> 1. Separate Technical Evaluation from Community Support
> A simple solution would be to remove the "Wanting" and "Deficient"
categories.

There are 7 options available to share opinion on an opcode and only 2 include community support. If a developer wants to ACK a proposal it is possible to use to 'prefer' or 'acceptable' and 'no' for NACK.

We have already changed definition for 3 categories. I removed community support from 'no' and moonsettler rephrased 'prefer' and 'evaluating'. Removing some categories at this point breaks the whole table.

At the end of the day bitcoin developers build for community so if someone wants to play safe and use 'deficient' and 'wanting', its their choice and I think we should allow such freedom to express themselves.

> 2. Require Stating Reasons for Objections

A column for adding a link to rationale will be added this weekend. I had tweeted about it but forgot to update the mailing list thread.

> 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.

I agree with you on this and I have requested everyone to respond to this thread.

> 3. Add Links to BIP Drafts

I have added the links to BIP drafts for all opcodes.

On Saturday, December 7, 2024 at 4:18:21 AM UTC+5:30 Jonas Nick wrote:

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