Delivery-date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 14:13:31 -0700
Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of michaelfolkson@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4864:20::131 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::131;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
 <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>
 <846b668f-8386-4869-a3b1-55d346efbea1n@googlegroups.com> <f8fa1a55-644f-4cf1-b8c1-4fdef22d1869n@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <f8fa1a55-644f-4cf1-b8c1-4fdef22d1869n@googlegroups.com>
From: Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 11:51:51 +0000
Message-ID: <CAFvNmHQiXFbjMxHWeWYb4J5TDDpYT0o4CexYdcOjrUAaCt4f6w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Re: Adding New BIP Editors
To: Antoine Riard <antoine.riard@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Development Mailing List <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com

> In a world where both Core and BIP repository are living under a single G=
ithub organization, I don't think in matters that much as the highest privi=
lege account will be able to
override any BIP merging decision, or even remove on the flight BIP
editors rights in case of conflicts or controversies. If you're
raising the issue that the BIP repository should be moved to its own
GH repository I think it's a valuable point.

In the past there have been disagreements between Core maintainers and
BIP editors (e.g. Luke with Taproot activation params) and those Core
maintainers haven't merged pull requests in the BIPs repo or removed
him as a BIP editor. As long as that continues it isn't necessary to
create a new GitHub organization for the BIPs repo. They are separate
repos with different maintainers/editors but under the same
organization and everyone knows where it is located.

> Beyond, I still think we should ensure we have a wider crowd of geographi=
cally and culturally diverse BIP editors. As if the role is ensuring high-q=
uality and readability of the terminology of the standards, we might have h=
ighly-skilled technical BIP champions which are not English native. With th=
e current set of proposed BIP editors, to the best of my knowledge, at leas=
t we have few langages spoken by the candidates: Dutch, French, German, Spa=
nish. This can be very helpful to translate concepts devised in language A =
to technical english.

It seems like you want to create some kind of United Nations for the
BIP process. As I said previously this is almost entirely an
administrative task. Going to a committee of 10 people with different
nationalities and languages to decide whether something should get a
BIP number is absurd. If you think Luke is slow to respond wait until
your United Nations of the BIP process has to all agree to assign a
BIP number. Please don't try to make this unnecessarily bureaucratic
and political for no reason. There's enough of that outside of
Bitcoin.

On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 9:14=E2=80=AFPM Antoine Riard <antoine.riard@gmail.=
com> wrote:
>
> > Roasbeef's work on alternative clients and lightning make him technical=
ly
> useful
>
> I think one of the aim of the BIP process is to harmonize common mechanis=
ms among Bitcoin clients of different langages breeds or at different layer=
s (wallet / full-node).
> Having someone among BIP editors with a proven track record of contributi=
ng to other full-node codebase beyond C++ can be valuable in that sense.
> Especially for all matters related to compatibility and deployment.
>
> > For example I think Jon Atack would make a great Core maintainer at som=
e point in the future and I'm not sure a BIP editor should also be a Core m=
aintainer given the
> > independence sometimes required between Core and the BIP process
>
> In a world where both Core and BIP repository are living under a single G=
ithub organization, I don't think in matters that much as the highest privi=
lege account will be able to
> override any BIP merging decision, or even remove on the flight BIP edito=
rs rights in case of conflicts or controversies. If you're raising the issu=
e that the BIP repository should be moved to its own GH repository I think =
it's a valuable point.
>
> Beyond, I still think we should ensure we have a wider crowd of geographi=
cally and culturally diverse BIP editors. As if the role is ensuring high-q=
uality and readability of the terminology of the standards, we might have h=
ighly-skilled technical BIP champions which are not English native. With th=
e current set of proposed BIP editors, to the best of my knowledge, at leas=
t we have few langages spoken by the candidates: Dutch, French, German, Spa=
nish. This can be very helpful to translate concepts devised in language A =
to technical english.
>
> Best,
> Antoine
>
>
> Le vendredi 29 mars 2024 =C3=A0 12:33:09 UTC, /dev /fd0 a =C3=A9crit :
>>
>> Justification:
>>
>> 1. Jon Atack: Good at avoiding controversies and technical documentation=
.
>> 2. Roasbeef: Since BIPs are not just related to bitcoin core, it's good =
to have btcd maintainer as a BIP editor.
>>
>> On Friday, March 29, 2024 at 1:47:41=E2=80=AFAM UTC+5:30 Matt Corallo wr=
ote:
>>>
>>> Please provide justification rather than simply saying "I like Bob!".
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>> On 3/28/24 12:09 PM, /dev /fd0 wrote:
>>> > I support Jon Atack and Roasbeef from this list.
>>> >
>>> > On Thursday, March 28, 2024 at 6:57:53=E2=80=AFPM UTC+5:30 Murch wrot=
e:
>>> >
>>> > I just went through the thread, previously mentioned were:
>>> >
>>> > - Kanzure
>>> > - Ruben Somsen
>>> > - Greg Tonoski
>>> > - Jon Atack
>>> > - Roasbeef
>>> > - Seccour
>>> >
>>> > And Matt just suggested me for the role. Hope I didn=E2=80=99t overlo=
ok anyone.
>>> >
>>> > On 3/27/24 19:39, John C. Vernaleo wrote:
>>> > > That said, I would find it helpful if someone could go through the
>>> > > thread and list all the people who've been proposed so people know =
who
>>> > > they should be thinking about.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gr=
oups "Bitcoin Development
>>> > Mailing List" group.
>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, sen=
d an email to
>>> > bitcoindev+...@googlegroups.com <mailto:bitcoindev+...@googlegroups.c=
om>.
>>> > To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/4c1462b7-ea1c-4a36-be81-=
7c3719157fabn%40googlegroups.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoin=
dev/4c1462b7-ea1c-4a36-be81-7c3719157fabn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=3De=
mail&utm_source=3Dfooter>.
>
> --
> 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/f8fa1a55-644f-4cf1-b8c1-4fdef22d1869n%40googlegroups.com.


--=20
Michael Folkson
Personal email: michaelfolkson@gmail.com

--=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/CAFvNmHQiXFbjMxHWeWYb4J5TDDpYT0o4CexYdcOjrUAaCt4f6w%40mail.gmail=
.com.