BIP-0002: Update Rejection criteria to require there to be an actual … #1016
Conversation
|
Also ping @gmaxwell. |
|
ACK. I think is preferable over #1012 as it limits status transitions to those we can all (or mostly) agree upon. It also looks to me like just a clarification to BIP2, so (IMO) it eliminates the issue about whether or not BIP2 should be materially edited---we've been accepting small clarifications to accepted BIPs since these documents were hosted on the wiki. I do continue to agree with several of @gmaxwell's points from the previous conversation that it's useful to communicate to readers how much community acceptance there is of a BIP---but I think that can be done using the existing BIP2 |
|
Approach ACK too, makes sense. I am happy with either this or #1012 |
|
Are you happy with this @luke-jr? |
|
It seems kind of poorly defined, and will likely force the editor to make judgement calls :/ |
|
It seems pretty straightforward to me. If someone, somewhere, has raised an argument or concern or similar against the proposal, and the author hasn't responded, and 3 years have passed, it means the proposal should be rejected based on the fact the author did not find an answer in that timespan. |
Can you suggest an alternative phrasing with better definition? |
|
Maybe remove "adequately"? |
…concern Right now, BIPs may be Rejected simply due to the passing of time. The intent was to close BIPs with outstanding issues that were not adequately addressed within a given amount of time. This changes the wording to reflect this criteria.
|
Removed adequately. |
kallewoof
force-pushed
the
202010-rejection-criteria
branch
from
99d1fe6 to
6b65547
Compare
|
ACK |
|
Given that BIPs already contains summaries of comments to BIPs, why not make rejection dependent on that? For the purpose of this PR, it seems inconsistent that BIP-0002 allows rejection when the BIP header says that there have been no comments. |
|
This gets resolved either by making a change to the Rejection criteria such as the one in this PR (which is deliberately minimal, ACKed by @harding with @luke-jr feedback addressed) or by stress testing the process of moving out of Rejected and back into Draft. If people think it is important not to change the Rejection criteria or that we should discuss for weeks/months what the change should be then we can do the latter instead. In that case we would need the BIP champion to provide "revisions that meaningfully address public criticism of the proposal". This will take time (for the BIP champion and reviewers). The only motivation I can see for doing this is that "Rejected" BIPs somehow provide a defense against bad ideas being implemented in Bitcoin. |
|
@michaelfolkson You mention that the feedback from Luke was addressed. I don't see how. The comment was that the editor will have to make judgement calls. Obviously, the editor will always have to do that, but to me, the question is to what degree. Don't you think that "if they have not made progress in three years" is easier to judge than "if there is outstanding criticism [...] or other concerns" ? |
|
Three years is very easy to judge. What isn't easy to judge is how to "meaningfully address public criticism of the proposal" to get out of Rejected status and back to Draft status. If there isn't consensus to allow a BIP to move back out of Rejected status to Draft status it stays Rejected. Maybe you think that's a good thing. I just think it is infuriating for the BIP authors and poses very little upside. |
Luke was concerned over the word "adequately". The word was removed. |
|
To attempt to move this along. As I understand @ysangkok and @luke-jr are of the opinion that the "three year" rule should stay, certain BIPs that have passed the "three years" should be Rejected and the authors of those BIPs should then begin the process of attempting to get their Rejected BIPs back to Draft status. Is that a correct summary of your opinions? To reiterate, there will be judgement calls. They can't be avoided. Whether it is a judgement call to Reject a BIP or a judgement call to move a Rejected BIP back to Draft there is judgement required. |
That makes no sense. The rejections were invalid to begin with. This PR is intended to address that. |
|
I also don't know what you are waiting for, @luke-jr. I've already RFC on the bitcoin mailing list, and since nobody has objected, and since you yourself have not raised any concerns, this is ready to be merged. |
Technically the rejections weren't invalid at the time. The three year rule applied and hadn't been changed. But if @luke-jr (as the BIP 2 author) wants to keep that three year rule he needs to explicitly say that he does. And then we have to proceed from there. At the moment this is just stuck in a logjam. |
Why is Luke obligated to do this? Shouldn't it be the obligation of Kalle to show consensus for the changes within this change? Luke may be a committer, but I don't understand why this implies that he has to reject a proposal before one can infer that there is insufficient consensus for it.
If this is the case, I don't think it should mean that existing BIP-0002 rules stop applying. |
|
I'm personally not prioritizing this until Taproot activation parameters are finalized. Other than to say in the absence of a decision from Luke (the BIP 2 author) this will need to be resolved via the mailing list and in discussion with the rest of the BIP author community (which is fine, seems unavoidable at this stage). I suspect the authors of BIPs will engage in that discussion more positively if they aren't fighting to get their BIP out of Rejected status when that process has not been defined and is unclear. |
|
How do you show consensus? That’s proving a negative, a lack of criticism.
… On Feb 5, 2021, at 1:20 PM, Janus Troelsen ***@***.***> wrote:
@michaelfolkson
if @luke-jr (as the BIP 2 author) wants to keep that three year rule he needs to explicitly say that he does
Why is Luke obligated to do this? Shouldn't it be the obligation of Kalle to show consensus for the changes within this change? Luke may be a committer, but I don't understand why this implies that he has to reject a proposal before one can infer that there is insufficient consensus for it.
At the moment this is just stuck in a logjam.
If this is the case, I don't think it should mean that existing BIP-0002 rules stop applying.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
|
|
I've already presented this on the ML and requested feedback from people, in particular criticism. Since no such feedback was given, and since several BIP authors have expressed their dissatisfaction with the current haphazard rejection-after-3-year approach, the ball is literally in @luke-jr's hands. There are several proposals to choose from (a new BIP vs tweaking the BIP-2 wording). |
|
I think this proposal is problematic and #1012 is much better. |
…concern
Right now, BIPs may be Rejected simply due to the passing of time. The intent was to close BIPs with outstanding issues that were not adequately addressed within a given amount of time. This changes the wording to reflect this criteria.
Ping @maaku, @harding, @michaelfolkson.
Alternative to #1012.