Okay for sure yeah writing another proposal that reflects the current state of affairs as people see it might provide some interesting perspective on this proposal. I would welcome that.

Greg: With no other direct comments appearing to be inbound I'd like to move forward with this one and get a number assigned to it. Thanks!

Thanks to all for the discussion!

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:

On Friday, September 04, 2015 9:36:42 PM Andy Chase wrote:
> I understand your concerns. What kinds of changes do you think should go
> through a process like this? Just hard forks?

The process loses meaning if it doesn't reflect reality. So only hardforks
should go through the hardfork process; only softforks through the softfork
process; etc. Trying to make one-size-fits-all just means de facto accepted
BIPs wouldn't be recognised as such because nobody cares to meet the higher
requirements.

Luke