[bitcoin-dev] RFC BIP-0002: Defer, not reject.

[bitcoin-dev] RFC BIP-0002: Defer, not reject.

[アルム カールヨハン]

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 rejecting BIPs include duplication of effort, disregard for formatting rules, being too unfocused or too broad, being technically unsound, not providing proper 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 status, upon request by any person, if they have not made progress in three years. Such a BIP may be changed to Draft status if the champion provides revisions that meaningfully address public criticism of the proposal, or to Proposed 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".

Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC BIP-0002: Defer, not reject.

[アルム カールヨハン]

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 アルム　カールヨハン <karl@dglab.com> 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 rejecting BIPs include duplication of effort, disregard for formatting rules, being too unfocused or too broad, being technically unsound, not providing proper 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 status, upon request by any person, if they have not made progress in three years. Such a BIP may be changed to Draft status if the champion provides revisions that meaningfully address public criticism of the proposal, or to Proposed 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".