From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Delivery-date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 10:11:48 -0700 Received: from mail-qv1-f56.google.com ([209.85.219.56]) by mail.fairlystable.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1ryajD-0008Rj-AT for bitcoindev@gnusha.org; Sun, 21 Apr 2024 10:11:48 -0700 Received: by mail-qv1-f56.google.com with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-69b31b7df0dsf58363406d6.3 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 2024 10:11:47 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; t=1713719501; cv=pass; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=JsTeCBN0gqUq3VxendR+BuVQM9JYbKL8DQ5jRESxHTmhs7mvzl/9HfFW1WfYI0SHfY jFdcRB6m4E0VANWkMWuPeGHQwW66e10VoYK66DYOtp7XYNE4lhB4xBKFakcVMs3wtZoe 0ts8SgI8wQHxkSqx32zUU/DviNZSGD9S9YBkQVTSE7yE2gafGR6EfcX9E66M8Out+4Dh cN+3OVJFS0zRVszI16dtyM4tSIRp5wRieDe+Mvo/svPXXy8HKkglxbLbzf87bIBxcGG0 ACWYopG8xTzZwvYcuGZ/BmIf2BSxa+AqBq0XckJfn2GAVepzgu8sxugHa6FEpaXlYaAg 3y6Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version:feedback-id:references:in-reply-to:message-id:subject :cc:from:to:date:dkim-signature; bh=mkdOrFN95FZ56g6grlm0F4FKePZVZIRhehxa/tkE6nM=; fh=AXoHkMCgsZ+3tB2QJIVQK5jECmxpyrepwfPtaIHB1Yk=; b=YL1wIXMHXlElAWMzWT2WMivHB3wjMjLyhYBY7iG7Bg2CMb70ub6SPZyU9QeiWxJG+m efWG04WtAY0iUVw82XvXKd6ALgvqY+fej/aoX7MbNt+FhSZJEWkVzV7Ucw5G/NS3v+Dz B6PaWFXFbGxELDumpsJPgZ+qNCKw4EYO0FRhL4F02x+VLIBuQ7/HlDzsX3MWQ9j67YCS +UHdX5/WL8ZTKFVrtgpC0pU/PMYzbyC+p7fN4bGwkj19o5hX2wqzvlLXiyc5T+dWrsjJ okwou1Fj5yOVtRBzQFtArBMDZhVuhky9AB/TKN+QIqRppSI2/jMSdK1oz8L0FiI/fKvV IA4g==; darn=gnusha.org ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@achow101.com header.s=protonmail3 header.b=aHzm9YEL; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lists@achow101.com designates 185.70.40.136 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=lists@achow101.com; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=achow101.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20230601; t=1713719501; x=1714324301; darn=gnusha.org; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:reply-to :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:feedback-id:references :in-reply-to:message-id:subject:cc:from:to:date:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=mkdOrFN95FZ56g6grlm0F4FKePZVZIRhehxa/tkE6nM=; b=waVIj3hHwCTU/19bYHz6pIpiM1XTCM+yD/ewqc8q1y682xBEbMp2jmh2y0jLiXJI5f wvnFykFL6UBfw/t1YmFvHyLl9l1JuR8b2VsDM4I3XChQfXOqPdbIqyqiH9Lv4wDTuD1r /kNk5ZdamGQP0gUGPfraUZYF8BoibC8CI1YXudUHmaCWFukXTIz/oBLsz7ftIYYjny9c 5+nmJwcFyarVYeaE7WZl6ExOWprLtHN2Gwkp2usWt6wFVlTfU9D3Cd/g4HIFe5Mt+Bf0 FFbM5JOuwe37uhJZk93OaE57SJFaE+hM/CS3sjr1Rg93CEQPpz947atARH3dMn3LmDVU aQxg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1713719501; x=1714324301; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:reply-to :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:feedback-id:references :in-reply-to:message-id:subject:cc:from:to:date:x-beenthere :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=mkdOrFN95FZ56g6grlm0F4FKePZVZIRhehxa/tkE6nM=; b=QKP+5sh9TLGc2IxP6P/jgqWDi9qNt0Ivj3qmo7YC+GnlOQ695v8HaUWVQMJWOnI7F+ MHD7sBIQ+PE6lirK2GPOI+zvFSCTS6vIUvTjzr175acjkiMHiI2wqRdyeVSFTMvtxqqn eP/BE0Bwa71Lo0qr+Ztjj7k/kM4BVElDYDvhhR+UaAO5FIiP2HlcY66boasTiPxOZp2k p8g9aSCuwdF2kbSxh4c+WOeI1r+taimk4OAXU1IbTBOL/5mcryqieDLau8MQxAqxtC7U vhHs+nclJ6Lga/Zviv/zEOp0iB1Bs3kfSkJ7qxJmVrMzhPO0Dw6FQBNoMaHUOeI4aXIq wILA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=2; AJvYcCW+gYScmXX3rOMur+46iNUWXRV6/O2syNuiV9jfbr1WMyhcC3iEBxxrgiMCiAl1pUt/C160w3coUnWNyGfXdAKveuWetXA= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwlGC/LS8y8cWF06ATTX4wIoZTXMTa4nYlzgEV9TAbv9/IKVsVf KIgoOAu4V/xjMcPeSw0ZKvcn4drSUMA0j2cj7cBl7zGn9x56Q3m3 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHqliyL+hSRlY1zl8vzdBbzwFfE7Be+0sIG9KCFdaF37gmNuz/uT27tTHEW4VNt8exmyRpC3Q== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:30c:b0:699:2293:92ba with SMTP id i12-20020a056214030c00b00699229392bamr7214807qvu.61.1713719500941; Sun, 21 Apr 2024 10:11:40 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com Received: by 2002:a05:6214:500b:b0:69b:1803:6ad6 with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6a05d50f9a9ls50219916d6.0.