{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcu","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcu","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2021-04-25\n📝 Original message:There appears to be some severe lack of understanding of the point of the BIP process here.\n\nThe BIP process exists to be a place for those in the Bitcoin development community (which includes anyone who wishes to \nparticipate in it!) to place specifications which may be important for others in the Bitcoin development community to \nsee, to ensure interoperability.\n\nIt does not, should not, and has never existed to take any positions on...anything. It has always existed to allow those \nwho wish to participate in the Bitcoin development community to publish proposed standards or deployed protocols, in \nwhatever form the authors of the BIPs seem fit.\n\nIf anyone suggests changes with a BIP's proposed form in a way the original author does not agree with, they have always \nbeen free to, and should simply create a new BIP with their proposed form.\n\nThe BIP editor's role has always been, and should continue to be, to encourage BIP authors to respond to (either by \ndismissing or accepting) feedback on their BIPs, and encourage formatting in a standard form. The BIP editor's role has \nnever included, and should not include, taking a stance on substantive changes to a BIP's contents - those are up to the \nauthor(s) of a BIP, and always have been.\n\nIf the BIP editor is deliberately refusing to accept changes which the author's approval (which appears to be occurring \nhere), the broader development community (us) should either remove the BIP editor and replace them, or simply ignore the \nBIP repository entirely (which seems like the most likely outcome here). There really should be no debate over this \npoint, and I'm not entirely sure why anyone would think there should be.\n\nLuckily BIPs aren't really all that critical in this instance - they exist to communicate protocols for \ninteroperability, and in this case the protocol changes as proposed have been broadly communicated already.\n\nStill, given the apparent lack of desire to remove the BIP editor in this case, I'd suggest we all move on and simply \nignore the BIP repository entirely. Simply sending notices of protocol systems to this mailing list is likely sufficient.\n\nMatt\n\nOn 4/23/21 11:34, Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e Hi Luke,\n\u003e \n\u003e For the records and the subscribers of this list not following #bitcoin-core-dev, this mail follows a discussion which \n\u003e did happen during yesterday irc meetings.\n\u003e Logs here : http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/2021-04-22.log \u003chttp://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/2021-04-22.log\u003e\n\u003e \n\u003e I'll reiterate my opinion expressed during the meeting. If this proposal to extend the bip editorship membership doesn't \n\u003e satisfy parties involved or anyone in the community, I'm strongly opposed to have the matter sliced by admins of the \n\u003e Bitcoin github org. I believe that defect or uncertainty in the BIP Process shouldn't be solved by GH janitorial roles \n\u003e and I think their roles don't bestow to intervene in case of loopholes. Further, you have far more contributors involved \n\u003e in the BIP Process rather than only Bitcoin Core ones. FWIW, such precedent merits would be quite similar to lobby \n\u003e directly GH staff...\n\u003e \n\u003e Unless we harm Bitcoin users by not acting, I think we should always be respectful of procedural forms. And in the lack \n\u003e of such forms, stay patient until a solution satisfy everyone.\n\u003e \n\u003e I would recommend the BIP editorship, once extended or not, to move in its own repository in the future.\n\u003e \n\u003e Cheers,\n\u003e Antoine\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e Le jeu. 22 avr. 2021 à 22:09, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \n\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e a écrit :\n\u003e \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 go\n\u003e     that route, but there is prior precedent for BIP editors appointing new 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 \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e     https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e     \u003chttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\u003e\n\u003e \n\u003e \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"}