Previous discussions:
I would like to be assigned a number please! Thanks.
110 | +* Publishing advisory documents about what kinds of proof of stakes are valid and what kinds should be rejected. 111 | +* Naming a series of successors for the roles of the BIP Process Manager and BIP Editor (BIP-001) as needed. 112 | + 113 | +== Conditions for activation == 114 | + 115 | +In order for this process BIP to become active, it must succeed by its own rules. At least a 4% sample of the Bitcoin community must be represented, with at least one committee in each segment included. Once at least one committee has submitted a declaration, a request for comments will be called and the process should be completed from there.
Until this BIP is active, its rules do not apply, so this would be a form of circular reasoning. I like the idea of putting conditions for activation in the BIP text, but I don't think we can just let the author set any conditions they like either...
The idea here is that if the system doesn't even work for itself, it shouldn't activate. Currently the conditions are a bit fuzzy with some flaws, so I'd like to narrow those down before changing the BIP from being a draft and making it eligible for succeeding by its own rules.
Ok, so these are additional conditions? Can you clarify this in the draft?
I am tentatively soft-assigning this to BIP 2. Unless someone gives a good reason within the next week why this should not become BIP 2, it will get this assignment.
@andychase The whole concept of "acceptance by committee" is wrong and invalidates much of this BIP see https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-September/010955.html
tl;dr: The status of a BIP is defined by it's adoption, not by a committee.
@btcdrak Thanks for your continued feedback. Can you send your comment to the mailing list? I'd love for it to see a wider audience.
Furthermore I want to reply but I believe that this forum isn't for conceptional discussions relating to BIPs. I value your thoughts but I want to make I follow the right procedures!
After some thought I'd like to raise an objection to the BIP-2 number assignment. I think BIPS 1-9 should be specifically reserved for a BIPS that proposes to replace BIP-1 in its entirety.
This one is for a specific part of the BIP lifecycle; and will hopefully inspire other ones similar.