ZIP-0001 (the ZIP process itself) has been discussed across a few threads over time. This post is meant to bring that discussion back into one place, get it moving again, and align on next steps.
I compared ZIP-0001 draft against BIP-1. There are a few gaps worth noting:
No implementation requirement. BIP-1 requires a working reference implementation before a Standards Track BIP reaches Final. ZIP-1 has no equivalent gate for Official status.
No “vet before drafting” step. BIP-1 has authors informally float an idea publicly before writing the full draft, to avoid wasted effort. ZIP-1 goes straight from draft to formal NIP-34 submission with no pre-check step.
No explicit rejection criteria. BIP-1 lists concrete reasons an editor can reject a proposal (duplication, unfocused, technically unsound, missing motivation/backwards-compat). ZIP-1 only says maintainers judge “completeness, well-specified, rough consensus” — vaguer, likely to cause disputes later.
No single-idea-per-proposal guidance. BIP-1 recommends splitting unfocused proposals into separate ones. Not addressed in ZIP-1.
No ownership transfer process. BIP-1 covers what happens when an author goes inactive and someone else wants to take over. ZIP-1 has no equivalent, worth having given Nostr-key authorship.
No “Deferred” status. BIP-1 has a status for stalled proposals. ZIP-1’s status list (Draft/Proposed/Official/Rejected/Withdrawn/Superseded) has no way to flag “stalled, not dead.”
Recommended sections listed but not defined. BIP-1 explains what belongs in each section (Motivation, Rationale, Backwards Compatibility, etc.). ZIP-1 just names them.
No title length limit or asset file-naming convention. Minor, but BIP-1 specifies both.
Maybe some of these items will be more important if and when people starting looking at ZIPs. Until then some of these could be overkill.