Motion to Activate BIP 3

In a recent exchange, Melvin Carvalho clarified several aspects of the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 3 (BIP 3), focusing on its structure, intentions, and processes. He emphasized that BIP 3 is inspired by but not directly using RFC 7282, particularly highlighting how rough consensus is defined within the context of BIP 3. According to the Process BIPs section, a proposal is considered to have achieved rough consensus if it has been open for discussion on the mailing list for at least one month, garnered meaningful engagement, and no unaddressed substantiated objections remain. This definition underscores the importance of open discussion and the resolution of objections in achieving consensus.

Carvalho further elaborated on the procedures for modifying Process BIPs, noting the inclusion of a Changelog section. This section mandates recording any changes once a BIP reaches the Complete or Deployed status, ensuring a public record of modifications. This approach addresses concerns about transparency and the handling of objections, illustrating that modifications and their rationales are thoroughly documented, contrary to some interpretations that suggest otherwise.

Addressing the governance of the BIP process, Carvalho argued against the need for additional rules regarding consensus determination by authors of BIPs. He pointed out that with six BIP Editors currently, the process is adequately managed without imposing rules that could potentially hinder the BIP process based on hypothetical issues. This stance reflects a preference for maintaining a streamlined process that avoids unnecessary complications.

Carvalho also touched upon the responsibility and workflow of BIP Editors, emphasizing that while the BIP Process requires judgment calls, these are made with the community's trust and aim to benefit all stakeholders involved. The work, including decisions and discussions, is conducted publicly through the mailing list and pull requests, offering transparency and opportunities for clarification or debate.

Finally, he discussed the rationale behind the "Closed" status for BIPs, explaining it as a simplification meant to convey that a BIP is of historical interest only and not actively pursued. This change aims to provide clarity and neutrality, avoiding the negative connotations associated with other statuses like "Rejected" or "Deferred." Moreover, Carvalho highlighted efforts to enhance neutrality and transparency through lightweight adjustments, underscoring the significance of the Rationale and Changelog sections in providing a comprehensive record of the decision-making process. These elements collectively demonstrate a commitment to an open, transparent, and effectively governed BIP process.