Motion to Activate BIP 3

In a detailed discussion about the development and revision of Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs), several key points were addressed regarding proposed changes, clarifications, and the roles of individuals in the BIP process. The conversation highlighted the introduction of Deputies in BIP3 to redefine Owner roles, allowing for flexibility in assigning roles when an Author is unavailable. This adjustment facilitates the continuation of work on a BIP by either categorizing new contributors as Authors or Deputies based on their level of involvement in evolving or advocating for the document.

The email further delved into the requirements and structure of different types of BIPs. It was noted that while Specification BIPs must include a Specification section, Informational BIPs are exempt from this requirement. However, the inclusion of dedicated repositories for providing Reference Implementations was deemed reasonable, enhancing the clarity and utility of BIPs. The discussion also touched upon the protocol for assigning numbers to BIPs, insisting that a BIP must be correctly formatted, on-topic, and significantly progressed beyond the ideation phase before being assigned a number, though the proposal suggested removing examples of what constitutes progression beyond the ideation phase.

Another significant point of discussion was the licensing of Reference Implementations and Test Vectors, highlighting the allowance for multiple licenses to reduce friction for implementers, with AGPL being suggested as an alternative license. Furthermore, the clarification between the created date and the date a BIP was assigned a number was brought up, aiming to standardize the use of dates in future BIPs.

The conversation also addressed the misuse of terms and the inconsistency in terminology across BIPs, resulting in the preference for the term "Authors" over other suggestions after considerable review and discussion. Additionally, the status of BIPs as living documents was acknowledged, emphasizing that authors cannot arbitrarily change Specifications of deployed BIPs without due consideration, such as whether a node implementation still uses a specified BIP.

Lastly, proposed changes to BIP3 included reverting guidance regarding AI, broadening how Reference Implementations may be provided, clarifying that BIP Editors may assign numbers to their own BIPs, and making it explicit that BIP Editors are not required to respond to every new BIP idea or draft posted to the mailing list. These discussions reflect ongoing efforts to refine the BIP process, ensuring clarity, efficiency, and inclusivity in the development of Bitcoin's technical standards.