-pod-prod-06-us; Sun, 21 Apr 2024 10:11:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5bee:0:b0:69b:683a:767a with SMTP id k14-20020ad45bee000000b0069b683a767amr338649qvc.8.1713719499888; Sun, 21 Apr 2024 10:11:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 2002:a05:620a:190e:b0:78f:622:a7d8 with SMTP id af79cd13be357-78f08ff52ebms85a; Sun, 21 Apr 2024 09:39:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:3ac5:b0:41a:5ba6:fe8f with SMTP id d5-20020a05600c3ac500b0041a5ba6fe8fmr244060wms.33.1713717575179; Sun, 21 Apr 2024 09:39:35 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1713717575; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=jw8XRinc/Zi2058NJAz8nzIEi/Vk5wnW26KC3gms2GewQPU8Ll0bGgOhRzny+cLYKd nV+wpxSTPy/OkwvBehe8uQnMtzvKYqg8ktRLmRthHDfRl/8DDduwHerumAgrbsAGXBbm vafU2PiINwZFoV58K9w/3oGaegrYvc+tXgn6RPBbkGpsvu64wh/n6ybeMEg4J+FstSv7 9cSTXHh55p8n/mvNsMqNS/rjO6kZtWcTN/aSA8oRnY0+wuSKX8MXxaB5v+rA7oKemI6a 6o7rZtwzLU1owcj33NrCOyccHZfwWaL+5c4VFxXGw6nIKPs384iEID+BP7t0FciDmhaY 7Bfg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:feedback-id:references :in-reply-to:message-id:subject:cc:from:to:date:dkim-signature; bh=IGihAs+OsFPJjN1rmCgKvJCbo9bA3tIl3Ucq2Gf1wgk=; fh=pSOpppcm2rxHcL5T9Qkj8WNPxoKM2tLOXXz4UBOFhb4=; b=T5ICG/VMnp1keI/X/BRdPThJPaLvHeHktFCrSkVxvRTHm7o899YlN98LzSrNqBXUi0 0sDd+XNhC4CXAW6X7wD39GanrAzPp4XhdhbS6vCB7eHikmiyGSzdarmku8aJTFF1OIvp sKR6EhidgHJKSXrwMUEBRL9hOdmDT4oHFYlKcnE0j5fv9h3T8xV7z5I439UGjSauSDeG KOpdbmuDF3Ed/nu9aje/BJ075D64KJxo+nXBQ2VfaTF8SYSMtQlrMFn4LtG8iKc/MBkU uTMdtvn3CGOdmwFOd9o03fSCQ8mDZSr6lHfQhEisaw4wykhk1bp6CrFPEfWZXd2IYrgE 59NA==; dara=google.com ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@achow101.com header.s=protonmail3 header.b=aHzm9YEL; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lists@achow101.com designates 185.70.40.136 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=lists@achow101.com; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=achow101.com Received: from mail-40136.proton.ch (mail-40136.proton.ch. [185.70.40.136]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f10-20020a05600c154a00b00418d839200dsi892272wmg.1.2024.04.21.09.39.35 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 21 Apr 2024 09:39:35 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lists@achow101.com designates 185.70.40.136 as permitted sender) client-ip=185.70.40.136; Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 16:39:18 +0000 To: Michael Folkson From: "'Ava Chow' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List" Cc: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Re: Adding New BIP Editors Message-ID: <0591e62d-12da-48ac-9d19-faea473c647c@achow101.com> In-Reply-To: References: <2092f7ff-4860-47f8-ba1a-c9d97927551e@achow101.com> <070755a0-10e9-4903-9524-dd8ef98c1c8b@achow101.com> <0d4d85e3-9fbb-4bd4-af0f-92225e699b63@achow101.com> <97a10141-8847-417a-af11-d95e7d3be064@achow101.com> Feedback-ID: 53660394:user:proton X-Pm-Message-ID: cb5a9491575462cc263417b187f27c472dfc18e8 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Original-Sender: lists@achow101.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@achow101.com header.s=protonmail3 header.b=aHzm9YEL; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lists@achow101.com designates 185.70.40.136 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=lists@achow101.com; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=achow101.com X-Original-From: Ava Chow Reply-To: Ava Chow Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 786775582512 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) You are misunderstanding the role of BIP editors. They are not arbiters=20 of what is activated on Bitcoin. They are not gatekeepers of soft forks.