Delivery-date: Wed, 03 Apr 2024 08:13:14 -0700
Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of murch@murch.one designates 185.26.156.235 as permitted sender) client-ip=185.26.156.235;
Message-ID: <c304a456-b15f-4544-8f86-d4a17fb0aa8c@murch.one>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 11:03:27 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Re: Adding New BIP Editors
Content-Language: en-US
To: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
References: <2092f7ff-4860-47f8-ba1a-c9d97927551e@achow101.com>
 <d1e7183c-30e6-4f1a-8fd6-cddc46f129a2n@googlegroups.com>
 <52a0d792-d99f-4360-ba34-0b12de183fef@murch.one>
 <84309c3f-e848-d333-fd28-bdd55899b713@netpurgatory.com>
 <9baa15e4-062d-478f-8c87-8ff19ab79989@murch.one>
 <4c1462b7-ea1c-4a36-be81-7c3719157fabn@googlegroups.com>
 <6806b22d-043d-4201-841a-95e17cd8d542@mattcorallo.com>
 <77554baa9330c57361c65c1fc85557f1@dtrt.org>
 <cbb0b74f-c60b-4c8a-9e97-9b1c0e0eb047n@googlegroups.com>
 <f14cf0de-20f2-4786-bb92-d686a73c1218@achow101.com>
 <16a728e9-e987-4e7b-bace-2629143d173fn@googlegroups.com>
 <64FDB7CF-CBFB-416D-8BCF-2DC50CD2E4B7@dashjr.org>
 <a18850ec-4659-4683-8e50-9758a7f431can@googlegroups.com>
 <847D8B06-9F61-4515-B6B2-6093E7F7A80D@dashjr.org>
From: Murch <murch@murch.one>
In-Reply-To: <847D8B06-9F61-4515-B6B2-6093E7F7A80D@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com

The BIP repository situation has been an on-going source of frustration=20
for an extended period of time, leading e.g. to Kalle being added as an=20
additional editor three years ago, and AJ created the BINANA repository=20
almost three months ago. Hence, I am not in a particular rush or=20
invested in the timeline of my casual proposal. My main goal was to=20
restart progress on the topic. However, I would prefer if objections=20
were accompanied by a concrete actionable alternatives as we will=20
otherwise just get bogged down again.

Given the concerns with the timeline, I propose that we extend the=20
timebox by another two weeks to solicit comments on editor candidates=20
until the 19th of April and aim to add more editors around the 22nd.=20
These dates would put the end of the comment period well after the Core=20
Dev meeting. If you have other concrete reasons why this timeline is=20
unreasonable, please state your reasons _and provide an alternative=20
proposal.

I agree though, that the discussion of adding additional editors and the=20
discussion of changing the process are two separate topics and should=20
not be intermingled.

Best,

Murch

On 4/2/24 11:39, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> On the timeline, there has already been a very reasonable objection raise=
d by Antoine. I'm also unlikely to be available around that time (and throu=
gh the weekend) to actually do it. So it'll need to be next week at the ear=
liest, but I don't see a problem with closer to May if that's important to =
some.
>=20
> Luke

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/=
bitcoindev/c304a456-b15f-4544-8f86-d4a17fb0aa8c%40murch.one.