ACK adding Kalle On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 5:51 PM Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi Luke, > > For the records and the subscribers of this list not following > #bitcoin-core-dev, this mail follows a discussion which did happen during > yesterday irc meetings. > Logs here : http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/2021-04-22.log > > I'll reiterate my opinion expressed during the meeting. If this proposal > to extend the bip editorship membership doesn't satisfy parties involved or > anyone in the community, I'm strongly opposed to have the matter sliced by > admins of the Bitcoin github org. I believe that defect or uncertainty in > the BIP Process shouldn't be solved by GH janitorial roles and I think > their roles don't bestow to intervene in case of loopholes. Further, you > have far more contributors involved in the BIP Process rather than only > Bitcoin Core ones. FWIW, such precedent merits would be quite similar to > lobby directly GH staff... > > Unless we harm Bitcoin users by not acting, I think we should always be > respectful of procedural forms. And in the lack of such forms, stay patient > until a solution satisfy everyone. > > I would recommend the BIP editorship, once extended or not, to move in its > own repository in the future. > > Cheers, > Antoine > > > > > Le jeu. 22 avr. 2021 à 22:09, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> a écrit : > >> 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > -- Best, Ádám
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
