Delivery-date: Mon, 01 Apr 2024 02:11:37 -0700
Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 23:21:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: /dev /fd0 <alicexbtong@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
Message-Id: <4884f5b9-69d5-45be-90d2-7369784ddd72n@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <ae482890-bce3-468f-866d-c555b80b0644@achow101.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>
 <ae482890-bce3-468f-866d-c555b80b0644@achow101.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Re: Adding New BIP Editors
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
	boundary="----=_Part_47922_1388235769.1711952515925"
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com

------=_Part_47922_1388235769.1711952515925
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_47923_2145405114.1711952515925"

------=_Part_47923_2145405114.1711952515925
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

An alternative approach for BIP numbers:

1. A bot assigns a temporary number to each pull request opened with "NEW:"=
=20
in title based on GitHub pull request number and append B in front of it.=
=20
Example: B1551
2. BIP editors and others could review to improve the BIP documentation.=20
BIP author can use this number for the BIP until pull request is open.
3. Once the pull request is merged, it is assigned a permanent number which=
=20
can be used to refer this doc in future.

Both numbers would stay relevant and if someone is not aware of permanent=
=20
number, they could easily check it by opening pull request.

Other things CI can be used for:
- Automated grammar check when pull request is opened/re-opened
- Publish a copy of BIP as torrent or nostr event etc. when pull request is=
=20
merged

/dev/fd0
floppy disk guy

On Sunday, March 31, 2024 at 6:31:14=E2=80=AFPM UTC Ava Chow wrote:

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.=20

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.=
=20

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.=20

Ava=20

On 03/27/2024 05:25 PM, Murch wrote:=20
> Hey everyone,=20
>=20
> 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=20
> broad agreement among the current editor, the readers of the repository,=
=20
> and the contributors to the repository that additional help is desirable.=
=20
>=20
> 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=
=20
> far, there seems no clear path forward.=20
>=20
> 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=20
> editors to the repository on the following Monday (April 8th). If none=20
> get broad support, at least we=E2=80=99d be able to move on and try somet=
hing=20
else.=20
>=20
> I propose that all editors share the same privileges, especially that=20
> any editor may assign numbers to BIPs. If there is guidance to be=20
> provided on the process of assigning numbers and number ranges for=20
> specific topics, it should be provided by then. If the editors decide on=
=20
> a single number authority among themselves, that would also be fine as=20
> long as it doesn=E2=80=99t become a bottleneck.=20
>=20
> As Tim and Chris have suggested, it seems reasonable to me that=20
> assessment of the technical soundness can be left to the audience. BIPs=
=20
> have been published in the repository and set to the "rejected" status=20
> before, so it=E2=80=99s not as if adding a BIP to the repository is treat=
ed as=20
> an unequivocal endorsement or implementation recommendation.=20
>=20
> Cheers,=20
> Murch=20
>=20
>=20
> On 3/14/24 07:56, Chris Stewart wrote:=20
>> I agree with Tim's thoughts here.=20
>>=20
>> I think Jon Atack, Reuben Somsen, Kanzure or Roasbeef would all make=20
great=20
>> candidates.=20
>>=20
>> On Thursday, February 29, 2024 at 10:55:52=E2=80=AFAM UTC-6 Tim Ruffing =
wrote:=20
>>=20
>>> On Tue, 2024-02-27 at 17:40 -0500, Luke Dashjr wrote:=20
>>>> The hard part is evaluating=20
>>>> if the new proposal meets the criteria - which definitely needs dev=20
>>>> skills (mainly for technical soundness).=20
>>>=20
>>> I'm aware that checking technical soundness is in accordance with BIP2=
=20
>>> [1], but I believe that this is one of the main problems of the current=
=20
>>> process, and I can imagine that this is what eats the time of editors.=
=20
>>>=20
>>> I'd prefer a BIP process in which the editors merely check that the=20
>>> proposal is related to the Bitcoin ecosystem and meets some minimal=20
>>> formal criteria that we already enforce now (i.e., is a full self-=20
>>> contained document, has the required sections, etc...). This relieves=
=20
>>> the editors not just from the effort, but also from the responsibility=
=20
>>> to do so. Technical soundness should be evaluated by the audience of a=
=20
>>> BIP, not by the editor.=20
>>>=20
>>> Best,=20
>>> Tim=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> [1] BIP2 says:=20
>>> "For each new BIP that comes in an editor does the following:=20
>>>=20
>>> - Read the BIP to check if it is ready: sound and complete. The ideas=
=20
>>> must make technical sense, even if they don't seem likely to be=20
>>> accepted.=20
>>> [...]"=20
>=20
> --=20
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups=
=20
"Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.=20
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an=
=20
email to bitcoindev+...@googlegroups.com.=20
> To view this discussion on the web visit=20
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/52a0d792-d99f-4360-ba34-0b12de=
183fef%40murch.one.=20


