Motion to Activate BIP 3

Melvin, in his communication, raises a critical concern regarding the process of achieving rough consensus within the context of Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs), particularly focusing on BIP 3. He points out an issue with the current method where the author of a BIP is also responsible for evaluating the existence of rough consensus. This practice is somewhat cautioned against by RFC 7282, a foundational document from the IETF that discusses the principles of rough consensus and is cited by BIP 3 as related work. Melvin suggests that to avoid potential conflicts of interest and to ensure a more legitimate and balanced evaluation process, there should be a requirement for rough consensus on Process BIPs to be confirmed by at least two non-author editors, preferably from different implementation ecosystems. This suggestion aims to distribute responsibility more evenly and protect editors from being in difficult positions when dealing with controversial proposals.

Additionally, Melvin references PR 2037, indicating that it proposes several substantial changes to the scope and mechanics of BIP 3. This implies that there is ongoing debate and significant disagreement regarding some of the core aspects of how BIPs are managed and implemented. The mention of PR 2037 underscores the dynamic nature of the discussions surrounding BIP processes and highlights the need for continuous evaluation and potentially, reform to address emerging concerns and challenges effectively.