=20 If a BIP author proposes or agrees with a change to their BIP and those=20 changes are formatted correctly, it is not the BIP editors' rights nor=20 responsibilities to refuse to merge that change. As with Bitcoin Core=20 maintainers, BIP editing is a largely janitorial role. Just because something is a BIP does not mean it is a good idea. Just=20 because a BIP specifying a fork contains deployment parameters does not=20 mean it will actually be deployed. There are several BIPs for both hard=20 and soft forks that are rejected or withdrawn that have deployment=20 parameters. Furthermore, for myself, I would actually prefer that contentious soft=20 forks for which some people are legitimately attempting to activate have=20 their deployment parameters be specified in a/the BIP. Having competing=20 activation parameters in different BIPs is preferable over the=20 documentation being spread around in many different places. It makes it=20 much easier for implementations to inform users what they've actually=20 implemented so that users can make a more informed decision. On 04/21/2024 07:43 AM, Michael Folkson wrote: > Ava >=20 > Thanks for the detailed response, I appreciate the insight. >=20 >>> I'm even more concerned about future soft fork activation attempts. >>> These don't necessarily need to be attempted via a Bitcoin Core merged >>> pull request hence the BIPs repo could be a key source of information >>> and guidance on this. >=20 >> This concern doesn't make any sense. There are already multiple soft and >> hard fork BIPs that are not active nor good ideas. A BIP does not need >> to be a good idea. >=20 > I would hope that a contentious soft fork and activation params for > that contentious soft fork would not be merged into the Bitcoin Core > codebase and up until now it hasn't been. I would hope all the Bitcoin > Core maintainers understand that even if they personally think a soft > fork is a good idea (apparently there is nothing to stop them merging > it without discussing it with the other maintainers) that they > shouldn't independently merge it if it is contentious. >=20 > Similarly I would hope that all BIP editors would be careful about > what information gets merged around soft fork activation *attempts* > whether that be activation details on a particular soft fork BIP or on > a separate activation BIP. With Taproot there were very strong > disagreements over activation parameters for a non-contentious soft > fork. It would be much messier for a contentious soft fork activation > attempt. I'm not sure all these new BIP editors understand that or > would perhaps even agree with that. For example Laolu is listed as a > supporter of a CTV activation attempt back in 2022 [0] which was > clearly contentious. That doesn't inspire me with confidence that as > soon as he is a BIP editor he won't start merging details on > contentious soft fork activation attempts in BIPs and merging that > soft fork in say btcd. He would need to be removed as a BIP editor if > he were to do something like that. >=20 > Thanks > Michael >=20 > [0]: https://utxos.org/signals/ >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 12:05=E2=80=AFAM Ava Chow wr= ote: >> >> >> On 04/20/2024 06:21 PM, Michael Folkson wrote: >>> It is inevitable there will be a "revert war" unless they all have to >>> agree on merge decisions or communicate prior to merging. It is just a >>> matter of time. Does for example Ordinal Numbers get a BIP number? I >>> suspect all the new BIP editors won't agree on that. >> >> Why do you think that a revert war is inevitable? >> >> The Bitcoin Core repo operates in a similar way - the maintainers are >> independent and work autonomously. The maintainers do not have to agree >> on merge decisions nor do they communicate prior to merging. If there's >> disagreement about a merge decision, we talk to each other about it like >> adults and come to a mutually agreeable resolution. I don't think >> there's ever been a revert war in the history of Bitcoin. >> >> I would expect that when there is something that is likely to be >> controversial or is ambiguous that it should be a BIP that they would >> then talk to each other about it. It doesn't have to be all or nothing - >> they can do most work without communicating, but when there's questions >> or ambiguity, then they communicate. >> >>> Who is to blame in a "revert war" if each editor is free to merge >>> whatever pull request they like? The editor who merged it? Why should >>> they be removed as an editor for merging a pull request when they find >>> out later a different editor disagreed with that merge decision and >>> wants to revert the merge? >> >> A revert war would be someone merging