Motion to Activate BIP 3

Since then, BIP 3 has seen several adjustments aimed at refining and improving its structure and content. A notable effort to activate BIP 3 is evident from an active pull request on GitHub, which has attracted considerable attention within the community, as highlighted by over 600 comments. This level of engagement underscores the community's support for BIP 3, with many individuals endorsing the proposal through acknowledgments on the pull request. The proposal aims to supersede BIP 2 by addressing its shortcomings, particularly the lack of a specified procedure for activating Process BIPs. A formal suggestion has been made to adopt BIP 3 within the BIPs Process, and stakeholders are encouraged to express their support or raise concerns during an extended review period ending on December 2, 2025.

Substantial modifications have been made to BIP 3 since it reached the proposed state. These changes include the adoption of SPDX License Expressions for the License header, the removal of the License-Code header in favor of directory-specific licensing terms, and the renaming of the "Created" header to "Assigned." Further refinements to the BIP text aim to articulate the purpose of the BIPs repository more clearly, encourage authors to validate the viability of their proposals via the mailing list, and clarify the publication, acceptance, and adoption processes. Additionally, provisions have been added concerning the closure of Draft BIPs due to inactivity and stipulations against AI/LLM-generated BIP submissions. These updates are intended to enhance the clarity and functionality of the BIP process, ensuring a more structured and transparent approach to proposal management within the Bitcoin community.

The exchange between Murch and Greg, members of the Bitcoin Development Mailing List, sheds light on the collaborative and detail-oriented nature of the proposal drafting process. Greg raises a concern regarding the "editor portion" of BIP 3, specifically the implication that the list of editors could become static over time. Murch responds by referencing two sections from BIP 3, "BIP Ownership" and "Deployed Process BIPs," which collectively emphasize the community's co-ownership of BIPs as they progress. This dynamic allows for continued modifications to Deployed Process BIPs based on rough consensus within the community, as demonstrated by meaningful engagement and the absence of unaddressed substantiated objections on the mailing list. Furthermore, Murch highlights the flexibility afforded by the "Workflow > Transferring BIP Ownership" section, which facilitates the replacement of unreachable Authors with other Owners. This pragmatic approach has historically enabled amendments to the list of BIP Editors in active BIP Process Specifications, illustrating the adaptability of the BIP framework to accommodate changes in editorship. Murch's response not only addresses Greg's concern but also reinforces the importance of community input and consensus in the evolution of BIPs.