bip-biprevised: Clarify informational nature of Final status change criteria

1 files changed, 2 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/bip-biprevised.mediawiki b/bip-biprevised.mediawiki
index 7c75995..174c9f9 100644
--- a/bip-biprevised.mediawiki
+++ b/bip-biprevised.mediawiki
@@ -47,6 +47,8 @@ API/RPC and application layer BIPs must be implemented by at least two independe
 
 Software authors are encouraged to publish summaries of what BIPs their software supports to aid in verification of status changes. Good examples of this at the time of writing this BIP, can be observed in [https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/bips.md Bitcoin Core's doc/bips.md file] as well as [https://github.com/schildbach/bitcoin-wallet/blob/master/wallet/README.specs Bitcoin Wallet for Android's wallet/README.specs file].
 
+These criteria are considered objective ways to observe the de facto adoption of the BIP, and are not to be used as reasons to oppose or reject a BIP. Should a BIP become actually and unambiguously adopted despite not meeting the criteria outlined here, it should still be updated to Final status.
+
 ====Formally defining consensus====
 
 A proposal is said to have achieved consensus if it has been open to discussion in applicable forums for communication for at least one month, and has not maintained any substantiated objection by any person. Should objections to be made on a strictly obstructive basis, those obstructing may be ignored/overruled by agreement that they are merely being obstructive from all other persons involved in the discussion. Objections are assumed to be either substantiated or obstructive, and when giving a determination of an objection being obstructive, clear reasoning must be offered.