From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2021 21:00:06 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10
References: <202104230209.05373.luke@dashjr.org>
 <CALZpt+Hz3jFnA8z1w6yictdHWnnKReMK+6eEHg_jUZ7==xNZzQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <64807e52-14ea-198b-4caf-29be92e89655@mattcorallo.com>
In-Reply-To: <64807e52-14ea-198b-4caf-29be92e89655@mattcorallo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <202104252100.07296.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Reminder on the Purpose of BIPs
Precedence: list

On Sunday 25 April 2021 20:29:44 Matt Corallo wrote:
> If the BIP editor is deliberately refusing to accept changes which the
> author's approval (which appears to be occurring here),

It isn't. I am triaging BIPs PRs the same as I have for years, and will get to 
them all in due time, likely before the end of the month.

Rather, what we have going on is a few bad actors trying to misportray the 
BIPs as an approval process so they can pretend ST is somehow official, or 
that the preexisting Core+Taproot client is "breaking" the spec. And to 
further their agenda, they have been harassing me demanding special 
treatment.

I will not become an accomplice to this deception by giving special treatment, 
and will process the BIP PR neutrally according to the currently-defined BIP 
process.

Despite the continual harassment, I have even made two efforts to try to 
(fairly) make things faster, and have been obstructed both times by ST 
advocates. It appears they intend to paint me as "deliberately refusing" (to 
use your words) in order to try to put Bitcoin and the BIP process under 
their control, and abuse it in the same manner in which they abused Bitcoin 
Core's usual standards (by releasing ST without community consensus).

Luke