He references a blog article to support his point (link). The discussion then shifts to the role of non-English editors in the review process, indicating that their contribution could be valuable regardless of whether the task is administrative or editorial, provided there are minimal quality checks in place.

The conversation further explores the experience with the inheritance rule in bip125, noting that the process isn't significantly problematic as long as there are some editorial checks, especially as proposals move from being "proposed" to "final". Antoine observes that standards, not unique to BIP but also seen in BOLTs, evolve over time, necessitating amendments to enhance robustness. He questions whether the BIP process should proactively involve deprecating, obsoleting, or cleaning up standards similar to the IETF's approach, acknowledging this as a separate, extensive task.

Additionally, Antoine reflects on the BIP process, emphasizing the need to limit personal judgment by BIP editors, especially during times of unclear community consensus. He shares insights from past experiences regarding consensus activation or policy changes, advocating for a strategy of waiting and building more consensus rather than forcing decisions through. This perspective stems from observing the challenges and impatience encountered in championing changes within Bitcoin, including his own experiences.

Finally, while expressing technical conservatism, Antoine underscores the value of thorough review and feedback collection, especially concerning delicate changes. Despite sharing his opinion on the list of BIP candidates, he indicates a reluctance to further discuss the subject, citing a priority towards coding and reviewing work.