From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E29BDC0051 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 12:12:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0DC9868E4 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 12:12:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4B6AggYLmJ4Y for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 12:12:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mta41.mta.hdems.com (mta41.mta.hdems.com [18.179.48.80]) by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FA4986684 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 12:12:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mo.hdems.com (unknown [10.5.20.170]) by mta41.mta.hdems.com ('HDEMS') with ESMTPSA id 4CPsGp32Lgz2K1r95 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 12:12:02 +0000 (UTC) X-HDEMS-MO-TENANT: garage.co.jp Received: from mail-lf1-f72.google.com (mail-lf1-f72.google.com. [209.85.167.72]) by gwsmtp.prod.mo.hdems.com with ESMTPS id gwsmtpd-trans-1535949b-c00a-47b3-a7ba-b929c0de9d74 for ; Mon, 02 Nov 2020 12:12:00 +0000 Received: by mail-lf1-f72.google.com with SMTP id y14so1995867lfl.7 for ; Mon, 02 Nov 2020 04:11:59 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=exWsm7h7RqltcloCIkyQmAm4koiT+XgHYqPD1X90H5g=; b=H9DY34yIsFYXhyoGzaXV5T+lu+UvzcEE8Ys7lgsuNqJrQgIhZctWlHqLMUV1gE87wv ziJGaoxQyAxiqDoHpoWEGgNY4YGHPaYU8dQ8UjYTk3jvH3xlpPi5sBHvQdzSArcCaQrK WAm+P7W9Rtiu2QCOrSuS3E9f7pRYn4gY2Om9Bd40QjCbeFctTmEgDumpzps+0AWRv+0z hgCQRgHMHqszwkBsbBHgW80E0qJZfu/RIXG0nOwwkzrL9kyIqP41zcOSmezvevNhVPu9 8jb0K7LJvGin5Ts6iNVjGTRkN14BuCHlh3tkOGg+X2Rgn3vzjWWqE1VfynRmLb0fHa+o NJSQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533vQJxv56VGINXFxRa5K4FKu0CVlb6fGluABUKhvwYgFXkI3XXK 1OjZNsBF784i9JC3qM420i3Cm3RuQnQjaKqmsbSN6L7IkCe3+PUdKjab57op2ShAjF8GxktFWXP PE9rrXfIUUP5wAEn6z35V0QMczUMWBUfrxSsBzTMcSQhK9+dSzMVzdSi7hwRRBRn+BKzWAGVjpl 7trmM4RefoGgIsEMHos03aOvhOQcMlHLZ/VUEUhYkGjZ7Cg0z0QlJhhqitWmql5muhDKqcVC0Te c0Cmp1jt3ENhloplpGx/1FD4p87Iw6WhRYdnS3tiKiZT3qtLpSu5cLcP098EqRKtsiAvcbxkbw9 wOWLLxO6bjyqU+WkHUvlQ9McFmNZ X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5973:: with SMTP id h19mr5334396lfp.458.1604319117005; Mon, 02 Nov 2020 04:11:57 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwZlYuTTWwdLoUjyR/CMwk4REo/RkojogtI0DMblOlFBOq4O2yaudFsfSOOcUw2XpBZH2Pd5J9vqLhElUF1us4= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5973:: with SMTP id h19mr5334386lfp.458.1604319116631; Mon, 02 Nov 2020 04:11:56 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: =?UTF-8?B?44Ki44Or44Og44CA44Kr44O844Or44Oo44OP44Oz?= Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 21:11:40 +0900 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC BIP-0002: Defer, not reject. X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2020 12:12:07 -0000 Follow-up to this: there is now an alternative to this which proposes that the rejection criteria in BIP 2 is updated to require there to be an actual concern. This is here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1016 Please nod or something at either or both of them. On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 7:06 PM =E3=82=A2=E3=83=AB=E3=83=A0=E3=80=80=E3=82= =AB=E3=83=BC=E3=83=AB=E3=83=A8=E3=83=8F=E3=83=B3 wrote: > > Hello, > > I am making a minor proposed change to BIP-0002 > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1012 > > I propose that we change the 3-year-rule to allow anyone to change the > status of a BIP to "Deferred", rather than "Rejected". > > Rejecting a BIP already has ambiguous meaning in BIP-0002 as it > stands, with "hard" rejects: > > > The BIP editor will not unreasonably reject a BIP. Reasons for rejectin= g BIPs include duplication of effort, disregard for formatting rules, being= too unfocused or too broad, being technically unsound, not providing prope= r motivation or addressing backwards compatibility, or not in keeping with = the Bitcoin philosophy. > > and "soft" rejects: > > > BIPs should be changed from Draft or Proposed status, to Rejected statu= s, upon request by any person, if they have not made progress in three year= s. Such a BIP may be changed to Draft status if the champion provides revis= ions that meaningfully address public criticism of the proposal, or to Prop= osed status if it meets the criteria required as described in the previous = paragraph. > > My proposal is that we disambiguate the second into "deferred" instead. > > Alternatively, we add a new status e.g. "Inactive".