a PR that reverts another, then >> someone else (opening then) merging a PR that reverts that, and it goes >> back and forth. It would not be limited to PRs only. This would likely >> be super obvious too that they are controversially merging things as I >> would be surprised if other BIP editors didn't comment on any of those >> actions, besides the fact that many people do also watch the BIPs repo. >> Regardless, the blame is on those who are doing the reverting, and would >> be both sides. >> >>> I'm even more concerned about future soft fork activation attempts. >>> These don't necessarily need to be attempted via a Bitcoin Core merged >>> pull request hence the BIPs repo could be a key source of information >>> and guidance on this. >> >> This concern doesn't make any sense. There are already multiple soft and >> hard fork BIPs that are not active nor good ideas. A BIP does not need >> to be a good idea. >> >>> I've seen Wladimir is contributing again to Core. Is there a plan to >>> give him commit access again? >> >> It would have to be through the typical maintainer process, although I >> doubt that he even wants it. But that's completely orthogonal to the >> BIPs repo discussion. >> >>> I'd be more comfortable with him >>> overseeing things in the various repos under the Bitcoin Core >>> (/bitcoin) GitHub org as it sounds like you don't really care if the >>> BIPs repo degenerates into a free for all. >> >> I don't understand why you assume that. >> >> I've said this before, but if I see a revert war going on in the BIPs >> repo, I will remove those involved immediately and make a thread on the >> list to discuss what to do about them. But I doubt that's a scenario >> that will actually come to pass. >> >> Ava >> >>> >>> Thanks >>> Michael >>> >>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 10:15=E2=80=AFPM 'Ava Chow' via Bitcoin Develop= ment >>> Mailing List wrote: >>>> >>>> On 04/20/2024 04:46 PM, Steve Lee wrote: >>>>> Wasn't there evidence provided that Kanzure does not want this >>>>> responsibility without being paid? >>>> >>>> I am not aware of that, and it hasn't come up when I've talked to him >>>> about being a BIPs editor. >>>> >>>>> I'm confused by this process that we don't even ask the people if the= y >>>>> want the responsibility? I think only Laolu has chimed in to commit t= o it? >>>> >>>> Personally, I've spoken to all 5 privately and they've all confirmed t= o >>>> me that they are willing to be BIPs editors. Jonatack[1] and Murch[2] >>>> have also replied to this thread about this. >>>> >>>> Ava >>>> >>>> [1]: >>>> https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/83b69000-ca1e-4a58-90b5-114cb09ac0bbn= @googlegroups.com/ >>>> [2]: >>>> https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/53a0015c-b76a-441a-920b-32bd88d5e778@= murch.one/ >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 12:30=E2=80=AFPM 'Ava Chow' via Bitcoin Devel= opment >>>>> Mailing List >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Since we're now past the deadline of April 19th, I'd like to in= form >>>>> everyone of what will happen on Monday. >>>>> >>>>> There has not been any actual objections to the nominees nor ha= ve there >>>>> been any suggestions on choosing a subset of them since my last= email. >>>>> As such, there is rough consensus on adding Kanzure, Murch, Jon= atack, >>>>> Ruben, and Roasbeef as BIP editors, and they will be added on M= onday >>>>> April 22nd. >>>>> >>>>> Ava >>>>> >>>>> On 04/16/2024 01:08 PM, 'Ava Chow' via Bitcoin Development Mail= ing List >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > While I don't disagree that 5 or 6 people seems like a lot t= o add at >>>>> > once, it's not clear to me how we should decide which subset= of the >>>>> > nominees should be added. As it is now, I have only seen an = actual >>>>> > objection to Kanzure and Ruben from /dev/fd0, and no explici= t >>>>> objections >>>>> > to anyone else. It seems like the vast majority of people do= n't share >>>>> > their concerns either as both Kanzure and Ruben continue to = be >>>>> endorsed >>>>> > by many others. >>>>> > >>>>> > Looking at the endorsements each candidate has received, the= current >>>>> > counts are: >>>>> > * Kanzure - 17 for, 1 against >>>>> > * Murch - 13 for >>>>> > * Jonatack - 13 for >>>>> > * Ruben - 12 for, 1 against >>>>> > * Roasbeef - 9 for >>>>> > * Michael Folkson - none >>>>> > >>>>> > However, I don't want this process to become a popularity co= ntest and >>>>> > require some kind of formal voting. Rather I'd prefer that t= his >>>>> process >>>>> > be something more like how Bitcoin Core maintainers are adde= d - by >>>>> > achieving rough consensus. Without any explicit objections t= o any of >>>>> > these candidates, I'm inclined to move forward with adding t= he 5 who >>>>> > have received endorsements. Having to pick "winners" from th= is list >>>>> > seems like a quick way to stir up drama that I don't think a= nyone >>>>> really >>>>> > wants to deal with. >>>>> > >>>>> > I do want to note that neither Kanzure, Ruben, nor Roasbeef = have >>>>> posted >>>>> > on this list that they are willing to be BIP editors. I have >>>>> reached out >>>>> > to all 3 of them privately, and received responses from Kanz= ure and >>>>> > Ruben that indicate that they probably are willing, but publ= ic >>>>> > confirmation from them on this list would also be nice. I ha= ve not >>>>> > received a response from Roasbeef. >>>>> > >>>>> > Ava >>>>> > >>>>> > On 04/11/2024 10:22 AM, Sergi Delgado Segura wrote: >>>>> >> > I would prefer having more (9+?) than less folks on thi= s >>>>> task, so >>>>> >> personal preferences are easily ignored and overwritten by = the group >>>>> >> majority. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I disagree with that, the more doesn't really the better he= re. >>>>> Having >>>>> >> too many editors may result in a tragedy of the commons, in >>>>> which people >>>>> >> just commit to the job because many others do, and they do = not >>>>> end up >>>>> >> doing as much because they expect others to do the it. This= does not >>>>> >> only make the process look bad but may burnout the ones tha= t end up >>>>> >> doing the job, given their time commitment ends up being to= o far >>>>> from >>>>> >> their expectations. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I think being more moderate with the amount of people is be= tter, and >>>>> >> gives us leeway in case the workload ends up being excessiv= e and >>>>> we need >>>>> >> to add more people (plus discourage people from joining and >>>>> slacking off). >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I think 3 more people should be a good number to start from= . >>>>> >> I'd personally vouch for Murch, Kanzure, and Ruben based on >>>>> their track >>>>> >> record in the space >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 4:30=E2=80=AFPM nvk >>>> >>>>> >> >> wrot= e: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> +1 for >>>>> >> Kanzure >>>>> >> RubenSomsen >>>>> >> Seccour >>>>> >> Jon Atack >>>>> >> Roasbeef >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I would prefer having more (9+?) than less folks on this ta= sk, so >>>>> >> personal preferences are easily ignored and overwritten by = the group >>>>> >> majority. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> BIPs were intended as a means to collect ideas, not enforce= ideas. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I'd like to return to that. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> - NVK (temp gmail account) >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On Monday, April 1, 2024 at 5:16:54=E2=80=AFPM UTC-4 D= avid A. >>>>> Harding wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On 2024-03-28 10:04, Matt Corallo wrote: >>>>> >> > Please provide justification rather than simply >>>>> saying "I >>>>> >> like Bob!". >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Using only comments from the mailing list, the >>>>> following appears >>>>> >> to be >>>>> >> the candidate list along with the current support. >>>>> Asterisks denote >>>>> >> candidates who indicated their willingness to acce= pt >>>>> the role. