Delivery-date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 11:31:21 -0700
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lists@achow101.com designates 185.70.40.136 as permitted sender) client-ip=185.70.40.136;
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 17:01:44 +0000
To: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
From: "'Ava Chow' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List" <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Re: Adding New BIP Editors
Message-ID: <ae482890-bce3-468f-866d-c555b80b0644@achow101.com>
In-Reply-To: <52a0d792-d99f-4360-ba34-0b12de183fef@murch.one>
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>
Feedback-ID: 53660394:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Reply-To: Ava Chow <lists@achow101.com>
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com

Thanks for bringing this back up again. I agree that we should try to=20
move forward on this, and this timeline seems reasonable to me.

Kanzure, Ruben, Roasbeef, Murch, and Jonatack all have my support to be=20
BIP editors with all privileges and responsibilities as laid out in BIP 2.

Regarding guidance on assigning BIP numbers, if there is no guidance=20
provided by Luke to the new BIP editors when their permissions are=20
granted, I would also support simply creating their own numbering scheme=20
and begin assigning new BIP numbers. It's ridiculous that we should be=20
bottlenecked on simply what number a proposal should have.

Ava

On 03/27/2024 05:25 PM, Murch wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>=20
> I wanted to check in on the topic adding BIP Editors. There seem to be a
> number of candidates that are willing and able, and there seems to be
> broad agreement among the current editor, the readers of the repository,
> and the contributors to the repository that additional help is desirable.
>=20
> I have seen some support and reservations raised for pretty much every
> candidate. A few weeks have passed since this topic was last active. So
> far, there seems no clear path forward.
>=20
> If we are all just in a holding pattern, perhaps we could timebox this
> decision process: how about we invite arguments for and against any
> candidates in this thread until next Friday EOD (April 5th). If any
> candidates find broad support, those candidates could be added as new
> editors to the repository on the following Monday (April 8th). If none
> get broad support, at least we=E2=80=99d be able to move on and try somet=
hing else.
>=20
> I propose that all editors share the same privileges, especially that
> any editor may assign numbers to BIPs. If there is guidance to be
> provided on the process of assigning numbers and number ranges for
> specific topics, it should be provided by then. If the editors decide on
> a single number authority among themselves, that would also be fine as
> long as it doesn=E2=80=99t become a bottleneck.
>=20
> As Tim and Chris have suggested, it seems reasonable to me that
> assessment of the technical soundness can be left to the audience. BIPs
> have been published in the repository and set to the "rejected" status
> before, so it=E2=80=99s not as if adding a BIP to the repository is treat=
ed as
> an unequivocal endorsement or implementation recommendation.
>=20
> Cheers,
> Murch
>=20
>=20
> On 3/14/24 07:56, Chris Stewart wrote:
>> I agree with Tim's thoughts here.
>>
>> I think Jon Atack, Reuben Somsen, Kanzure or Roasbeef would all make gre=
at
>> candidates.
>>
>> On Thursday, February 29, 2024 at 10:55:52=E2=80=AFAM UTC-6 Tim Ruffing =
wrote:
>>
>>> 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).
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Tim
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] BIP2 says:
>>> "For each new BIP that comes in an editor does the following:
>>>
>>> - 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=
 "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an=
 email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgi=
d/bitcoindev/52a0d792-d99f-4360-ba34-0b12de183fef%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/ae482890-bce3-468f-866d-c555b80b0644%40achow101.com.