From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82304C000B for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 16:56:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7069D403AC for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 16:56:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7zj4Fx0-ojv5 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 16:56:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-yb1-xb33.google.com (mail-yb1-xb33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b33]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AED34041C for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 16:56:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yb1-xb33.google.com with SMTP id p3so45064474ybk.0 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:56:31 -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; bh=o+cDlFSqS4JmOiA78qPsa9vsfxt2ZkFyva19NW/Afqo=; b=GJlPbpOi+ehqy2zM+tnhl6oqswWa9ALemcOqi2sBxd0sIG6paTjkUTgC76yG7J4qRh qrveathbu807YXAbIpWZPGGOfxS8+OTRfSpq6tG58YgI/GK1sNXvJrw6ENnxftM8Oy5x yfEMKSNN88nsYSLdOqNOc2QzYC99j+81ghYqdElIjtAQkb5VAfb6l1REdeCMFEPO1H6R MxgttIhdVSRWOstNRhIuSOLOr9ExGVS9xX+RxR7FszwlLufhCBDM6Il9VyfsxII/aVW4 ntKMe6CvfJ+BhCNiRiE0JQTB9N40BjzXe9XT4gZ1yE10M5mxS5xVekCALcU9vuLLA0EU AeJQ== 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; bh=o+cDlFSqS4JmOiA78qPsa9vsfxt2ZkFyva19NW/Afqo=; b=kd2TZ/cVIZ6F57TRKHuQdqwZl/8RI5qGYMzzZtl7DMswt/7WoFadF4nvv7A3ganR17 m+QfoTyzF/zS8GTy/aQAIfszwqzVXT+TFVa7lpznwfilQR/oJmcz78k5z5715hD1k2WV STdPdzXL83uDPx6vUBy2vobGPlvJTfC6gWGyi92JuQESMhXF6TypXzPlYARY+tOssdt1 vjUv4W7e9PtWoWXk7lkLBQm9MQPA2g4Ql5VYrNO86AAAmpuezQMQGqYPj178tjzscWiT A1bvYfN3KHxwh9/qXGsZrF+K3XMoJeu/SmsTkPq3BCItkBQHimViYjp8I3m3UEBEi4gi zIyg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5319NpZqsBDZsf631DVBmdbxRwHL8/SlWVxP2nEzUj2Z2Ej3aSAa Jw8TXyX40DDNlq8017yVaXAgyGbXtyM88G+XDJGDkUIn X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzqUP4pu9rYasPFLXUxeiw6Y9IcIKOVO9j/sCxIReUdciC7LY2Oyfg/fgmYt+9xFtwvzHC9f2ZZoXBn0ROacx8= X-Received: by 2002:a25:5d0b:: with SMTP id r11mr25339323ybb.380.1619456190993; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:56:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <202104230209.05373.luke@dashjr.org> <54852E33-080B-4C44-AD75-F0902B420280@sprovoost.nl> In-Reply-To: <54852E33-080B-4C44-AD75-F0902B420280@sprovoost.nl> From: "James O'Beirne" Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:56:19 -0700 Message-ID: To: Sjors Provoost , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fe58e205c0e30633" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 18:55:02 +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: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 16:56:33 -0000 --000000000000fe58e205c0e30633 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" ACK for Kalle. On Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 09:55 Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > ACK for adding Kalle. > > Recent drama aside, having a single editor is not ideal. There's currently > 110 open pull requests to the BIPs repo. > > - Sjors > > > Op 23 apr. 2021, om 04:09 heeft Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> het volgende geschreven: > > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --000000000000fe58e205c0e30633 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
ACK for Kalle.

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 09:55 Sjors Provoost = via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
ACK for adding Kalle.

Recent drama aside, having a single editor is not ideal. There's curren= tly 110 open pull requests to the BIPs repo.

- Sjors

> Op 23 apr. 2021, om 04:09 heeft Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> het volgende ges= chreven:
>
> 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 shoul= d be
> fine to use BIP 2's Process BIP progression:
>
>> A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it achie= ves
>> rough consensus on the mailing list. Such a proposal is said to ha= ve
>> rough consensus if it has been open to discussion on the developme= nt
>> 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 ne= w 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.linuxfou= ndation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundati= on.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--000000000000fe58e205c0e30633--