He points out that BIP editors do not act as gatekeepers for soft forks on the Bitcoin network nor do they have the authority to dictate what changes get implemented. Instead, their role is to ensure proposed changes to BIPs by authors are formatted correctly before merging. This clarification highlights a common misconception about the power and function of BIP editors in the decision-making process of Bitcoin's development.

Folkson further elaborates on the nature of BIPs, stating that the presence of a BIP does not inherently validate its quality or guarantee its implementation, especially in cases of forks. He notes that several proposals for both hard and soft forks have either been rejected or withdrawn even when they included deployment parameters. This indicates that the process of accepting or rejecting BIPs is complex and involves considerations beyond merely proposing or formatting changes correctly.

Moreover, Folkson expresses a preference for having deployment parameters specified within contentious soft fork BIPs. He argues that this approach, despite potentially leading to competing activation parameters across different BIPs, is beneficial for the ecosystem. It centralizes documentation, thereby simplifying the process for implementations to inform users about what has been implemented. This, in turn, allows users to make more informed decisions regarding the changes. The emphasis on clear, centralized documentation of deployment parameters underscores the importance of transparency and user education in the evolution of Bitcoin's protocol.