BIP 3: mention posting a dedicated ML thread #2020

1. 
   jonatack commented at 5:15 pm on October 27, 2025: member

   Clarify that the BIP author(s) post a new, dedicated thread on the mail list to present the idea.

   Address situations like #2017 (comment).

2. bip3: mention posting a dedicated ML thread 5607f64d0d
3. jonatack added the label Proposed BIP modification on Oct 27, 2025
4. jonatack added the label Pending acceptance on Oct 27, 2025
5. 
   dathonohm commented at 6:03 pm on October 28, 2025: none

   To anyone wanting to avoid the delay I experienced on #2017, make sure you subscribe to the ML before posting the PR. It took a day or so for the mods to approve me to post on the ML, then another day or so for them to approve my actual BIP announcement. During this time I had to repeatedly submit subscription requests and the announcement email, because there is not really clear feedback about whether the request succeeded.

   I’m not sure, but just in case, I also recommend not using an @proton.me address, as this appears to trigger Google’s defenses.

   This was the cause for the delay.

6. 
   jonatack commented at 8:21 pm on October 28, 2025: member

   It is a requirement in BIPs 2 and 3 that BIP draft ideas begin with a mail list discussion. The idea here is to clarify that the required discussion be in its own dedicated thread, rather than a possibly tangential comment in a different thread, to give the idea sufficient exposure and discussion.

   (Yes, best to hold off on opening a PR until after a discussion on the mail list.)

7. 
   dathonohm commented at 8:38 pm on October 28, 2025: none

   Now that you mention it, yes, I should have posted perhaps a day or two in advance on the ML before posting on Github.

   For future reference, how much discussion do you think would have been necessary? I naively attempted to send the ML post at the same time as the PR on Github, but the first was immediately published while the second took much longer.

   My apologies for overlooking that requirement.

8. 
   jonatack commented at 8:59 pm on October 28, 2025: member

   how much discussion do you think would have been necessary?

   Quite a bit, normally. Suggest searching on the word “list” in the BIP2 text.

9. 
   luke-jr commented at 6:17 pm on October 31, 2025: member

   Seems fine, though I don’t think it would have avoided the example situation. That had a dedicated thread (started by PortlandHodl), even if the top post wasn’t the specific rules that got adapted - and that’s likely to be the case for many BIPs.

Contributors
jonatack dathonohm luke-jr

Labels
Proposed BIP modification Pending acceptance