--=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/4884f5b9-69d5-45be-90d2-7369784ddd72n%40googlegroups.com.

------=_Part_47923_2145405114.1711952515925
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

An alternative approach for BIP numbers:<div><br /></div><div>1. A bot assi=
gns a temporary number to each pull request opened with "NEW:" in title bas=
ed on GitHub pull request number and append B in front of it. Example: B155=
1</div><div>2. BIP editors and others could review to improve the BIP docum=
entation. BIP author can use this number for the BIP until pull request is =
open.</div><div>3. Once the pull request is merged, it is assigned a perman=
ent number which can be used to refer this doc in future.</div><div><br /><=
/div><div>Both numbers would stay relevant and if someone is not aware of p=
ermanent number, they could easily check it by opening pull request.</div><=
div><br /></div><div>Other things CI can be used for:</div><div>- Automated=
 grammar check when pull request is opened/re-opened</div><div>- Publish a =
copy of BIP as torrent or nostr event etc. when pull request is merged</div=
><div><br /></div><div>/dev/fd0</div><div>floppy disk guy<br /><br /><div><=
div dir=3D"auto">On Sunday, March 31, 2024 at 6:31:14=E2=80=AFPM UTC Ava Ch=
ow wrote:<br /></div><blockquote style=3D"margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border=
-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">Thanks for bringin=
g this back up again. I agree that we should try to=20
<br />move forward on this, and this timeline seems reasonable to me.
<br />
<br />Kanzure, Ruben, Roasbeef, Murch, and Jonatack all have my support to =
be=20
<br />BIP editors with all privileges and responsibilities as laid out in B=
IP 2.
<br />
<br />Regarding guidance on assigning BIP numbers, if there is no guidance=
=20
<br />provided by Luke to the new BIP editors when their permissions are=20
<br />granted, I would also support simply creating their own numbering sch=
eme=20
<br />and begin assigning new BIP numbers. It's ridiculous that we should b=
e=20
<br />bottlenecked on simply what number a proposal should have.
<br />
<br />Ava
<br />
<br />On 03/27/2024 05:25 PM, Murch wrote:
<br />&gt; Hey everyone,
<br />&gt;=20
<br />&gt; I wanted to check in on the topic adding BIP Editors. There seem=
 to be a
<br />&gt; number of candidates that are willing and able, and there seems =
to be
<br />&gt; broad agreement among the current editor, the readers of the rep=
ository,
<br />&gt; and the contributors to the repository that additional help is d=
esirable.
<br />&gt;=20
<br />&gt; I have seen some support and reservations raised for pretty much=
 every
<br />&gt; candidate. A few weeks have passed since this topic was last act=
ive. So
<br />&gt; far, there seems no clear path forward.
<br />&gt;=20
<br />&gt; If we are all just in a holding pattern, perhaps we could timebo=
x this
<br />&gt; decision process: how about we invite arguments for and against =
any
<br />&gt; candidates in this thread until next Friday EOD (April 5th). If =
any
<br />&gt; candidates find broad support, those candidates could be added a=
s new
<br />&gt; editors to the repository on the following Monday (April 8th). I=
f none
<br />&gt; get broad support, at least we=E2=80=99d be able to move on and =
try something else.
<br />&gt;=20
<br />&gt; I propose that all editors share the same privileges, especially=
 that
<br />&gt; any editor may assign numbers to BIPs. If there is guidance to b=
e
<br />&gt; provided on the process of assigning numbers and number ranges f=
or
<br />&gt; specific topics, it should be provided by then. If the editors d=
ecide on
<br />&gt; a single number authority among themselves, that would also be f=
ine as
<br />&gt; long as it doesn=E2=80=99t become a bottleneck.
<br />&gt;=20
<br />&gt; As Tim and Chris have suggested, it seems reasonable to me that
