The current practice entails editors rigorously assessing new BIPs for their technical soundness and completeness before they proceed further in the evaluation process. This includes a thorough review to ensure that the ideas not only are logically sound but also appear sufficiently comprehensive, regardless of their potential for acceptance.

The proposed change suggests a significant shift in the responsibilities of BIP editors. Rather than delving deeply into the technical merits of each proposal, the suggestion is for editors to focus on ensuring that submissions are relevant to the Bitcoin ecosystem and adhere to established formal criteria. These criteria include confirming that the document is self-contained and includes all necessary sections as currently required. This adjustment aims to alleviate the burden on editors by removing the onus of validating technical soundness, thereby expediting the review process.

This approach advocates for the technical evaluation of BIPs to be conducted by the broader audience or community involved with Bitcoin, rather than by a select group of editors. This not only has the potential to speed up the editorial process but also democratizes the assessment of technical viability, leveraging the collective expertise of the community. The underlying belief is that this method could foster a more efficient and inclusive process for considering improvements to Bitcoin's infrastructure.