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> - Bryan "Kanzure" Bishop, recommended by Ava Chow[= 1], Chris >>>>> >> Stewart[3], >>>>> >> Michael Folkson[6], Peter Todd[9], Matt Corallo[10= ], >>>>> Brandon >>>>> >> Black[11], >>>>> >> Antoine Riard[12], Murch[13], Antoine Poinsot[15],= John >>>>> >> Carvalho[16] >>>>> >> >>>>> >> - Ruben Somsen, recommended by Ava Chow[1], Chris >>>>> Stewart[3], >>>>> >> Michael >>>>> >> Folkson[6], Antoine Riard[12], Murch[13], Antoine >>>>> Poinsot[15], John >>>>> >> Carvalho[16] >>>>> >> >>>>> >> - Jon Atack*, recommended by Luke Dashjr[2], Chris >>>>> Stewart[3], >>>>> >> /dev/fd0[5][7], >>>>> >> Brandon Black[11], Antoine Riard[12], Ava Chow[14]= , John >>>>> >> Carvalho[16] >>>>> >> >>>>> >> - Olaoluwa "Roasbeef" Osuntokun, recommended by Ch= ris >>>>> >> Stewart[3], John >>>>> >> C. Vernaleo[4], /dev/fd0[5][7], Keagan McClelland[= 8], >>>>> Antoine >>>>> >> Riard[12], Ava Chow[14] >>>>> >> >>>>> >> - Mark "Murch" Erhardt*, recommended by Michael >>>>> Folkson[6], Keagan >>>>> >> McClelland[8], Matt Corallo[10], Brandon Black[11]= , Antoine >>>>> >> Riard[12], >>>>> >> Ava Chow[14] >>>>> >> >>>>> >> - Michael Folkson* >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Note: Luke Dashjr proposed[17] Seccour and Greg To= noski for >>>>> >> "non-dev >>>>> >> triaging", Tonoski proposed himself[18] for "BIP >>>>> editor", and >>>>> >> Antoine >>>>> >> Riard[12] proposed Seccour for "decentralized PM". >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I searched the BIPs repo by commenter to see if an= y of >>>>> the above >>>>> >> candidates had been especially active there, which= is >>>>> listed >>>>> >> below as: >>>>> >> total PRs they commented on (number still open/num= ber >>>>> closed). >>>>> >> >>>>> >> - 21 (1/20) commenter:kanzure >>>>> >> - 3 (2/1) commenter:rubensomsen >>>>> >> - 15 (0/15) commenter:jonatack >>>>> >> - 18 (2/16) commenter:roasbeef >>>>> >> - 10 (6/4) commenter:Murchandamus >>>>> >> - 57 (6/51) commenter:michaelfolkson >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I'll also note that Osuntokun is the only member o= f the >>>>> set to >>>>> >> have a >>>>> >> merged BIP that they co-authored, although I belie= ve >>>>> there are >>>>> >> far-along >>>>> >> draft BIPs for both Murch (terminology) and Somsen= (Silent >>>>> >> Payments). I >>>>> >> don't think this should be a requirement, but I do= think it >>>>> >> demonstrates >>>>> >> familiarity with the process. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Speaking only for myself, I think all of the candi= dates >>>>> above with >>>>> >> multiple recommendations from other community >>>>> participants are >>>>> >> fully >>>>> >> qualified for the role, so I'll only provide a det= ailed >>>>> >> justification >>>>> >> for the person who would be my first pick: Murch i= s not >>>>> only a >>>>> >> longstanding and broadly liked Bitcoin contributor= , but >>>>> (as Corallo >>>>> >> mentioned) he has worked on standardizing terminol= ogy >>>>> through a >>>>> >> draft >>>>> >> BIP. In addition, he provided an extremely detaile= d >>>>> review of >>>>> >> all 300 >>>>> >> pages of a draft of Mastering Bitcoin (3rd edition= ) and has >>>>> >> reviewed >>>>> >> drafts of over 200 weekly Optech newsletters, in b= oth cases >>>>> >> significantly improving the accuracy and >>>>> comprehensibility of the >>>>> >> documentation. To me, that seems very similar to t= he >>>>> work we'd >>>>> >> ask him >>>>> >> to perform as a BIPs editor and it's something tha= t >>>>> he's already >>>>> >> doing, >>>>> >> so I think there's an excellent fit of person to r= ole. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> -Dave >>>>> >> >>>>> >> [1] >>>>> >> >>>>> https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/2092f7ff-4860-47f8...@achow101= .com/ >>>>> > >>>>> >> [2] >>>>> >> >>>>> https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/9288df7b-f2e9-4106...@dashjr.o= rg/ >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >> [3] >>>>> >> >>>>> https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/d1e7183c-30e6-4f1a...@googlegr= oups.com/ > >>>>> >> [4] >>>>> >> >>>>> https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/84309c3f-e848-d333...@netpurga= tory.com/ > >>>>> >> [5] >>>>> >> >>>>> https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/4c1462b7-ea1c-4a36...@googlegr= oups.com/ > >>>>> >> [6] >>>>> >> >>>>> https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/a116fba3-5948-48d2...