Michael Folkson clarifies that modifications to a BIP are subject to the same rigorous standards as the initial proposal, emphasizing that these standards revolve primarily around formatting and maintaining BIPs as technical specifications. He asserts that any modifications must align with these requirements for BIP editors to consider merging them. Folkson also delineates the boundaries of what BIPs should entail, stating explicitly that BIPs are not vehicles for personal opinions or speculations about their activation or implementation. Such content is deemed off-topic for BIPs and fails to meet the criteria for merging.

Folkson counters accusations from Riard by explaining that his stance has been misconstrued and simplified to an incorrect interpretation. He refutes the claim that he suggested BIP authors have carte blanche once they are assigned a BIP number or that BIP editors lack the authority to enforce standards. In response to Riard's approach to the debate, Folkson advises revisiting the thread on refining the BIP process for a clearer understanding of the criteria for merging modifications. He expresses frustration with Riard's arguments, labeling them as unfounded and obstructive, and concludes by questioning the productivity of continuing the exchange. This dialogue underscores the importance of clarity, adherence to established standards, and constructive discourse in the development and modification of BIPs.