The sender highlights a mostly self-managed scheme for BIPs, where new ideas and proposals are in a draft/discussion state until certain conditions are met.

The first condition is when the author(s) consider the proposal final and want to promote it to a BIP. This ensures quality control and reputation. The risk associated with this condition includes managing expectations, experience, and ego.

The second condition involves having enough non-author interactions with the draft. These interactions can be comments, contributions from non-authors, likes, stars, threads, etc. The purpose of this condition is to further ensure quality by having multiple perspectives. However, there is a risk of heated discussions on irrelevant topics and spam which may inflate interactions.

The third condition states that no other drafts should exist that fulfill the first two conditions and seek the ordinal "lastBIP+1". This is to avoid conflicts over esoteric numbers and coincidental concurrency issues. Resolutions may require moderation and could be tedious.

Draft promotions are done in batches at specific block numbers, such as every quadruple-zero ending block number or every 2016 blocks at difficulty adjustment. This provides a straightforward methodology for proposers to self-manage. In realistic scenarios, BIP maintainers can moderate and protect the process.

The sender suggests potentially changing the second condition to "Enough non-authors consider the proposal final" to encourage more quality through co-responsibility. However, this would require a new approval process, which might be cumbersome compared to relying on community engagement and authors' common sense.

In response to the sender's points, Peter Todd questions the use of numerical identifiers if BIPs are not memorable. He suggests using mathematical functions or URLs instead. He argues that a functioning BIP system inherently involves human gatekeepers who apply standards to approve BIPs, making it centralized.

Overall, the email explores different aspects of managing the BIP system and raises questions about its purpose and decentralization.