{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1gg0pysd236d4em7pts906ev9kf6f30j8werd40j2vwpes7fqdn4qtt7uvk","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1gg0pysd236d4em7pts906ev9kf6f30j8werd40j2vwpes7fqdn4qtt7uvk","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2021-04-23\n📝 Original message:ACK.\n\np.\n\n\nOn Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 10:09 AM Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Unless there are objections, I intend to add Kalle Alm as a BIP editor to\n\u003e assist in merging PRs into the bips git repo.\n\u003e\n\u003e Since there is no explicit process to adding BIP editors, IMO it should be\n\u003e fine to use BIP 2's Process BIP progression:\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it achieves\n\u003e \u003e rough consensus on the mailing list. Such a proposal is said to have\n\u003e \u003e rough consensus if it has been open to discussion on the development\n\u003e \u003e mailing list for at least one month, and no person maintains any\n\u003e \u003e unaddressed substantiated objections to it.\n\u003e\n\u003e A Process BIP could be opened for each new editor, but IMO that is\n\u003e unnecessary. If anyone feels there is a need for a new Process BIP, we can\n\u003e go\n\u003e that route, but there is prior precedent for BIP editors appointing new\n\u003e BIP\n\u003e editors, so I think this should be fine.\n\u003e\n\u003e Please speak up soon if you disagree.\n\u003e\n\u003e Luke\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210423/0849a63a/attachment.html\u003e"}