Hi /dev/fd0, I do not think the segwit support page serves as a suitable template for building rough consensus, in general and for covenants in particular. It lacks key characteristics that would help in (rough) consensus building as outlined in RFC 7282 [0] (which I strongly recommend reading).
I propose the following changes: 1. Separate Technical Evaluation from Community Support The ratings "Deficient" and "Wanting" are supposed to be assigned when a proposal considered to have insufficient community support. This creates a circular problem: the wiki page is meant to help build community support, but the ratings already assume certain levels of support. This makes the ratings less useful and risks creating self-fulfilling prophecies. A simple solution would be to remove the "Wanting" and "Deficient" categories. 2. Require Stating Reasons for Objections As RFC 7282 states: > Remember, coming to consensus is a matter of eliminating disagreement. To achieve this, we need to clearly state objections to enable a meaningful discussion. Each "No" rating should include a link to a mailing list post or similar document that explicitly states the objection, covering aspects such as technical deficiencies, likelihood of widespread adoption, and impact on decentralization. > Then, the purported failings > of the choice can be examined by the working group. The objector > might convince the rest of the group that the objections are valid > and the working group might choose a different path. Conversely, the > working group might convince the objector that the concerns can be > addressed, or that the choice is simply unappealing (i.e., something > the objector can "live with") and not a show-stopper. Because there is no working group making decisions in Bitcoin, community members must individually assess whether proposals have achieved rough developer consensus. Developers giving positive technical evaluations are also encouraged to share their reasoning, as this can help inform others' assessments. 3. Add Links to BIP Drafts All opcodes mentioned on the wiki page presumably have corresponding draft BIPs. These should be linked to provide a clear basis for technical evaluation. [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/941b8c22-0b2c-4734-af87-00f034d79e2e%40gmail.com.
