Motion to Activate BIP 3

The recent review of the BIP 3 proposal has led to the identification and opening of PR 2037, which aims to address several issues and suggestions for improvement. One primary concern is that BIPs (Bitcoin Improvement Proposals) should maintain relevance beyond a single Bitcoin project, ensuring a broader applicability and utility within the ecosystem. The current draft's approach towards AI/LLM usage disclosure is deemed excessive; it is suggested that as long as no content generated by LLM is included, the requirements should be considered met. There's also a call for clarification on the roles of authors and deputies, noting that the process should allow for champions (authors) who may not be directly involved in writing the document to be reassigned by editors in cases where they are missing in action (MIA).

Additionally, there are recommendations to refine the proposal structure, notably pointing out the lack of a dedicated content section typically reserved for specifications, and questioning the necessity and specificity of requiring auxiliary files or PRs for reference implementations. The practice of editors assigning numbers to their own BIPs, while not seen as self-assignment, requires clearer communication to avoid community confusion. The new requirement for public discussion and feedback is criticized for potentially limiting the proposal process, suggesting that BIPs should be able to move forward without mandatory reliance on broader contributor engagement.

Concerns are raised over the appropriateness of test vectors for all specification BIPs and the terminology used to describe BIP compliance, proposing "compatible" as a more fitting term than "compliant". The expectation for every BIP editor to respond to new ideas is seen as unrealistic, along with the confusing requirement for authors to initiate discussion on the mailing list. Mistakes in the use of "bitcoin" capitalization have been corrected, and the rationale for its previous incorrect usage has been removed from the proposal.

Further discussions are proposed on several fronts, including the potential renaming of "Authors" to "Champions", defining what it means for a BIP to be "co-owned by the Bitcoin community", and reconsidering the set of acceptable licenses to avoid contradicting the recommendation to use an upstream license. Questions are also raised about the historical accuracy of BIP creation dates, the reasoning behind increasing title length, and the exclusion of non-Specification BIPs from certain categories. Lastly, critiques are offered on the handling of BIP acceptance criteria, suggesting that the insights from BIP 2 regarding comments and explanations for determining acceptance remain largely applicable and undervalued in the current proposal.