From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A454C000B for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2021 10:16:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BB4384435 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2021 10:16:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.848 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sBHgjvUebmzY for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2021 10:16:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-lf1-x12a.google.com (mail-lf1-x12a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12a]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA6ED843AB for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2021 10:16:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf1-x12a.google.com with SMTP id 12so80886814lfq.13 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2021 03:16:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=cU0K+mVh5Ztu7EV3ZWG4ndXMwMEXq/AJmYiE7Vy3yOw=; b=Y1zl0G/GsdGzoUSGZd2OAjxxaGKbqg70Fry94qbrzCnZr97O2jqUi7fnEeOPcXiaCL 3cEbQwtV1uGRjsdD7WCPYyt/80XuDiLXo+1lkn/CzV3GcjSkR1PfdmpA1AiAoodHyZ37 PGzRT5WOec1A+a8TszGOK5eJOUfRGIg5b5d0GLfHtrTNBF9T5sUIO6LzqvillMUoC+md tg/q8dy1WMFu++GxZp/PTgGl4ACL8N50YYghT+2wrdB1bR5laPFe4No3LBdFVOMoBcIp 6ejLqcUXMU/n9j+1/So4R7uBaV0LmejA2K7BBlKs4lm5/U/OWqzNKXxZPgGH7OOCxIhO jPRA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=cU0K+mVh5Ztu7EV3ZWG4ndXMwMEXq/AJmYiE7Vy3yOw=; b=WnUIyemcimCT3p2veMYgkgq8ETUETj6zYicJQ9MNjruScrTyse94qU1Vu6DGWZUXeF nQQNo9JsoMxyBUYDvzf6yK1J927zRdUweyNhinM5wq4n6HLaSOqrccK5VpK5sX8i8W2j 7MMR0n1jN64+RnRfKxb+/R92yPqYLvFkY6PIBQheUZ19AIDztpI0NShhWYZvS0/ZCCDc 97l3NkOMzCNR3jj/ApTdPfeqclIqMuwA6bu0WbYtDzrg/ZGkl1V962H3QvdxOvwDq+oM EhA/ux3f4wESwnt7OIgYjl5HNVSoV6EiaFZ84AtrAipeGtbZshQgedrGjo92jos5SrGy +ElQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531BLip+fwPS+JULD2eyDqfp4qEQSFIzqT1gSXkl/nchv0eVOezM bGeQ9BOKRWe8Z4lXTm7vJR2v8bqJx1mnNBnOFGw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxhDaLvNZU+in3PgYYI7N0fjfHFcUcFdmrXVCWcgQKwfsOQcPKbGgsgvjGKrzwlPb5HLtvpZ7TzsSuKi925AHI= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5f5a:: with SMTP id 26mr6110386lfz.362.1619259387579; Sat, 24 Apr 2021 03:16:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <202104230209.05373.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: From: nopara73 Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 12:16:15 +0200 Message-ID: To: Antoine Riard , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009890fd05c0b5347d" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 10:25:59 +0000 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: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 10:16:31 -0000 --0000000000009890fd05c0b5347d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ACK adding Kalle On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 5:51 PM Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Hi Luke, > > For the records and the subscribers of this list not following > #bitcoin-core-dev, this mail follows a discussion which did happen during > yesterday irc meetings. > Logs here : http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/2021-04-22.log > > I'll reiterate my opinion expressed during the meeting. If this proposal > to extend the bip editorship membership doesn't satisfy parties involved = or > anyone in the community, I'm strongly opposed to have the matter sliced b= y > admins of the Bitcoin github org. I believe that defect or uncertainty in > the BIP Process shouldn't be solved by GH janitorial roles and I think > their roles don't bestow to intervene in case of loopholes. Further, you > have far more contributors involved in the BIP Process rather than only > Bitcoin Core ones. FWIW, such precedent merits would be quite similar to > lobby directly GH staff... > > Unless we harm Bitcoin users by not acting, I think we should always be > respectful of procedural forms. And in the lack of such forms, stay patie= nt > until a solution satisfy everyone. > > I would recommend the BIP editorship, once extended or not, to move in it= s > own repository in the future. > > Cheers, > Antoine > > > > > Le jeu. 22 avr. 2021 =C3=A0 22:09, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> a =C3=A9crit : > >> Unless there are objections, I intend to add Kalle Alm as a BIP editor t= o >> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --=20 Best, =C3=81d=C3=A1m --0000000000009890fd05c0b5347d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
ACK adding Kalle

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 5:51 PM Antoine Ri= ard via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
= Hi Luke,

For the records and the subscribers of this list not = following #bitcoin-core-dev, this mail follows a discussion which did happe= n during yesterday irc meetings.
Logs here : http://gnusha.org/bitc= oin-core-dev/2021-04-22.log

I'll reiterate my opinion = expressed during the meeting. If this proposal to extend the bip editorship= membership doesn't satisfy parties involved or anyone in the community= , I'm strongly opposed to have the matter sliced by admins of the Bitco= in github org. I believe that defect or uncertainty in the BIP Process shou= ldn't be solved by GH janitorial roles and I think their roles don'= t bestow to intervene in case of loopholes. Further, you have far more cont= ributors involved in the BIP Process rather than only Bitcoin Core ones. FW= IW, such precedent merits would be quite similar to lobby directly GH staff= ...

Unless we harm Bitcoin users by not acting, I think w= e should always be respectful of procedural forms. And in the lack of such = forms, stay patient until a solution satisfy everyone.

I = would recommend the BIP editorship, once extended or not, to move in its ow= n repository in the future.

Cheers,
Antoine=




Le=C2=A0jeu. 22 avr. 2021 =C3=A0=C2=A022:0= 9, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
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<= 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
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--
Best,
=C3=81d= =C3=A1m
--0000000000009890fd05c0b5347d--