bip3: Address feedback prompted by Motion to Activate #2051
Conversation
murchandamus
force-pushed
the
2025-12-bip3-address-activation-motion-feedback
branch
2 times, most recently
from
78873cf to
4429b13
Compare
Co-authored-by: Luke Dashjr <[email protected]>
The Version header is omitted at this time, as it is not permitted under BIP 2.
murchandamus
force-pushed
the
2025-12-bip3-address-activation-motion-feedback
branch
from
4429b13 to
41fe83f
Compare
-"bip-title.[md|mediawiki]". Only BIP Editors may assign BIP numbers. Until one has done so authors should refer to their
+"bip-title.[md|mediawiki]". Only BIP Editors may assign BIP numbers. Until one has done so, authors should refer to their |
Co-authored-by: [email protected]
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ACK c637531
Looks good to me. Overall, the changes are minor with the exception of removing the explicit ban on LLM-generated content.
This is an important document which is important to get right, and i understand that we want to keep refining it. But it is also a living one, which can be updated and improved after being activated, and is already a substantial improvement over the current process. I hope we can collectively come to an agreement soon and conclude this years-long effort.
Co-authored-by: [email protected]
murchandamus
force-pushed
the
2025-12-bip3-address-activation-motion-feedback
branch
from
c637531 to
897fa1b
Compare
|
👍 |
| the community's time. No content may be generated by AI/LLMs and authors must proactively disclose | ||
| up-front any use of AI/LLMs. | ||
| documenting design decisions that have gone into implementations. BIPs may be submitted by anyone, provided the | ||
| content is of high quality, e.g., does not waste the community’s time. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would something roughly like this (didn't cross-verify with the rest of the BIP) be a good idea? (to discourage skipping steps and opening a PR prematurely)
| content is of high quality, e.g., does not waste the community’s time. | |
| content is of high quality and the process followed, e.g., does not waste the community’s time. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The ease with which LLMs are enabling people to submit complete-looking, "thorough" techno-babbly drafts (h/t Greg Maxwell) might be counteracted somewhat byy insisting on following the process of discussing first the idea, and then maybe later a draft, on the list before opening a PR here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since the whole document is providing guidance for participating in the process, the suggestion that the process should be followed does not strike me as controversial. I’d prefer to wrap on making changes, though, as every additional change resets prior ACKs. Would it be fine with you to relegate this to a follow-up?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
SGTM (for a possible follow-up).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great, thanks. I’ll leave this unresolved so it won’t be missed for the follow-up.
|
LGTM |
7 participants
This PR addresses feedback from the mailing list and a recent pull request to BIP 3. The following functional changes are made:
A Changelog section is added and backfilled, and a few editorial improvements are made. The Version header is omitted at this time, since it is not permitted under BIP 2.