From: Murch <murch@murch.one>
To: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Re: Motion to Activate BIP 3
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2025 16:23:46 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0ed80dd1-35ba-4f10-8aac-1069c6050380@murch.one> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b1771bde-7fbc-4fa3-8151-9259c49f7c97n@googlegroups.com>
Hey Greg,
Two sections from BIP 3 stand out as relevant here, “BIP Ownership“ and
“Deployed Process BIPs”.
From “Fundamentals > BIP Ownership”:
> “[…] As a BIP progresses through the workflow, it becomes
increasingly co-owned by the Bitcoin community.”
While Deployed BIPs are considered final and changes should be avoided,
the section has a subsection that specifically addresses Process BIPs.
From “Workflow > Progression through BIP Statuses > Deployed > Process
BIPs”:
> “A Process BIP may change status from Complete to Deployed when it
achieves rough consensus on the Bitcoin Development Mailing List. A
proposal is said to have rough consensus if its advancement has been
open to discussion on the mailing list for at least one month, the
discussion achieved meaningful engagement, and no person maintains any
unaddressed substantiated objections to it. Addressed or obstructive
objections may be ignored/overruled by general agreement that they have
been sufficiently addressed, but clear reasoning must be given in such
circumstances. Deployed Process BIPs may be modified indefinitely as
long as a proposed modification has rough consensus per the same criteria.”
More specific rules supersede general rules, so this subsection on
Process BIPs should hopefully clearly override the general description
in “Deployed”. It follows from these two sections that the BIP Authors’
right to decide about changes to their BIP is moderated by the community
interests. I would consider especially Process BIPs to be dominantly
owned by the community rather than the Authors once they are Deployed.
The quoted section states how they are modified — by proposing and
discussing a modification on the mailing list, which is also a
fitting summary of how we decided last year to add more BIP Editors.
Additionally, the “Workflow > Transferring BIP Ownership” section makes
it clear that other Owners could step up to replace Authors that have
become unreachable.
Pragmatically speaking, it seems obvious that the list of BIP Editors
would be amended in the currently active BIP Process Specification
whenever the active BIP Editors change. Historically, this worked fine
when Editors changed while BIP 1 and BIP 2 were active which both also
specified the current BIP Editors in the same manner.
Thank you for your review. Please let me know, if you think we should
amend BIP 3 to more clearly state any of the above discussed thoughts.
Best,
Murch
On 2025-11-12 11:03, Greg Sanders wrote:
> Hello Murch,
>
> I really like the BIP, just have a question about the editor portion.
>
> The list of current editors are currently in the BIP text, which seems
> to imply that the list can be changed by the author himself only and
> would become "static" over time.
>
> Clearly support for changing has to continue as it goes to Deployed
> and beyond. Perhaps the text should be moved elsewhere?
>
> Best,
> Greg
>
> On Tuesday, November 4, 2025 at 8:11:39 PM UTC-5 Murch wrote:
>
> Dear list,
>
> After planned work on BIP 3⁰ finished in February, BIP 3 was
> advanced to
> Proposed in March 2025¹. A few minor adjustments were made to BIP 3
> since then (see below). I have since April maintained a pull request
> that would activate BIP 3: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1820.
>
> At this point, BIP 3 has received over 600 comments on GitHub and has
> been discussed in multiple threads on this list. The proposal has
> been
> Proposed for over seven months, and while several minor improvements
> were proposed and processed, the proposal has no unaddressed
> objections
> stated here or on the activation pull request. A growing list of
> people
> has expressed explicit support for activating BIP 3 by leaving an
> ACK on
> the pull request after reviewing the BIP:
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1820#issue-2990155954
>
> I formally propose a motion to adopt BIP 3 to replace BIP 2 as our
> BIPs
> Process.
>
> Since BIP 2 doesn’t specify a procedure for activating Process
> BIPs, I
> suggest that people who wish to state their support leave an ACK on
> #1820 or reply in this thread. Similarly, I would like to invite
> anyone
> to state concerns or raise objections here or on #1820.
> While BIP 3 has long been proposed and the activation PR has been
> open
> for over half a year, I suggest that we give all would-be reviewers
> another four weeks, until 2025-12-02, before evaluating whether
> there is
> rough consensus for merging the activation pull request. This
> should be
> ample time to review and discuss BIP 3 as well as the activation PR,
> even for people that have so far not engaged with the material.
>
> Best,
> Murch
>
> ----
>
> Summary of changes since BIP 3 was advanced to Proposed:
>
> - The License header now uses SPDX License Expressions²
> - The License-Code header was dropped in favor of requiring that the
> license terms of the auxiliary files be specified in the respective
> directory or folder per a license header or LICENSE file²
> - The “Created” header has been renamed to “Assigned”³
> - The BIP text has been improved to clarify:
> - the purpose of the BIPs repository⁴
> - that authors should establish viability of their proposal on the
> mailing list⁴
> - the distinction between publication, acceptance, and adoption of
> proposals⁴
> - when Draft BIPs can be closed due to not making progress⁴
> - that BIPs submissions may not be generated by AI/LLM⁵
>
> ⁰ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0003.md
> ¹ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1794
> ² https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1892
> ³ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1970
> ⁴ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1819
> ⁵ https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/2006
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/b1771bde-7fbc-4fa3-8151-9259c49f7c97n%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/b1771bde-7fbc-4fa3-8151-9259c49f7c97n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/0ed80dd1-35ba-4f10-8aac-1069c6050380%40murch.one.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-11-13 0:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-11-05 1:10 [bitcoindev] " Murch
2025-11-05 1:53 ` Ruben Somsen
2025-11-12 19:03 ` [bitcoindev] " Greg Sanders
2025-11-13 0:23 ` Murch [this message]
2025-11-13 18:54 ` Greg Sanders
[not found] ` <Qe_CRlsuwalN-0a0oo1KcZ265rXevTeHaTdk6IifH-j7NbLMew7-ucLLMiwECQLZEPoU2pm-PAuwb_lZAeCU9vChaVYTZzl60N9jyPTnUbo=@protonmail.com>
2025-11-13 19:35 ` [bitcoindev] " 'Antoine Poinsot' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List
2025-11-13 21:43 ` Murch
2025-11-14 17:05 ` Melvin Carvalho
2025-11-22 23:46 ` Murch
2025-11-29 23:00 ` Melvin Carvalho
2025-12-02 0:29 ` Murch
2025-11-15 22:01 ` Luke Dashjr
2025-11-18 4:26 ` Greg Maxwell
2025-12-02 22:46 ` Murch
2025-11-18 15:47 ` David A. Harding
2025-11-19 1:12 ` Greg Maxwell
2025-11-19 1:20 ` Bryan Bishop
2025-11-19 21:21 ` Jon Atack
2025-11-19 6:25 ` David A. Harding
2025-11-19 6:58 ` Bitcoin Error Log
2025-11-20 1:22 ` Bitcoin Mechanic
2025-11-20 9:06 ` Oghenovo Usiwoma
2025-11-20 17:23 ` Greg Maxwell
2025-11-22 15:14 ` Jon Atack
2025-11-22 19:30 ` Sjors Provoost
2025-11-22 20:53 ` /dev /fd0
2025-11-28 15:35 ` Tim Ruffing
2025-11-28 16:34 ` Jon Atack
2025-11-28 19:21 ` Pieter Wuille
2025-11-22 21:06 ` Bill MacDonald
2025-11-20 20:14 ` Mat Balez
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0ed80dd1-35ba-4f10-8aac-1069c6050380@murch.one \
--to=murch@murch.one \
--cc=bitcoindev@googlegroups.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox