From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Delivery-date: Wed, 03 Apr 2024 10:09:55 -0700 Received: from mail-yb1-f186.google.com ([209.85.219.186]) by mail.fairlystable.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rs47W-0002sQ-SP for bitcoindev@gnusha.org; Wed, 03 Apr 2024 10:09:55 -0700 Received: by mail-yb1-f186.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-dc6b26ce0bbsf163886276.1 for ; Wed, 03 Apr 2024 10:09:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20230601; t=1712164189; x=1712768989; darn=gnusha.org; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-sender:mime-version :subject:references:in-reply-to:message-id:to:from:date:sender:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=lbNcjLSEhXLDL2Mar9LSpc8/3o+08Ila6EG7i8iV9eQ=; b=nAcAbfxjTcHX53LMA5drZrBNpHwshGqSOlsZPcsL4O+XOGI25fX2F0cpsNhLf0XPzi Yqx13AA1txZMTedFofcpPaJ2nSnp8FfhtibHJ2fXtl+1exYtQWBxmQHqtw9HslANwlKt R3YZwlsWGZiXTcytwNKnYd6LgM4jMXg1oC5xsqPEHHZgTmxaOq5VlAaLQ/hP6B76G7B+ koBd4I4agETX0cs0noQVqd8JZficMMduD/rzHpw482nrg7DnkVo9gCOqmsujobXrfsxB EtcEkl3xSaKSzel4+IapeoLxoQd1XdPCPsHdEik4lEoPh4vGlbvEnO3GTj+6Ry7+2od0 KjOA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1712164189; x=1712768989; darn=gnusha.org; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-sender:mime-version :subject:references:in-reply-to:message-id:to:from:date:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=lbNcjLSEhXLDL2Mar9LSpc8/3o+08Ila6EG7i8iV9eQ=; b=lGyq/mEv1mWp6b+XNNSu50AkXHPlDyOt/LHGGd2salxmR6irubQsYnicMhpcEOZOY6 45ylBcpScyddATqRm9bFoBNJqGPgMxn+VJkXW5ManuNo22Qs3BXiS1zBFf6keR0T+Dxx eYPnmYD0Jp+V+0FhkixLBTu1dAbjuzakAMrzBmTNv6D3FT27g90Y8GOFqvO9ge2k3X/m CwMx4Za9pMMYPW+9dFoVi91Ybh8x61w8B6LqSWlqAoTdScVYEPMmI48sL2lAEYjSCbG0 nXW5HiLy1Rs93i7txldwLjY4CUIYpk8s5WIESvLE6N/F18zbmemfJFixo/e/mAGP16xk cSjg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1712164189; x=1712768989; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-sender:mime-version :subject:references:in-reply-to:message-id:to:from:date:x-beenthere :x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=lbNcjLSEhXLDL2Mar9LSpc8/3o+08Ila6EG7i8iV9eQ=; b=lr/J/OJWSh0GXagLfWa1s+B46TJDqTHBX+Iz9ahg0wTECX7rANVee03/hh8+QgjkAB aMgRj9NBEzmy2BpKkgzF2pPEH4bj6l7Vd1GW5IkdAhPx6KgI+g2DGUpQ9pSnhPbFLctF fLx8vw8YO0akXfNg1zfjVqXkcnMD1nd6lAlPwXIlSR8xzjfjYXzpXE8IAjEa0q25cwhN FAbRBb5NZJMkkS/47NJXpfqynqUJnOCq01+VDP97XpugTWbmpaHAagInjLXNDwPmYeKB ZEikTvgYkYbumJ+AnmzaaqRJ6SQHvK7Uj41hgPJVrmkcCrl07c8Rgi7LzWe6X3QljbVA bmUw== Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVtbdABQVkZz9SMLi1SXkhKv594L2OC1JvfqBUkF6RgMb0+DTc1Hi4/835Nxdv+RFRU/KY7M+c3wV+wsTgEH9+WR47CKq8= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwayMNoUMGigfYyZQlLTuftxuBLIyAzIcusMWcozc07JYfHyu15 IuGtGhhVUlIpvNFRlLNWpv+IdNTftnICqF7/hDbngCkLG4jkxWsd X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHdNpbMfsR1Qtz5o0a3zhu87gW+3E3/bLFwyg+JJJfdWTezMdhganWSQd64q8MWGenKr5zL9A== X-Received: by 2002:a25:e912:0:b0:dc7:5018:4022 with SMTP id n18-20020a25e912000000b00dc750184022mr44492ybd.44.1712164188618; Wed, 03 Apr 2024 10:09:48 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com Received: by 2002:a25:72d5:0:b0:dcc:911c:557c with SMTP id n204-20020a2572d5000000b00dcc911c557cls285218ybc.0.