Update the BIP Process

[murchandamus]

This BIP proposes a successor to BIP-2 by defining an updated BIP process.

[jonatack]

First (somewhat superfical) pass, didn't yet compare to BIP 2 or go deeper on the changes.

The "Changes from BIP-2" section is an excellent idea (didn't verify it yet).

Edits:

• I like the statuses simplification
• I dislike the "champions" usage, prefer "authors"
• Would be good to use one single format, e.g. BIP2 vs BIP 2 vs BIP-2, in this BIP.

[ajtowns]

lgtm

[murchandamus]

Thanks @jonatack and @ajtowns. Just some first comments, I’ll continue work on this on Friday.

[murchandamus]

I want to get rid of that underspecified requirement. Happy to add one or multiple concrete criteria that can be evaluated more objectively.

[murchandamus]

Took most of the suggestions, except where otherwise stated or the comment is not resolved. I’ll try to get more input on the BSD-license thing and think more about the open comments.

Thanks for your input @jonatack and @ajtowns

[murchandamus]

I should now have addressed all the feedback

[real-or-random]

More soon.... :)

[real-or-random]

Regarding scope, here's a different attempt:

• "The scope of the BIPs repository is limited to BIPs that are not in conflict with the fundamental principle that Bitcoin constitutes a peer-to-peer electronic cash system."

Or a variant:

• "The scope of the BIPs repository is limited to BIPs that are not in conflict with the fundamental principle that Bitcoin constitutes a peer-to-peer electronic cash system for the bitcoin currency.

It may be worth discussing this aspect (and other "large" topics) in separate issues.

[jonatack]

• that are not in conflict

What constitutes "in conflict" may need clarifying.

[jonatack]

WIP (will comment when I've finished reviewing this version).

[jonatack]

Note that the top-level README would need to be updated.

[murchandamus]

I think I have addressed all review feedback, please let me know if I overlooked something. Still have a few open todos like the scope.

[murchandamus]

Note that the top-level README would need to be updated.

I made updates to the README to match the new process.

[murchandamus]

But here's a variant, just a tiny bit more precise: "The scope of the BIPs repository is limited to BIPs that do not oppose the fundamental principle that Bitcoin constitutes a peer-to-peer electronic cash system for the bitcoin currency."

I think "do not oppose" raises the bar for rejecting a BIP a bit, at least more than "in conflict". For example, putting a technology on top of Bitcoin (e.g., colored coins) would be an okay topic for a BIP. The same is true for OpenTimestamps. These are prime examples that we should discuss and try to evaluate the rules against. If you ask me, all of these are fine, but others have disagreed in the past (e.g., @sipa -- please correct me if I'm wrong).

Sure, that seems at least as good as anything that I had so far.

[murchandamus]

from @jonatack's request to comment here:

I would like an editor/champion field as per bitcoin#1482, clarifying the difference between authorship and helping out / point of contact for edits.

We could add a separate field "Proposers" (or "Proponents" or whatever you choose above), or even "Champions", which could be optional if it matches the "Authors" field. It sounds like a clean solution to me, and I lean towards it, but I wonder if it's slight overkill.

@JeremyRubin, @real-or-random: I introduced minimal changes to add a "Proponents" header, but to do it properly, I think it would require reworking several sections of the proposal. I’m not sure whether the distinction between Authors and Proponents occurs often enough and adds enough value to motivate the additional necessary changes.

[murchandamus]

Thanks that’s a nice simplification. I’ve folded "Recommended licenses" and "Not recommended acceptable lincenses" into "Acceptable licenses".

To be honest, the license aspect of the process is not my forte or at the center of my interests. I am more than happy to consider any further suggestions, especially simplifications to that aspect of the proposal.

[murchandamus]

Okay, I think I should be caught up on all review comments that I could process. The major changes in this update:

1. I decided to go with some of @ajtowns’s suggestions for the status header values. I replaced "Active" with "Deployed", and "Proposed" with "Complete". I also renamed "Abandoned" with "Closed" since multiple people commented on a perceived negative connotation of the former.
   @jonatack: While this now goes beyond just simplifying the Status field values, the new names are more descriptive and might help keeping BIPs updated to the correct statuses.

2. I introduced a Proponents header to collect stand-ins for the original authors. I’m still on the fence on that one, I think a few more sections would need to be touched up to really make it work, and I’m not sure whether the field is useful often enough to motivate the additional changes.

3. I updated the description of the purpose and scope of the BIP repository.

4. I updated the description of Process BIPs.

5. I renamed the "Author" header to "Authors" and use the plural throughout the document.

6. I folded "Recommended Licenses" into the "Acceptable Licenses".

Beyond that there are many smaller changes to address all of your many excellent review comments. Thank you very much for all the review.

[murchandamus]

I finished reading my draft and started going through the document to make a few more edits. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions, otherwise, I will open a pull request to the BIP repository with the resulting version after I finish my edits.

[murchandamus]

Thanks @real-or-random, I addressed your comments from today.

[murchandamus]

I have opened a pull request to the BIP repository here: bitcoin#1712