@googlegr= oups.com/ > >>>>> >> [7] >>>>> >> >>>>> https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/846b668f-8386-4869...@googlegr= oups.com/ > >>>>> >> [8] >>>>> >> >>>>> https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/CALeFGL1-LKPWd7YRS110ut8tX=3Dw= ruqgLEazRA5...@mail.gmail.com/ > >>>>> >> [9] >>>>> https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/ZgePPvbf...@petertodd.org/ >>>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >> [10] >>>>> >> >>>>> https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/f9435999-42df-46b5...@mattcora= llo.com/ > >>>>> >> [11] >>>>> https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/ZgWRu32FXzqqg69V@console/ >>>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >> [12] >>>>> >> >>>>> https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/CALZpt+E8DohYEJ9aO+FiF6+E...@m= ail.gmail.com/ > >>>>> >> [13] >>>>> >> >>>>> https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/53a0015c-b76a-441a...@murch.on= e/ >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >> [14] >>>>> >> >>>>> https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/ae482890-bce3-468f...@achow101= .com/ >>>>> > >>>>> >> [15] >>>>> >> >>>>> https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/ppBS1tfMU3SFX85kmIBVBd0WpT5Wof= _oSBXsuizh7692AUDw2TojfvCqvcvlmsy9E69qfWMxK-UZWawf8IDApPqF7bXOH4gwU1c2jS4xo= jo=3D@protonmail.com/ > >>>>> >> [16] >>>>> >> >>>>> https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/ad284018-e99c-4552...@googlegr= oups.com/ > >>>>> >> [17] >>>>> >> >>>>> https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/CAMHHROw9mZJRnTbUo76PdqwJU=3D= =3DYJMvd9Qrst+...@mail.gmail.com/ > >>>>> >> >>>>> >> -- >>>>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed t= o the >>>>> Google >>>>> >> Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. >>>>> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emai= ls >>>>> from it, >>>>> >> send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.c= om >>>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >. >>>>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>> >> >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/7b4e2223-0b96-4ca0= -a441-aebcfc7b0bben%40googlegroups.com >. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> -- >>>>> >> Sergi. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> -- >>>>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the= Google >>>>> >> Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. >>>>> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails fr= om >>>>> it, send >>>>> >> an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com >>>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >. >>>>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>> >> >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CAEYHFxV_8_Jw61tys= L_cV_xiXBcRyA3e%3DCGHGuSCgm%2B-4WxT9w%40mail.gmail.com >. >>>>> > >>>>> > -- >>>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>>>> Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. >>>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails fro= m it, >>>>> send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com >>>>> . >>>>> > To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/fb52ccb5-9942-4db8= -b880-3c06ebc47cd1%40achow101.com . >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Goo= gle >>>>> Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from i= t, >>>>> send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com >>>>> . >>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/070755a0-10e9-4903= -9524-dd8ef98c1c8b%40achow101.com . >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro= ups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send= an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/m= sgid/bitcoindev/0d4d85e3-9fbb-4bd4-af0f-92225e699b63%40achow101.com. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Michael Folkson >>> Personal email: michaelfolkson@gmail.com >> >=20 >=20 > -- > Michael Folkson > Personal email: michaelfolkson@gmail.com --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/= bitcoindev/0591e62d-12da-48ac-9d19-faea473c647c%40achow101.com.