-pod-prod-01-us; Wed, 03 Apr 2024 10:09:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:600d:b0:615:7f59:9db7 with SMTP id hf13-20020a05690c600d00b006157f599db7mr16031ywb.2.1712164187421; Wed, 03 Apr 2024 10:09:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 2002:a05:690c:8:b0:611:2a20:d0cc with SMTP id 00721157ae682-61584531e4bms7b3; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 09:58:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:20c9:b0:dda:c59c:3953 with SMTP id dj9-20020a05690220c900b00ddac59c3953mr19528ybb.0.1712163518385; Wed, 03 Apr 2024 09:58:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 09:58:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Juan Galt To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <2092f7ff-4860-47f8-ba1a-c9d97927551e@achow101.com> <9288df7b-f2e9-4106-b843-c1ff8f8a62a3@dashjr.org> <42e6c1d1d39d811e2fe7c4c5ce6e09c705bd3dbb.camel@timruffing.de> <52a0d792-d99f-4360-ba34-0b12de183fef@murch.one> Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Re: Adding New BIP Editors MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_1418_1987227220.1712163517943" X-Original-Sender: juans.galt@gmail.com 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: -0.5 (/) ------=_Part_1418_1987227220.1712163517943 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1419_1175789095.1712163517943" ------=_Part_1419_1175789095.1712163517943 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello there! I'm not an active contributor but I've been following the=20 mailing list for years, and try to keep a close eye on the most important= =20 aspects of Bitcoin.=20 Throwing in my support for Jon Atack and Kanzure, who's work I follow more= =20 closely. The others I am less familiar with.=20 Nevertheless I agree with NVK that the more editors this process has, the= =20 better. No need for this to be a bottleneck.=20 Jon in particular I know has years of experience with copy editing,=20 documentation and review of Bitcoin core code. Cheers! Juan Galt On Sunday, March 31, 2024 at 1:31:14=E2=80=AFPM UTC-5 Ava Chow wrote: > Thanks for bringing this back up again. I agree that we should try to=20 > move forward on this, and this timeline seems reasonable to me. > > Kanzure, Ruben, Roasbeef, Murch, and Jonatack all have my support to be= =20 > BIP editors with all privileges and responsibilities as laid out in BIP 2= . > > Regarding guidance on assigning BIP numbers, if there is no guidance=20 > provided by Luke to the new BIP editors when their permissions are=20 > granted, I would also support simply creating their own numbering scheme= =20 > and begin assigning new BIP numbers. It's ridiculous that we should be=20 > bottlenecked on simply what number a proposal should have. > > Ava > > On 03/27/2024 05:25 PM, Murch wrote: > > Hey everyone, > >=20 > > I wanted to check in on the topic adding BIP Editors. There seem to be = a > > number of candidates that are willing and able, and there seems to be > > broad agreement among the current editor, the readers of the repository= , > > and the contributors to the repository that additional help is desirabl= e. > >=20 > > I have seen some support and reservations raised for pretty much every > > candidate. A few weeks have passed since this topic was last active. So > > far, there seems no clear path forward. > >=20 > > If we are all just in a holding pattern, perhaps we could timebox this > > decision process: how about we invite arguments for and against any > > candidates in this thread until next Friday EOD (April 5th). If any > > candidates