path: root/51/04be7c9cba5b107e2849d2d24daa7c0f07b84e

Return-Path: <adam.ficsor73@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A454C000B
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat, 24 Apr 2021 10:16:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BB4384435
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat, 24 Apr 2021 10:16:31 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 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_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
 HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
 SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id sBHgjvUebmzY
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat, 24 Apr 2021 10:16:30 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-lf1-x12a.google.com (mail-lf1-x12a.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12a])
 by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA6ED843AB
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat, 24 Apr 2021 10:16:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12a.google.com with SMTP id 12so80886814lfq.13
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat, 24 Apr 2021 03:16:29 -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
 :cc; bh=cU0K+mVh5Ztu7EV3ZWG4ndXMwMEXq/AJmYiE7Vy3yOw=;
 b=Y1zl0G/GsdGzoUSGZd2OAjxxaGKbqg70Fry94qbrzCnZr97O2jqUi7fnEeOPcXiaCL
 3cEbQwtV1uGRjsdD7WCPYyt/80XuDiLXo+1lkn/CzV3GcjSkR1PfdmpA1AiAoodHyZ37
 PGzRT5WOec1A+a8TszGOK5eJOUfRGIg5b5d0GLfHtrTNBF9T5sUIO6LzqvillMUoC+md
 tg/q8dy1WMFu++GxZp/PTgGl4ACL8N50YYghT+2wrdB1bR5laPFe4No3LBdFVOMoBcIp
 6ejLqcUXMU/n9j+1/So4R7uBaV0LmejA2K7BBlKs4lm5/U/OWqzNKXxZPgGH7OOCxIhO
 jPRA==
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:cc;
 bh=cU0K+mVh5Ztu7EV3ZWG4ndXMwMEXq/AJmYiE7Vy3yOw=;
 b=WnUIyemcimCT3p2veMYgkgq8ETUETj6zYicJQ9MNjruScrTyse94qU1Vu6DGWZUXeF
 nQQNo9JsoMxyBUYDvzf6yK1J927zRdUweyNhinM5wq4n6HLaSOqrccK5VpK5sX8i8W2j
 7MMR0n1jN64+RnRfKxb+/R92yPqYLvFkY6PIBQheUZ19AIDztpI0NShhWYZvS0/ZCCDc
 97l3NkOMzCNR3jj/ApTdPfeqclIqMuwA6bu0WbYtDzrg/ZGkl1V962H3QvdxOvwDq+oM
 EhA/ux3f4wESwnt7OIgYjl5HNVSoV6EiaFZ84AtrAipeGtbZshQgedrGjo92jos5SrGy
 +ElQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531BLip+fwPS+JULD2eyDqfp4qEQSFIzqT1gSXkl/nchv0eVOezM
 bGeQ9BOKRWe8Z4lXTm7vJR2v8bqJx1mnNBnOFGw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxhDaLvNZU+in3PgYYI7N0fjfHFcUcFdmrXVCWcgQKwfsOQcPKbGgsgvjGKrzwlPb5HLtvpZ7TzsSuKi925AHI=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5f5a:: with SMTP id 26mr6110386lfz.362.1619259387579; 
 Sat, 24 Apr 2021 03:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <202104230209.05373.luke@dashjr.org>
 <CALZpt+Hz3jFnA8z1w6yictdHWnnKReMK+6eEHg_jUZ7==xNZzQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALZpt+Hz3jFnA8z1w6yictdHWnnKReMK+6eEHg_jUZ7==xNZzQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: nopara73 <adam.ficsor73@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 12:16:15 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEPKjgfis_vKHVeEOtLWmEjcZs6ODJdf3w48cqqRMEKMbHFyUA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Riard <antoine.riard@gmail.com>, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009890fd05c0b5347d"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 10:25:59 +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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 10:16:31 -0000

--0000000000009890fd05c0b5347d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

ACK adding Kalle

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 5:51 PM Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> 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 b=
y
> 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 patie=
nt
> until a solution satisfy everyone.
>
> I would recommend the BIP editorship, once extended or not, to move in it=
s
> own repository in the future.
>
> Cheers,
> Antoine
>
>
>
>
> Le jeu. 22 avr. 2021 =C3=A0 22:09, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> a =C3=A9crit :
>
>> Unless there are objections, I intend to add Kalle Alm as a BIP editor t=
o
>> 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
>


--=20
Best,
=C3=81d=C3=A1m

--0000000000009890fd05c0b5347d
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">ACK adding Kalle</div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div =
dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 5:51 PM Antoine Ri=
ard via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation=
.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockq=
uote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1p=
x solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div>=
Hi Luke,<br><br></div>For the records and the subscribers of this list not =
following #bitcoin-core-dev, this mail follows a discussion which did happe=
n during yesterday irc meetings.<br>Logs here : <a href=3D"http://gnusha.or=
g/bitcoin-core-dev/2021-04-22.log" target=3D"_blank">http://gnusha.org/bitc=
oin-core-dev/2021-04-22.log</a><br><br></div>I&#39;ll reiterate my opinion =
expressed during the meeting. If this proposal to extend the bip editorship=
 membership doesn&#39;t satisfy parties involved or anyone in the community=
, I&#39;m strongly opposed to have the matter sliced by admins of the Bitco=
in github org. I believe that defect or uncertainty in the BIP Process shou=
ldn&#39;t be solved by GH janitorial roles and I think their roles don&#39;=
t bestow to intervene in case of loopholes. Further, you have far more cont=
ributors involved in the BIP Process rather than only Bitcoin Core ones. FW=
IW, such precedent merits would be quite similar to lobby directly GH staff=
...<br><br></div><div>Unless we harm Bitcoin users by not acting, I think w=
e should always be respectful of procedural forms. And in the lack of such =
forms, stay patient until a solution satisfy everyone.<br><br></div><div>I =
would recommend the BIP editorship, once extended or not, to move in its ow=
n repository in the future.<br><br></div><div>Cheers,<br></div><div>Antoine=
<br></div><div><br><br><br></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div =
dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">Le=C2=A0jeu. 22 avr. 2021 =C3=A0=C2=A022:0=
9, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linu=
xfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a=
>&gt; a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding=
-left:1ex">Unless there are objections, I intend to add Kalle Alm as a BIP =
editor to <br>
assist in merging PRs into the bips git repo.<br>
<br>
Since there is no explicit process to adding BIP editors, IMO it should be =
<br>
fine to use BIP 2&#39;s Process BIP progression:<br>
<br>
&gt; A process BIP may change status from Draft to Active when it achieves<=
br>
&gt; rough consensus on the mailing list. Such a proposal is said to have<b=
r>
&gt; rough consensus if it has been open to discussion on the development<b=
r>
&gt; mailing list for at least one month, and no person maintains any<br>
&gt; unaddressed substantiated objections to it.<br>
<br>
A Process BIP could be opened for each new editor, but IMO that is <br>
unnecessary. If anyone feels there is a need for a new Process BIP, we can =
go <br>
that route, but there is prior precedent for BIP editors appointing new BIP=
 <br>
editors, so I think this should be fine.<br>
<br>
Please speak up soon if you disagree.<br>
<br>
Luke<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir=3D"ltr"=
 class=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div=
 dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><span style=3D"font-size:13.3333px">Best,<br>=C3=81d=
=C3=A1m</span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>

--0000000000009890fd05c0b5347d--