It would be nice to decouple the venue, but even BIP 1 gives that control to whoever controls the mailing list: "Following a discussion, the proposal should be sent to the bitcoin-dev list and the BIP editor with the draft BIP." (BIP 1)

A neater way to do it might be to replace references to the mailing list with "public discussion medium" where "medium" can be defined as something like any discussion forum frequented by the wider development community, like the pull requests section of the BIP repo, conferences, etc.

On 02/02/16 15:58, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev wrote:

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

I've completed an initial draft of a BIP that provides clarifications on the
Status field for BIPs, as well as adding the ability for public comments on
them, and expanding the list of allowable BIP licenses.

https://github.com/luke-jr/bips/blob/bip-biprevised/bip-biprevised.mediawiki

I plan to open discussion of making this BIP an Active status (along with BIP
123) a month after initial revisions have completed. Please provide any
objections now, so I can try to address them now and enable consensus to be
reached.

I like the more concrete definitions of the various statuses.

I don't like the definition of "consensus". I think the definition described gives too much centralized control to whoever controls the mailing list and the wiki.

--

--
Gavin Andresen
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev