Hi all,

I'm writing in response to Murch's motion to activate BIP 3. I appreciate both the extensive work that's gone into this proposal and the invitation to raise concerns during this evaluation period.

Since BIP 3 cites RFC 7282 as its rough consensus framework, I reviewed it with that standard in mind. BIP 3 modernizes many aspects of the process, particularly the streamlined status flow and clearer role definitions, and I appreciate these improvements. I've spent some time in IETF and W3C processes over the years, including recommending RFC 7282 to this list during the Taproot discussions, so some of the thoughts below reflect lessons learned from those environments. That said, Bitcoin's governance context is unique, and I may be missing important considerations.

1. RFC 7282: visible objection handling

RFC 7282 emphasizes that rough consensus is demonstrated by documenting objections and how they were addressed. Process BIPs under BIP 3 can self-modify without requiring such a log, which leaves ambiguity around how consensus is determined. A short objections/resolution record, even as simple as a changelog section noting “Objection raised by X regarding Y; addressed by Z”, would address this and provide helpful context for future readers.

2. RFC 7282: neutral consensus evaluation

RFC 7282 discourages authors from judging consensus on their own work. Under BIP 3, a small editor group collectively evaluates numbering, closure, "material progress," "lack of interest," and rough consensus itself. This concentration of authority may create perceived conflicts of interest, even with the best intentions.

A minimal safeguard would be requiring two non-author editors, ideally from different implementation communities such as Core and Knots, to confirm rough consensus for Process BIPs. This shares responsibility and provides independent verification. For example, if a Process BIP proposes changing the Draft-to-Complete threshold, this would ensure independent assessment.

3. Subjectivity in number assignment

Declining numbers due to "lack of interest" or "insufficient progress" is reasonable in intent but subjective in effect. A brief explanation, even a single sentence in the PR, would help newcomers understand expectations and provide editors with a neutral reference point if a decision is later questioned.

4. Status compression and historical clarity

Collapsing Rejected/Withdrawn/Obsolete into "Closed" simplifies the system but loses useful distinctions that help readers understand why a proposal didn't advance. Optional status annotations (e.g., "Closed (Withdrawn by author)" or "Closed (Superseded by BIP X)") could preserve this context without complicating the core status model.

Lightweight adjustments for RFC alignment and neutrality

• Short objections/resolution log for Process BIPs (can be minimal changelog format)

• Neutral consensus verification by two non-author editors, preferably cross-ecosystem

• Brief explanations for number denials and "stalled" Draft BIPs

• Optional annotations for Closed statuses to preserve historical context

These small additions strengthen neutrality and transparency. They also help editors by distributing responsibility and making decisions easier to defend through a clear paper trail. I recognize editors are volunteering substantial time, and these mechanisms are intended to make the role more sustainable, not more burdensome.

I may have overlooked important practical constraints or misunderstood parts of the current process. I'd be interested to hear whether others see value in these additions, have alternative approaches to strengthening neutrality around Process BIPs, or believe the current design better serves Bitcoin's governance needs.

Looking forward to the discussion.

Best,
Melvin