<br />&gt; assessment of the technical soundness can be left to the audienc=
e. BIPs
<br />&gt; have been published in the repository and set to the "rejected" =
status
<br />&gt; before, so it=E2=80=99s not as if adding a BIP to the repository=
 is treated as
<br />&gt; an unequivocal endorsement or implementation recommendation.
<br />&gt;=20
<br />&gt; Cheers,
<br />&gt; Murch
<br />&gt;=20
<br />&gt;=20
<br />&gt; On 3/14/24 07:56, Chris Stewart wrote:
<br />&gt;&gt; I agree with Tim's thoughts here.
<br />&gt;&gt;
<br />&gt;&gt; I think Jon Atack, Reuben Somsen, Kanzure or Roasbeef would =
all make great
<br />&gt;&gt; candidates.
<br />&gt;&gt;
<br />&gt;&gt; On Thursday, February 29, 2024 at 10:55:52=E2=80=AFAM UTC-6 =
Tim Ruffing wrote:
<br />&gt;&gt;
<br />&gt;&gt;&gt; On Tue, 2024-02-27 at 17:40 -0500, Luke Dashjr wrote:
<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; The hard part is evaluating
<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; if the new proposal meets the criteria - which defin=
itely needs dev
<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; skills (mainly for technical soundness).
<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;
<br />&gt;&gt;&gt; I'm aware that checking technical soundness is in accord=
ance with BIP2
<br />&gt;&gt;&gt; [1], but I believe that this is one of the main problems=
 of the current
<br />&gt;&gt;&gt; process, and I can imagine that this is what eats the ti=
me of editors.
<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;
<br />&gt;&gt;&gt; I'd prefer a BIP process in which the editors merely che=
ck that the
<br />&gt;&gt;&gt; proposal is related to the Bitcoin ecosystem and meets s=
ome minimal
<br />&gt;&gt;&gt; formal criteria that we already enforce now (i.e., is a =
full self-
<br />&gt;&gt;&gt; contained document, has the required sections, etc...). =
This relieves
<br />&gt;&gt;&gt; the editors not just from the effort, but also from the =
responsibility
<br />&gt;&gt;&gt; to do so. Technical soundness should be evaluated by the=
 audience of a
<br />&gt;&gt;&gt; BIP, not by the editor.
<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;
<br />&gt;&gt;&gt; Best,
<br />&gt;&gt;&gt; Tim
<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;
<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;
<br />&gt;&gt;&gt; [1] BIP2 says:
<br />&gt;&gt;&gt; "For each new BIP that comes in an editor does the follo=
wing:
<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;
<br />&gt;&gt;&gt; - Read the BIP to check if it is ready: sound and comple=
te. The ideas
<br />&gt;&gt;&gt; must make technical sense, even if they don't seem likel=
y to be
<br />&gt;&gt;&gt; accepted.
<br />&gt;&gt;&gt; [...]"
<br />&gt;=20
<br />&gt; --
<br />&gt; You received this message because you are subscribed to the Goog=
le Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
<br />&gt; To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it=
, send an email to <a href=3D"" rel=3D"nofollow">bitcoindev+...@googlegroup=
s.com</a>.
<br />&gt; To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://grou=
ps.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/52a0d792-d99f-4360-ba34-0b12de183fef%40mur=
ch.one" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"nofollow">https://groups.google.com/d/msgi=
d/bitcoindev/52a0d792-d99f-4360-ba34-0b12de183fef%40murch.one</a>.
<br />
<br /></blockquote></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">bitcoind=
ev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/d/msgid/bitcoindev/4884f5b9-69d5-45be-90d2-7369784ddd72n%40googlegroups.=
com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.com/d/msg=
id/bitcoindev/4884f5b9-69d5-45be-90d2-7369784ddd72n%40googlegroups.com</a>.=
<br />

------=_Part_47923_2145405114.1711952515925--

------=_Part_47922_1388235769.1711952515925--