Delivery-date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:21:48 -0700
Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lf-lists@mattcorallo.com designates 69.59.18.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=69.59.18.99;
Message-ID: <f9435999-42df-46b5-86e2-7ba0336a9bf2@mattcorallo.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 19:54:53 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Re: Adding New BIP Editors
To: Murch <murch@murch.one>, bitcoindev@googlegroups.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>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
In-Reply-To: <52a0d792-d99f-4360-ba34-0b12de183fef@murch.one>
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

Seems reasonable to me.

While there are plenty of competent technical folks who would make fine BIP=
 editors, I'd suggest=20
Kanzure and Murch as clear candidates over others:

  * Kanzure has been around for longer than any other candidate as far as I=
 can tell, and has=20
certainly seen more proposals for changes to Bitcoin than anyone. This make=
s him a great candidate=20
to point new BIP authors to appropriate citations. Similarly, he has a long=
 history of being very=20
responsive, which I believe is part of the goal in appointing new editors h=
ere.
  * Murch similarly has lots of experience dealing with lots of various ide=
as around Bitcoin, but=20
importantly here also has worked extensively to document appropriate termin=
ology for all things=20
Bitcoin [1]. This makes him an excellent copy editor of Bitcoin technical p=
roposals, which is=20
basically the only thing the BIP editors are supposed to do.

While there are a handful of other candidates mentioned in this thread who =
are technically quite=20
competent, that isn't really the relevant criteria for BIP editors.

Matt

[1] https://github.com/murchandamus/bips/pull/1/files

On 3/27/24 5:25 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=20
> are willing and able, and there seems to be broad agreement among the cur=
rent editor, the readers of=20
> the repository, and the contributors to the repository that additional he=
lp is desirable.
>=20
> I have seen some support and reservations raised for pretty much every ca=
ndidate. A few weeks have=20
> passed since this topic was last active. So far, there seems no clear pat=
h forward.
>=20
> If we are all just in a holding pattern, perhaps we could timebox this de=
cision process: how about=20
> we invite arguments for and against any candidates in this thread until n=
ext Friday EOD (April 5th).=20
> If any candidates find broad support, those candidates could be added as =
new editors to the=20
> repository on the following Monday (April 8th). If none get broad support=
, at least we=E2=80=99d be able to=20
> move on and try something else.
>=20
> I propose that all editors share the same privileges, especially that any=
 editor may assign numbers=20
> to BIPs. If there is guidance to be provided on the process of assigning =
numbers and number ranges=20
> for specific topics, it should be provided by then. If the editors decide=
 on a single number=20
> 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 assessmen=
t of the technical=20
> soundness can be left to the audience. BIPs have been published in the re=
pository and set to the=20
> "rejected" status before, so it=E2=80=99s not as if adding a BIP to the r=
epository is treated as an=20
> 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

--=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/f9435999-42df-46b5-86e2-7ba0336a9bf2%40mattcorallo.com.