📅 Original date posted:2021-04-22
📝 Original message: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
Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tf…rfq0n
2023-06-07 22:52:03
in reply to nevent1q…ap3c
Author Public Key
npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nPublished at
2023-06-07 22:52:03Event JSON
{
"id": "10940975880c21b078f8f07a3f01596e6b474312e13907c2c5dddd0d3b0b0d2d",
"pubkey": "5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803",
"created_at": 1686178323,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"52d21b3bdb5623e9c3469870d0da89b418ab6e28a17db8c410ab4681c4e6f9ba",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a23dbf6c6cc83e14cc3df4e56cc71845f611908084cfe620e83e40c06ccdd3d0"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2021-04-22\n📝 Original message:Unless there are objections, I intend to add Kalle Alm as a BIP editor to \nassist in merging PRs into the bips git repo.\n\nSince there is no explicit process to adding BIP editors, IMO it should be \nfine to use BIP 2's Process BIP progression:\n\n\u003e A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it achieves\n\u003e rough consensus on the mailing list. Such a proposal is said to have\n\u003e rough consensus if it has been open to discussion on the development\n\u003e mailing list for at least one month, and no person maintains any\n\u003e unaddressed substantiated objections to it.\n\nA Process BIP could be opened for each new editor, but IMO that is \nunnecessary. If anyone feels there is a need for a new Process BIP, we can go \nthat route, but there is prior precedent for BIP editors appointing new BIP \neditors, so I think this should be fine.\n\nPlease speak up soon if you disagree.\n\nLuke",
"sig": "b53bd124ee9995ed38dffde235894307655518334678ae43ac56b52042c0507c8aaf9e2e74e3ecf9f92975d011d66ff3567bb285a50ba13b196f1d2480773452"
}