bip3: Avoid onus

Author: murchandamus

bip-0003.md

@@ -639,13 +639,13 @@ feedback, and helpful comments.
     only a handful of contributors commenting at all. This led to many situations in which one or two comments ended up
     dominating the comment summary. While some of those comments may have been representative of broadly held opinions,
     it also overstated the importance of individual comments directly in the Preamble of BIPs. As collecting feedback in
-    this accessible fashion failed, the new process puts the onus back on the audience to make their own evaluation.
+    this accessible fashion failed, the new process puts the burden back on the audience to make their own evaluation.
 [^layer]: **Why is the layer header now permitted for other BIP types?**  
     The layer header had already been used by many Informational BIPs, so the rule that it is only available to
     Standards Track BIPs is dropped.
 [^OtherImplementations]: **What is the issue with "Other Implementations" sections in BIPs?**  
     In the past, some BIPs had "Other Implementations" sections that caused frequent change requests to existing BIPs.
-    This put an onus on the BIP authors, and frequently led to lingering pull requests due to the corresponding BIPs’
+    This put a burden on the BIP authors and BIP Editors, and frequently led to lingering pull requests due to the corresponding BIPs’
     authors no longer participating in the process. Many of these alternative implementations eventually became
     unmaintained or were low-quality to begin with. Therefore, "Other Implementations" sections are heavily discouraged.
 [^complete]: **Why was the Proposed status renamed to Complete?**