find broad support, those candidates could be added as new > > editors to the repository on the following Monday (April 8th). If none > > get broad support, at least we=E2=80=99d be able to move on and try som= ething=20 > else. > >=20 > > I propose that all editors share the same privileges, especially that > > any editor may assign numbers to BIPs. If there is guidance to be > > provided on the process of assigning numbers and number ranges for > > specific topics, it should be provided by then. If the editors decide o= n > > a single number authority among themselves, that would also be fine as > > long as it doesn=E2=80=99t become a bottleneck. > >=20 > > As Tim and Chris have suggested, it seems reasonable to me that > > assessment of the technical soundness can be left to the audience. BIPs > > have been published in the repository and set to the "rejected" status > > before, so it=E2=80=99s not as if adding a BIP to the repository is tre= ated as > > an unequivocal endorsement or implementation recommendation. > >=20 > > Cheers, > > Murch > >=20 > >=20 > > On 3/14/24 07:56, Chris Stewart wrote: > >> I agree with Tim's thoughts here. > >> > >> I think Jon Atack, Reuben Somsen, Kanzure or Roasbeef would all make= =20 > great > >> candidates. > >> > >> On Thursday, February 29, 2024 at 10:55:52=E2=80=AFAM UTC-6 Tim Ruffin= g wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, 2024-02-27 at 17:40 -0500, Luke Dashjr wrote: > >>>> The hard part is evaluating > >>>> if the new proposal meets the criteria - which definitely needs dev > >>>> skills (mainly for technical soundness). > >>> > >>> I'm aware that checking technical soundness is in accordance with BIP= 2 > >>> [1], but I believe that this is one of the main problems of the curre= nt > >>> process, and I can imagine that this is what eats the time of editors= . > >>> > >>> I'd prefer a BIP process in which the editors merely check that the > >>> proposal is related to the Bitcoin ecosystem and meets some minimal > >>> formal criteria that we already enforce now (i.e., is a full self- > >>> contained document, has the required sections, etc...). This relieves > >>> the editors not just from the effort, but also from the responsibilit= y > >>> to do so. Technical soundness should be evaluated by the audience of = a > >>> BIP, not by the editor. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Tim > >>> > >>> > >>> [1] BIP2 says: > >>> "For each new BIP that comes in an editor does the following: > >>> > >>> - Read the BIP to check if it is ready: sound and complete. The ideas > >>> must make technical sense, even if they don't seem likely to be > >>> accepted. > >>> [...]" > >=20 > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google=20 > Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send= =20 > an email to bitcoindev+...@googlegroups.com. > > To view this discussion on the web visit=20 > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/52a0d792-d99f-4360-ba34-0b12= de183fef%40murch.one > . > > --=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/fb4b32a9-f7c2-4ab7-b194-6f153cd8ef2en%40googlegroups.com. ------=_Part_1419_1175789095.1712163517943 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello there! I'm not an active contributor but I've been following the mail= ing list for years, and try to keep a close eye on the most important aspec= ts of Bitcoin.=C2=A0

