<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0n</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0n</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2021-04-22&#xA;📝 Original message:Unless there are objections, I intend to add Kalle Alm as a BIP editor to &#xA;assist in merging PRs into the bips git repo.&#xA;&#xA;Since there is no explicit process to adding BIP editors, IMO it should be &#xA;fine to use BIP 2&#39;s Process BIP progression:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it achieves&#xA;&gt; rough consensus on the mailing list. Such a proposal is said to have&#xA;&gt; rough consensus if it has been open to discussion on the development&#xA;&gt; mailing list for at least one month, and no person maintains any&#xA;&gt; unaddressed substantiated objections to it.&#xA;&#xA;A Process BIP could be opened for each new editor, but IMO that is &#xA;unnecessary. If anyone feels there is a need for a new Process BIP, we can go &#xA;that route, but there is prior precedent for BIP editors appointing new BIP &#xA;editors, so I think this should be fine.&#xA;&#xA;Please speak up soon if you disagree.&#xA;&#xA;Luke</html></oembed>