From 8c50a8012ea4fcabf35f06683d7859c0bcef8e6c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Luke Dashjr <luke-jr+git@utopios.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 00:18:02 +0000
Subject: bip-0002: Rewrite Abstract, and move rationale previously included in
 it to the applicable Rationale sections

---
 bip-0002.mediawiki | 21 ++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

(limited to 'bip-0002.mediawiki')

diff --git a/bip-0002.mediawiki b/bip-0002.mediawiki
index 6690bc2..4d3bab0 100644
--- a/bip-0002.mediawiki
+++ b/bip-0002.mediawiki
@@ -9,10 +9,7 @@
 
 ==Abstract==
 
-BIP 1 defines an ambiguous criteria for the Status field of BIPs, which is often a source of confusion.
-Additionally, some BIPs have been adopted which are deemed unadvisable or unsafe by experts in the field, and there is no indication of this at present.
-Finally, BIP 1 only allows a single copyright license generally considered deprecated, or publication under the public domain (which is not legally recognised in all jurisdictions).
-This BIP intends to address these problems by more specifically defining the Status field, recommending a forum for people to comment on BIPs, and expanding the list of allowable BIP licenses.
+This BIP describes objective criteria that can be used to determine when a BIP Status should be changed, to ensure it is a reliable metric documenting actual usage of the proposal. It also adds a way for final comment on completed BIPs, by adding to them a reference to a wiki page and summary of the tone thereof. Finally, it extends the list of allowable BIP licenses to include many more popular options.
 
 ==Copyright==
 
@@ -52,6 +49,10 @@ These criteria are considered objective ways to observe the de facto adoption of
 
 ===Rationale===
 
+Why is this necessary at all?
+
+* BIP 1 defines an ambiguous criteria for the Status field of BIPs, which is often a source of confusion. As a result, many BIPs with significant real-world use have been left as Draft or Accepted status longer than appropriate. By giving objective criteria to judge the progression of BIPs, this proposal aims to help keep the Status accurate and up-to-date.
+
 How is the entire Bitcoin economy defined by people selling goods/services and holders?
 
 * For Bitcoin to function as a currency, it must be accepted as payment. Bitcoins have no value if you cannot acquire anything in exchange for them. If everyone accepting such payments requires a particular set of consensus rules, "bitcoins" are de facto defined by that set of rules - this is already the case today. If those consensus rules are expected to broaden (as with a hard-fork), those merchants need to accept payments made under the new set of rules, or they will reject "bitcoins" as invalid. Holders are relevant to the degree in that they choose the merchants they wish to spend their bitcoins with, and could also as a whole decide to sell under one set of consensus rules or the other, thus flooding the market with bitcoins and crashing the price.
@@ -65,7 +66,7 @@ Why aren't <x> included in the economy?
 
 But they're doing something important and have invested a lot in Bitcoin! Shouldn't they be included in such an important decision?
 
-* This BIP does not aim to address what "should" be the basis of decisions. Such a statement, no matter how perfect in its justification, would be futile without some way to enforce it. The BIP process does not aim to be a kind of "governance" of Bitcoin, merely to provide a collaborative repository for proposing and providing information on standards. It can only hope to achieve accuracy in regard to the "Status" field by striving to reflect the reality of *how things actually are*, rather than *how they should be*.
+* This BIP does not aim to address what "should" be the basis of decisions. Such a statement, no matter how perfect in its justification, would be futile without some way to force others to use it. The BIP process does not aim to be a kind of forceful "governance" of Bitcoin, merely to provide a collaborative repository for proposing and providing information on standards, which people may voluntarily adopt or not. It can only hope to achieve accuracy in regard to the "Status" field by striving to reflect the reality of *how things actually are*, rather than *how they should be*.
 
 How can economic agreement veto a soft-fork?
 
@@ -120,6 +121,10 @@ To avoid doubt: comments and status are unrelated metrics to judge a BIP, and ne
 
 ===Rationale===
 
+What is the purpose of BIP comments?
+
+* Various BIPs have been adopted (the criteria required for "Final" Status) despite being considered generally inadvisable. Some presently regard BIPs as a "good idea" simply by virtue of them being assigned a BIP number. Due to the low barrier of entry for submission of new BIPs, it seems advisable for a way for reviewers to express their opinions on them in a way that is consumable to the public without needing to review the entire development discussion.
+
 Will BIP comments be censored or limited to particular participants/"experts"?
 
 * The Bitcoin Wiki moderators have control over that venue and may make reasonable moderation attempts. Admitted non-experts should refrain from commenting outside of their area of knowledge. However, comments should not be censored, and participation should be open to the public.
@@ -155,6 +160,12 @@ In addition, it is recommended that literal code included in the BIP be dual-lic
 
 ===Rationale===
 
+BIP 1 allowed the Open Publication License or releasing into the public domain; was this insufficient?
+
+* The OPL is generally regarded as obsolete, and not a license suitable for new publications.
+* Many are unfamiliar with the OPL terms, and may just prefer to use the public domain rather than license under uncertain terms.
+* Public domain is not universally recognised as a legitimate action, thus it is inadvisable.
+
 Why are there software licenses included?
 
 * Some BIPs, especially consensus layer, may include literal code in the BIP itself which may not be available under the exact license terms of the BIP.
-- 
cgit v1.2.3

