bip-biprevised: Address comments by Dave Scotese and Ryan Grant

1 files changed, 14 insertions, 5 deletions

diff --git a/bip-biprevised.mediawiki b/bip-biprevised.mediawiki
index 29de31a..b9efbc6 100644
--- a/bip-biprevised.mediawiki
+++ b/bip-biprevised.mediawiki
@@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ Software authors are encouraged to publish summaries of what BIPs their software
 
 ====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.
+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.
 
 ===Rationale===
 
@@ -76,26 +76,35 @@ What is the ideal percentage of listening nodes needed to adopt peer services pr
 
 * This is unknown, and set rather arbitrarily at this time. For a random selection of peers to have at least one other peer implementing the extension, 13% or more would be necessary, but nodes could continue to scan the network for such peers with perhaps some reasonable success. Furthermore, service bits exist to help identification upfront.
 
-Should two software projects need to release an implementation of API/RPC and application layer BIPs?
+Why is it necessary for at least two software projects to release an implementation of API/RPC and application layer BIPs, before they become Final?
 
-* With only one implementation of these, there is no other program for which a standard interface is used with or needed.
-* Even if there are only two projects, some standard coordination between them exists.
+* If there is only one implementation of a specification, there is no other program for which a standard interface is used with or needed.
+* Even if there are only two projects rather than more, some standard coordination between them exists.
+
+What if a BIP is proposed that only makes sense for a single specific project?
+
+* The BIP process exists for standardisation between independent projects. If something only affects one project, it should be done through that project's own internal processes, and never be proposed as a BIP in the first place.
 
 ==BIP comments==
 
 ===Specification===
 
-Each BIP should, in its preamble, link to a Bitcoin Wiki page with a summary tone of the comments on that page.
+Each BIP should, in its preamble, link to a Bitcoin Wiki page with a summary tone of the comments on that page. Reviewers of the BIP who consider themselves qualified, should post their own comments on this wiki page in [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Talk_pages#Editing_conventions_on_talk_pages standard "Talk page" format]. If a BIP is not yet completed, reviewers should plan to review the new version and remove or revise their comments as applicable, updating the timestamp in the review. Reviews made prior to the complete version may be removed if they are no longer applicable and have not been updated in a timely manner (eg, within one month).
 
 Pages must be named after the full BIP number (eg, "BIP 0001") and placed in the "BIP Comments" namespace. For example, the link for BIP 1 will be https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_Comments:BIP_0001 .
 
 Summary tones may be chosen from the following, but this BIP does not intend to cover all possible nuances:
 
+* No comments yet.
 * Unanimously Recommended for implementation
 * Unanimously Discourage for implementation
 * Mostly Recommended for implementation, with some Discouragement
 * Mostly Discouraged for implementation, with some Recommendation
 
+For example, the preamble to BIP 1 would be updated to include the (markup) line:
+
+    Comments: <nowiki>[https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_Comments:BIP_0001 No comments yet.]</nowiki>
+
 To avoid doubt: comments and status are unrelated metrics to judge a BIP, and neither should be directly influencing the other.
 
 ===Rationale===