From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09414C000B for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 03:36:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6AC2400D1 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 03:36:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MbGDqo4XwBxI for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 03:36:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C79FB400BD for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 03:36:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-io1-f46.google.com (mail-io1-f46.google.com [209.85.166.46]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as jlrubin@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 13N3aSt9019191 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 23:36:29 -0400 Received: by mail-io1-f46.google.com with SMTP id b10so47678519iot.4 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 20:36:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531fffQr593doUHQMPO31mcvCylqSMcGXrvp/VJW4sIZ0Ci7u8+Q WjiFlHc6t4DXBiSysVmjpgUzzYjjtmMeCQ1THmY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw9fKL7rwxPZZghH/aW+08e3FkfaZHnOWTTs4srOlQWQAPq9ZSO44hGgpB5105UTsPBChY9uYwK4fp9/Tf3XNg= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:7b45:: with SMTP id m5mr1771443iop.97.1619148988571; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 20:36:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <202104230209.05373.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: <202104230209.05373.luke@dashjr.org> From: Jeremy Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 20:36:16 -0700 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Luke Dashjr , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004d643f05c09b80c2" Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed BIP editor: Kalle Alm X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 03:36:32 -0000 --0000000000004d643f05c09b80c2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" ACK adding Kalle. Kalle is a qualified reviewer / editor and well suited for this role. -- @JeremyRubin On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 7:09 PM Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > 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 > --0000000000004d643f05c09b80c2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
ACK adding Kalle.

K= alle is a qualified reviewer / editor and well suited for this role.


<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">
On Thu, Apr= 22, 2021 at 7:09 PM Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Unl= ess 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<= br> > 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/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--0000000000004d643f05c09b80c2--