Delivery-date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 14:57:04 -0700
Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of murch@murch.one designates 185.26.156.235 as permitted sender) client-ip=185.26.156.235;
Message-ID: <52a0d792-d99f-4360-ba34-0b12de183fef@murch.one>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:25:44 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Re: Adding New BIP Editors
Content-Language: en-US
To: 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>
From: Murch <murch@murch.one>
In-Reply-To: <d1e7183c-30e6-4f1a-8fd6-cddc46f129a2n@googlegroups.com>
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

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=20
broad agreement among the current editor, the readers of the repository,=20
and the 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=20
far, 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=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 somethi=
ng else.

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.

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 treated=
 as=20
an unequivocal endorsement or 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 grea=
t
> candidates.
>=20
> On Thursday, February 29, 2024 at 10:55:52=E2=80=AFAM UTC-6 Tim Ruffing w=
rote:
>=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).
>>
>> 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 e=
mail to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/=
bitcoindev/52a0d792-d99f-4360-ba34-0b12de183fef%40murch.one.