Antoine Riard [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2021-04-23 📝 Original message:Hi Luke, For the records ...
📅 Original date posted:2021-04-23
📝 Original message: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 by
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 patient
until a solution satisfy everyone.
I would recommend the BIP editorship, once extended or not, to move in its
own repository in the future.
Cheers,
Antoine
Le jeu. 22 avr. 2021 à 22:09, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> a écrit :
> 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210423/fb5bccd8/attachment-0001.html>;
📝 Original message: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 by
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 patient
until a solution satisfy everyone.
I would recommend the BIP editorship, once extended or not, to move in its
own repository in the future.
Cheers,
Antoine
Le jeu. 22 avr. 2021 à 22:09, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> a écrit :
> 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210423/fb5bccd8/attachment-0001.html>;