin design issue, provides general guidelines or other information to the

jonatack commented at 11:30 pm on January 7, 2025:

0* An **Informational BIP** describes a Bitcoin design issue, or provides general guidelines or other information to the

in bip-update-process.md:215 in d6e4b5a2ae outdated

210+
211+### Ideation
212+
213+After having an idea, the authors should evaluate whether it meets the criteria to become a BIP, as described in this
214+BIP. The idea must be of interest to the broader community or relevant to multiple software projects. Minor improvements
215+and matters concerning only a single project usually do not require standardization and should instead be brought up directly to

jonatack commented at 11:34 pm on January 7, 2025:

If I’m not confused, this shouldn’t pertain to Process BIPs.

murchandamus commented at 8:39 pm on January 15, 2025:

I don’t follow. What doesn’t pertain to Process BIPs?

in bip-update-process.md:262 in d6e4b5a2ae outdated

257+
258+Proposals are also not ready for number assignment if they duplicate efforts, disregard formatting rules, are too
259+unfocused or too broad, fail to provide proper motivation, fail to address backward compatibility where necessary, or
260+fail to specify the feature clearly and comprehensively. Reviewers and BIP editors should provide guidance on how the
261+proposal may be improved to progress toward readiness. Pull requests that are proposing off-topic or unserious ideas or
262+have stopped making progress may be closed.

jonatack commented at 11:37 pm on January 7, 2025:

0that have stopped making progress may be closed.

in bip-update-process.md:258 in d6e4b5a2ae outdated

253+improving the proposal based on community feedback, will be assigned a number by a BIP editor. The BIP editors should
254+delay number assignment when they perceive a proposal being met with lack of interest: number assignment facilitates the
255+distributed discussion of ideas, but before a proposal garners some interest in the Bitcoin community, there is no need
256+to refer to it by a number.
257+
258+Proposals are also not ready for number assignment if they duplicate efforts, disregard formatting rules, are too

jonatack commented at 11:42 pm on January 7, 2025:

A mention of or reference to the scope of BIPs described lines 45-47 would be helpful in this sentence.

murchandamus commented at 9:32 pm on January 15, 2025:

If something is out of scope, it’s offtopic, so it seems unnecessary to additionally mention that it’s not eligible for number assignment.

in bip-update-process.md:315 in d6e4b5a2ae outdated

310+
311+##### Draft ↦ Closed
312+
313+BIP authors may decide on their own to change their BIP’s status from Draft to Closed. If a Draft BIP stops making
314+progress, sees accumulated feedback unaddressed, or otherwise appears stalled for a year, the community may move the BIP
315+to Closed unless the authors assert that they intend to continue work when contacted.

jonatack commented at 11:46 pm on January 7, 2025:

It may be a good idea to provide a time frame here for considering when authors are non-responsive or no longer reachable.

kanzure commented at 2:37 pm on January 8, 2025:

It may be a good idea to provide a time frame here for considering when authors are non-responsive or no longer reachable.

Good idea. By committing to a specific timeout here, authors can be informed upfront as to when their efforts will be considered abandoned. This could serve to encourage them to indicate when they will be unreachable, too.

murchandamus commented at 8:59 pm on January 15, 2025:

Sure, I also put a four week limit for reactions here

in bip-update-process.md:370 in d6e4b5a2ae outdated

365+### Transferring BIP Ownership
366+
367+It occasionally becomes necessary to transfer ownership of BIPs to new owners. In general, it would be preferable to
368+retain the original authors of the transferred BIP, but that is up to the original authors. A good reason to transfer
369+ownership is because the original authors no longer have the time or interest in updating it or following through with
370+the BIP process, or have fallen off the face of the 'net (i.e., are unreachable or not responding to email). A bad reason

jonatack commented at 11:52 pm on January 7, 2025:

0the BIP process, or are unreachable or unresponsive. A bad reason

in bip-update-process.md:378 in d6e4b5a2ae outdated

373+competing BIP.
374+
375+If someone is interested in assuming ownership of a BIP, they should send an email asking to take over, addressed to the
376+original authors, the BIP Editors, and the Bitcoin Development Mailing List. If the authors do not respond in a timely
377+manner (e.g., two weeks), the BIP editors will make a unilateral decision whether to appoint the applicants as
378+[Shepherds](#authors-and-shepherds) (which may be amended should the original authors make a delayed reappearance).

jonatack commented at 11:54 pm on January 7, 2025:

If the BIP is in draft, a new owner may be an author as well? (It would be simpler to have a single role)

jonatack commented at 11:56 pm on January 7, 2025: member

Continuing WIP iterative review…

Edit: this draft is quite long. It would be good if we can make it pithier.

jonatack removed the label Needs number assignment on Jan 9, 2025

jonatack commented at 12:45 pm on January 9, 2025: member

Assigned BIP 3.

jonatack renamed this:
~~An updated BIP Process~~
BIP3: An updated BIP Process
on Jan 9, 2025

murchandamus commented at 9:38 pm on January 15, 2025: contributor

I’ve addressed most of the review comments. I’m doing another pass, and taking a closer look on how to amend the specification of the Preamble, what to do about the Shepherd role, whether to stick to Standards Track or switch to Specification Type, and whether to use version instead of Revision.

Thank you for the number assignment and review, @jonatack and @kanzure.

murchandamus commented at 10:33 pm on January 15, 2025: contributor

I have renamed the “Revision” header to “Version” and deduplicated the description of the Preamble headers. At this time, I’m sticking to keeping the Shepherd role and the introduction of the Specification BIP type.

Draft an updated BIP Process 53f144fa06

Fix minor issues from review fabbbc76fa

Set "?" as date before number assignment 9d3fce713f

Let Authors update the README table entry 6c9ec4f0f3

Allow Changelog in Draft 689bb6b35a

Capitalize the concept, system, and idea Bitcoin 29eb8a3283

Drop bit about continuation lines d6ec0e8fd2

Fix minor issues from review c57e4c8ef5

Fold section on repo scope into "What is a BIP?" a2adda2032

Change color of Closed state to black in diagram b80c698385

BIP3: Adopt number assignment 052356963d

BIP3: Amend Motivation 346483d177

BIP3: Soften "primary mechanism" 3969826787

BIP3: Use "BIPs repository" throughout cac5f0f7e4

BIP3: Mention absence of formal governance body 8179534cbc

BIP3: State time frame for author reaction 7fac45da55

BIP3: Motivate freely licensed BIPs 5cf5cf333b

BIP3: Address several minor issues from review 7c12b143ab

BIP3: Fix Preamble formatting 1e0c51c720

BIP3: Fix capitalization in README table 8cb00880b1

BIP3: Rename "Revision" header to "Version" e573c38be2

BIP3: Deduplicate header descriptions a4e5581c0e

BIP3: Fix Comments URI 4241144a44

murchandamus force-pushed on Jan 16, 2025

murchandamus commented at 3:29 pm on January 16, 2025: contributor

Fixed an issue to get the checks to pass. I think I’m caught up on all the review comments.

BIP3: An updated BIP Process #1712