1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C318C000B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 23 Apr 2021 02:09:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42E76832EB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 23 Apr 2021 02:09:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8,
DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dashjr.org
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id WQ2sCFvT97aT
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 23 Apr 2021 02:09:24 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB8C9832E6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 23 Apr 2021 02:09:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.lan (unknown [12.190.236.192])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7376938A001F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 23 Apr 2021 02:09:16 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dashjr.org; s=zinan;
t=1619143763; bh=hguf/p0RxeWaq+g3KXOgAVXCrB/E6E0B7cIQij44UDY=;
h=From:To:Subject:Date;
b=yUUQ4tl7vuO0sU8jjObhefs107QR9DFj205XZvp7Cei8Uo17K7M1dNknS+y1iHzUf
DKs8opJ6J6zDjV0KH6FCfnK33j1kBCQv/1gQcuCnENcYwoW0pLUjff7kBVSaXv6dF/
Mk+VQ8ZR7iX0LJZcR6tYNZHReVGGV5x89IXziTV8=
X-Hashcash: 1:25:210423:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::V59c6hdc2oMhO0+k:+WvO
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 02:09:05 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <202104230209.05373.luke@dashjr.org>
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed BIP editor: Kalle Alm
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 02:09:25 -0000
Unless there are objections, I intend to add Kalle Alm as a BIP editor to
assist in merging PRs into the bips git repo.
Since there is no explicit process to adding BIP editors, IMO it should be
fine to use BIP 2's Process BIP progression:
> A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it achieves
> rough consensus on the mailing list. Such a proposal is said to have
> rough consensus if it has been open to discussion on the development
> mailing list for at least one month, and no person maintains any
> unaddressed substantiated objections to it.
A Process BIP could be opened for each new editor, but IMO that is
unnecessary. If anyone feels there is a need for a new Process BIP, we can go
that route, but there is prior precedent for BIP editors appointing new BIP
editors, so I think this should be fine.
Please speak up soon if you disagree.
Luke
|
