Fine by me to update BIP68 and BIP112 to Final status. The forks have
activated.

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:

> Daniel Cousens opened the issue a few weeks ago, that BIP 9 should
> progress to
> Accepted stage. However, as an informational BIP, it is not entirely clear
> on
> whether it falls in the Draft/Accepted/Final classification of proposals
> requiring implementation, or the Draft/Active classification like process
> BIPs. Background of this discussion is at:
>     https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/413
> (Discussion on the GitHub BIPs repo is *NOT* recommended, hence bringing
> this
> topic to the mailing list)
>
> Reviewing the criteria for status changes, my opinion is that:
> - BIPs 68, 112, 113, and 141 are themselves implementations of BIP 9
> -- therefore, BIP 9 falls under the Draft/Accepted/Final class
> - BIPs 68, 112, and 113 have been deployed to the network successfully
> -- therefore, BIP 9 has satisfied the conditions of not only Accepted
> status,
>    but also Final status
> -- therefore, BIPs 68, 112, and 113 also ought to be Final status
>
> If there are no objections, I plan to update the status to Final for BIPs
> 9,
> 68, 112, and 113 in one month. Since all four BIPs are currently Draft, I
> also
> need at least one author from each BIP to sign-off on promoting them to
> (and
> beyond) Accepted.
>
> BIP   9: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
>          Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
>          Greg Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
>          Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
>
> BIP  68: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
>          BtcDrak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
>          Nicolas Dorier <nicolas.dorier@gmail.com>
>          kinoshitajona <kinoshitajona@gmail.com>
>
> BIP 112: BtcDrak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
>          Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
>          Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
>
> BIP 113: Thomas Kerin <me@thomaskerin.io>
>          Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
>