Delivery-date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 16:47:05 -0700
Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jcv@netpurgatory.com designates 66.111.4.27 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.111.4.27;
Feedback-ID: i6b19477a:Fastmail
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 19:39:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: "John C. Vernaleo" <jcv@netpurgatory.com>
Reply-To: jcv@netpurgatory.com
To: Murch <murch@murch.one>
cc: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Re: Adding New BIP Editors
In-Reply-To: <52a0d792-d99f-4360-ba34-0b12de183fef@murch.one>
Message-ID: <84309c3f-e848-d333-fd28-bdd55899b713@netpurgatory.com>
References: <2092f7ff-4860-47f8-ba1a-c9d97927551e@achow101.com> <e4048607-64b7-4772-b74e-4566a4b50bc0n@googlegroups.com> <9288df7b-f2e9-4106-b843-c1ff8f8a62a3@dashjr.org> <42e6c1d1d39d811e2fe7c4c5ce6e09c705bd3dbb.camel@timruffing.de>
 <d1e7183c-30e6-4f1a-8fd6-cddc46f129a2n@googlegroups.com> <52a0d792-d99f-4360-ba34-0b12de183fef@murch.one>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="37792500-517051172-1711582744=:7420"
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--37792500-517051172-1711582744=:7420
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

For what it's worth, I strongly support Roasbeef as a candidate.

That said, I would find it helpful if someone could go through the thread=
=20
and list all the people who've been proposed so people know who they=20
should be thinking about.

-------------------------------------------------------
John C. Vernaleo, Ph.D.
www.netpurgatory.com
jcv@netpurgatory.com
-------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 27 Mar 2024, Murch wrote:

> Hey everyone,
>
> I wanted to check in on the topic adding BIP Editors. There seem to be a=
=20
> number of candidates that are willing and able, and there seems to be bro=
ad=20
> agreement among the current editor, the readers of the repository, and th=
e=20
> contributors to the repository that additional help is desirable.
>
> I have seen some support and reservations raised for pretty much every=20
> candidate. A few weeks have passed since this topic was last active. So f=
ar,=20
> there seems no clear path forward.
>
> If we are all just in a holding pattern, perhaps we could timebox this=20
> decision process: how about we invite arguments for and against any=20
> candidates in this thread until next Friday EOD (April 5th). If any=20
> candidates find broad support, those candidates could be added as new edi=
tors=20
> to the repository on the following Monday (April 8th). If none get broad=
=20
> support, at least we=E2=80=99d be able to move on and try something else.
>
> I propose that all editors share the same privileges, especially that any=
=20
> editor may assign numbers to BIPs. If there is guidance to be provided on=
 the=20
> process of assigning numbers and number ranges for specific topics, it sh=
ould=20
> be provided by then. If the editors decide on a single number authority a=
mong=20
> themselves, that would also be fine as long as it doesn=E2=80=99t become =
a=20
> bottleneck.
>
> As Tim and Chris have suggested, it seems reasonable to me that assessmen=
t of=20
> the technical soundness can be left to the audience. BIPs have been publi=
shed=20
> in the repository and set to the "rejected" status before, so it=E2=80=99=
s not as if=20
> adding a BIP to the repository is treated as an unequivocal endorsement o=
r=20
> implementation recommendation.
>
> Cheers,
> Murch
>
>
> On 3/14/24 07:56, Chris Stewart wrote:
>> I agree with Tim's thoughts here.
>>=20
>> I think Jon Atack, Reuben Somsen, Kanzure or Roasbeef would all make gre=
at
>> candidates.
>>=20
>> On Thursday, February 29, 2024 at 10:55:52=E2=80=AFAM UTC-6 Tim Ruffing =
wrote:
>>=20
>>> On Tue, 2024-02-27 at 17:40 -0500, Luke Dashjr wrote:
>>>> The hard part is evaluating
>>>> if the new proposal meets the criteria - which definitely needs dev
>>>> skills (mainly for technical soundness).
>>>=20
>>> I'm aware that checking technical soundness is in accordance with BIP2
>>> [1], but I believe that this is one of the main problems of the current
>>> process, and I can imagine that this is what eats the time of editors.
>>>=20
>>> I'd prefer a BIP process in which the editors merely check that the
>>> proposal is related to the Bitcoin ecosystem and meets some minimal
>>> formal criteria that we already enforce now (i.e., is a full self-
>>> contained document, has the required sections, etc...). This relieves
>>> the editors not just from the effort, but also from the responsibility
>>> to do so. Technical soundness should be evaluated by the audience of a
>>> BIP, not by the editor.
>>>=20
>>> Best,
>>> Tim
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> [1] BIP2 says:
>>> "For each new BIP that comes in an editor does the following:
>>>=20
>>> - Read the BIP to check if it is ready: sound and complete. The ideas
>>> must make technical sense, even if they don't seem likely to be
>>> accepted.
>>> [...]"
>
> --=20
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups=
=20
> "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an=
=20
> email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit=20
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/52a0d792-d99f-4360-ba34-0b12=
de183fef%40murch.one.
>

--=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/84309c3f-e848-d333-fd28-bdd55899b713%40netpurgatory.com.

--37792500-517051172-1711582744=:7420--