Delivery-date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 05:04:27 -0700
Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 04:56:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris Stewart <stewart.chris1234@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
Message-Id: <d1e7183c-30e6-4f1a-8fd6-cddc46f129a2n@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <42e6c1d1d39d811e2fe7c4c5ce6e09c705bd3dbb.camel@timruffing.de>
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>
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Re: Adding New BIP Editors
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
	boundary="----=_Part_112550_1534944610.1710417382264"
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com

------=_Part_112550_1534944610.1710417382264
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_112551_566608664.1710417382264"

------=_Part_112551_566608664.1710417382264
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I agree with Tim's thoughts here.

I think Jon Atack, Reuben Somsen, Kanzure or Roasbeef would all make great=
=20
candidates.

On Thursday, February 29, 2024 at 10:55:52=E2=80=AFAM UTC-6 Tim Ruffing wro=
te:

> On Tue, 2024-02-27 at 17:40 -0500, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> > The hard part is evaluating=20
> > if the new proposal meets the criteria - which definitely needs dev=20
> > 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.=20
>
> Best,
> Tim
>
>
> [1] BIP2 says:=20
> "For each new BIP that comes in an editor does the following:=20
>
> - 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/d1e7183c-30e6-4f1a-8fd6-cddc46f129a2n%40googlegroups.com.

------=_Part_112551_566608664.1710417382264
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div>I agree with Tim's thoughts here.</div><div><br /></div><div>I think J=
on Atack, Reuben Somsen, Kanzure or Roasbeef would all make great candidate=
s.<br /></div><br /><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"auto" class=3D"g=
mail_attr">On Thursday, February 29, 2024 at 10:55:52=E2=80=AFAM UTC-6 Tim =
Ruffing wrote:<br/></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:=
 0 0 0 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;=
">On Tue, 2024-02-27 at 17:40 -0500, Luke Dashjr wrote:
<br>&gt; The hard part is evaluating=20
<br>&gt; if the new proposal meets the criteria - which definitely needs de=
v=20
<br>&gt; skills (mainly for technical soundness).
<br>
<br>I&#39;m aware that checking technical soundness is in accordance with B=
IP2
<br>[1], but I believe that this is one of the main problems of the current
<br>process, and I can imagine that this is what eats the time of editors.
<br>
<br>I&#39;d prefer a BIP process in which the editors merely check that the
<br>proposal is related to the Bitcoin ecosystem and meets some minimal
<br>formal criteria that we already enforce now (i.e., is a full self-
<br>contained document, has the required sections, etc...). This relieves
<br>the editors not just from the effort, but also from the responsibility
<br>to do so. Technical soundness should be evaluated by the audience of a
<br>BIP, not by the editor.=20
<br>
<br>Best,
<br>Tim
<br>
<br>
<br>[1] BIP2 says:=C2=A0
<br>&quot;For each new BIP that comes in an editor does the following:=20
<br>
<br>- Read the BIP to check if it is ready: sound and complete. The ideas
<br>must make technical sense, even if they don&#39;t seem likely to be
<br>accepted.
<br>[...]&quot;
<br></blockquote></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/d1e7183c-30e6-4f1a-8fd6-cddc46f129a2n%40googlegroups.=
com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.com/d/msg=
id/bitcoindev/d1e7183c-30e6-4f1a-8fd6-cddc46f129a2n%40googlegroups.com</a>.=
<br />

------=_Part_112551_566608664.1710417382264--

------=_Part_112550_1534944610.1710417382264--