About âa CHIP is not supposed to be the processâ:
I am in fact focusing this proposal around a process, because I think it is the most important part. The formatting is secondary to the process. Recommending a decisionmaking process that has clear milestones, outcomes and expected information along the way can prevent chaos, and the formatting I attached is just things I expect out of a persuasive proposal in that process. People can and likely will add their own spice to the format.
But my point is, formatting guidelines by themselves donât do very much. A âcleanâ formatting template might be convenient (see also !1, which I need to get to), but they are not the meat of the document either way.
If someone wants to make amends to the formatting, Iâm quite open to them! But if the request is instead âletâs not recommend a process here at allâ, then that removes the primary reason, in my opinion, of this whole effort. Iâm aware that different people have different understanding about what this specific thing named âCHIPâ should or should not be, and I appreciate that; but Iâm going to focus on what seems (to me) to be the most important thing out of this endeavor. If the criticism is that it really should be called something else, Iâm open to suggestions. Cash Improvement Processes (CHIPRs)?
About âoperational CHIPsâ , or CHIPs on things that are not consensus (or pseudo-consensus, like mempool-policy and network protocol):
Donât get me wrong, Iâm not against them existing, or being discussed, or using this specific format for discussion! I think I need to get that out of the way, so that itâs not misunderstood down the line.
With that said, I tried to focus my effort around consensus/pseudo-consensus proposals because:
-
They are the most consequential, where failure to reach wide agreement can/will actually lead to network splits.
-
Conveniently they are also the most amenable to clear milestones and outcomes in most cases without costly elections. Clear information at each step and unambiguous outcomes are necessary, in my opinion, for a process to be meaningful.
Consider a âmarketing CHIPâ that proposes âChange the official BCH color to purpleâ. One can probably list lots of information in a similar format, but end of the day, itâll be exceptionally difficult to have a clear outcome. If it cannot have a clear outcome, then it doesnât need the relatively elaborate process Iâm proposing here.
Q: But wait, I just want to use this format to write a proposal since I like it! I donât care about the process!
A: You can already do that! 
Q: Alright, yes I can. But if you donât designate them as an âexplicitly recognized classâ of CHIPs, wouldnât the repositories just ignore them, hence my proposal wonât get the exposure it needs?
A: I donât have any objection about the inevitable repositories that crop up listing any category they want - imo it should be up to each repository. In fact, since having more things listed tend to bring more traffic than less things, I expect many of them to do so!
I think end of the day, the difference is really in emphasis: My primary goal is an orderly process of change that minimizes possibility of split, chaos, dictatorship, and ossification, so the outcome is that my document is oriented around consensus changes and the process, instead of âresolving differences in generalâ and formatting guidelines. The good news, of course, is that people with different understandings can easily improve in their own ways without even conflicting⌠unless itâs about naming, I guess. 