Throwing in my support for Jon Atack and Ka= nzure, who's work I follow more closely. The others I am less familiar with= .

Nevertheless I agree with NVK that the more editors this proc= ess has, the better. No need for this to be a bottleneck.=C2=A0

= Jon in particular I know has years of experience with copy editing, documen= tation and review of Bitcoin core code.

Cheers!

Juan = Galt

On Sunday, March 31, 2024 at 1:31:14=E2=80=AFPM UTC-5 Ava Chow wrote= :
Thanks for = bringing this back up again. I agree that we should try to=20
move forward on this, and this timeline seems reasonable to me.

Kanzure, Ruben, Roasbeef, Murch, and Jonatack all have my support to be= =20
BIP editors with all privileges and responsibilities as laid out in BIP= 2.

Regarding guidance on assigning BIP numbers, if there is no guidance=20
provided by Luke to the new BIP editors when their permissions are=20
granted, I would also support simply creating their own numbering schem= e=20
and begin assigning new BIP numbers. It's ridiculous that we should= be=20
bottlenecked on simply what number a proposal should have.

Ava

On 03/27/2024 05:25 PM, Murch wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>=20
> I wanted to check in on the topic adding BIP Editors. There seem t= o be a
> number of candidates that are willing and able, and there seems to= be
> broad agreement among the current editor, the readers of the repos= itory,
> and the contributors to the repository that additional help is des= irable.
>=20
> I have seen some support and reservations raised for pretty much e= very
> candidate. A few weeks have passed since this topic was last activ= e. So
> far, there seems no clear path forward.
>=20
> If we are all just in a holding pattern, perhaps we could timebox = this
> decision process: how about we invite arguments for and against an= y
> candidates in this thread until next Friday EOD (April 5th). If an= y
> candidates find broad support, those candidates could be added as = new
> editors to the repository on the following Monday (April 8th). If = none
> get broad support, at least we=E2=80=99d be able to move on and tr= y something else.
>=20
> I propose that all editors share the same privileges, especially t= hat
> any editor may assign numbers to BIPs. If there is guidance to be
> provided on the process of assigning numbers and number ranges for
> specific topics, it should be provided by then. If the editors dec= ide on
> a single number authority among themselves, that would also be fin= e as
> long as it doesn=E2=80=99t become a bottleneck.
>=20
> As Tim and Chris have suggested, it seems reasonable to me that
> assessment of the technical soundness can be left to the audience.= BIPs
> have been published in the repository and set to the "rejecte= d" status
> before, so it=E2=80=99s not as if adding a BIP to the repository i= s treated as
> an unequivocal endorsement or implementation recommendation.
>=20
> Cheers,
> Murch
>=20
>=20
> On 3/14/24 07:56, Chris Stewart wrote:
>> I agree with Tim's thoughts here.
>>
>> I think Jon Atack, Reuben Somsen, Kanzure or Roasbeef would al= l make great
>> candidates.
>>
>> On Thursday, February 29, 2024 at 10:55:52=E2=80=AFAM UTC-6 Ti= m Ruffing wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 2024-02-27 at 17:40 -0500, Luke Dashjr wrote:
>>>> The hard part is evaluating
>>>> if the new proposal meets the criteria - which definit= ely needs dev
>>>> skills (mainly for technical soundness).
>>>
>>> I'm aware that checking technical soundness is in acco= rdance with BIP2
>>> [1], but I believe that this is one of the main problems o= f the current
>>> process, and I can imagine that this is what eats the time= of editors.
>>>
>>> I'd prefer a BIP process in which the editors merely c= heck that the
>>> proposal is related to the Bitcoin ecosystem and meets som= e minimal
>>> formal criteria that we already enforce now (i.e., is a fu= ll self-
>>> contained document, has the required sections, etc...). Th= is relieves
>>> the editors not just from the effort, but also from the re= sponsibility
>>> to do so. Technical soundness should be evaluated by the a= udience of a
>>> BIP, not by the editor.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Tim
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] BIP2 says:
>>> "For each new BIP that comes in an editor does the fo= llowing:
>>>
>>> - Read the BIP to check if it is ready: sound and complete= . The ideas
>>> must make technical sense, even if they don't seem lik= ely to be
>>> accepted.
>>> [...]"
>=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 email to bitcoindev+...@= googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://gr= oups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/52a0d792-d99f-4360-ba34-0b12de183fef%40m= urch.one.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bitcoind= ev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg= id/bitcoindev/fb4b32a9-f7c2-4ab7-b194-6f153cd8ef2en%40googlegroups.com.=
------=_Part_1419_1175789095.1712163517943-- ------=_Part_1418_1987227220.1712163517943--