For clarity, this is a discussion on the BEP-0001 BONSAI (BEP) Enhancement Proposal Template.
The following is a follow up of the discussion started (wrongly) here
, where I proposed to include in the template a short description for the procedure to actually implement/reject modifications to the BEPs.
Following Chris' input, I'd summarize the procedure that could be mentioned (depending on the type of BEP) in this proposal as:
- BEP result of working groups already reflect some level of consensus, and will have a history of how the specifics came to be. In this case the group is the primary and preliminary place for discussing the proposal, before it is made public.
- Once the BEP is public, the authors will implement the suggested changes that they do not object or motivate the rejection on the respective BEP discussion list. Since the proposal has to be agreed by the broader community, it is in the interest of the authors to agree to reasonable change requests - otherwise the proposal won't survive a vote.
- Depending on the BEP. the author may chose to invite anyone to suggest a change (via pull request, not a half-baked idea via email) that will be voted by the community. This could lead to vote overload and it should therefore be used only when necessary. Fewer votes would mean that people pay more attention when they come up.
- The author or the editor may invite the participant in the discussion to a call with the objective to reach consensus if this has not been reached yet in the within agreed or due time (a proposal on adding a default discussion time was made here).