Add Kalle Alm as BIP editor

jnewbery commented at 8:22 am on May 7, 2021: member

Update language to clarify that there are multiple editors.

MarcoFalke commented at 8:25 am on May 7, 2021: member

ACK 20bda62185469fb6cf7e105e62b4fd256a987e80, assuming ACK by @kallewoof

jnewbery commented at 8:30 am on May 7, 2021: member

Originally proposed in Bitcoin Core irc meeting (http://www.erisian.com.au/bitcoin-core-dev/log-2021-04-22.html#l-338). ACKs from:

It was then proposed to the Bitcoin developer mailing list by @luke-jr (https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-April/018835.html). ACKs from:

One NACK from @jaimecaring (https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-April/018877.html) proposing instead a “stewardship committee”.

in bip-0002.mediawiki:68 in 20bda62185 outdated

65+If you are interested in assuming ownership of a BIP, send a message asking to take over, addressed to both the original author and a BIP editor. If the original author doesn't respond to email in a timely manner, a BIP editor will make a unilateral decision (it's not like such decisions can't be reversed :).
66 
67 ===BIP Editors===
68 
69-The current BIP editor is Luke Dashjr who can be contacted at [[mailto:luke_bipeditor@dashjr.org|luke_bipeditor@dashjr.org]].
70+The current BIP editor are:

kallewoof commented at 9:09 am on May 7, 2021:

0The current BIP editors are:

jnewbery commented at 9:14 am on May 7, 2021:

Already proving yourself as an editor! Fixed.

kallewoof commented at 9:10 am on May 7, 2021: member

ACK sans nit

jnewbery force-pushed on May 7, 2021

MarcoFalke approved

kallewoof commented at 9:22 am on May 7, 2021: member

ACK f5575fbaacb289fda64e22ed5db9abfc1d1c6756

nopara73 approved

nopara73 commented at 10:43 am on May 7, 2021: none

ACK. The generalization of the document LGTM.

junderw commented at 11:25 am on May 7, 2021: contributor

ACK

michaelfolkson commented at 12:59 pm on May 7, 2021: contributor

Certainly no problem with @kallewoof being added as an additional editor. Only consideration re merging this is (imo) whether this change is included in the planned BIP 3 process revision that @kallewoof has planned and whether BIP 2 should be left as is given there will likely be a number of proposed changes for BIP 3 in addition to a new BIP editor.

MarcoFalke commented at 1:22 pm on May 7, 2021: member

I don’t understand why meta process BIPs need to be assigned a new BIP number each time they are modified. This just creates confusion as to which one is the latest active one. Also, it bloats the already large repo even more with historic documents that are irrelevant to the current process. Historians can always ask the git log for previous versions.

michaelfolkson commented at 1:29 pm on May 7, 2021: contributor

@MarcoFalke: That’s a question for @luke-jr. Previously he has said:

To clarify: BIP 2 is already Active, so further modifications are not possible. A new BIP should be proposed for these changes.

#1012 (comment)

My only point is that a new BIP editor is unlikely to be the only proposed change to BIP 2. The Rejected rule also needs clarifying and there may be other proposed changes too. Either we attempt to make multiple changes to BIP 2 and ditch the idea of BIP 3 entirely. Or if we are making a BIP 3 then we should probably bundle those changes into BIP 3 and keep BIP 2 as is.

MarcoFalke commented at 1:35 pm on May 7, 2021: member

There can only be one active meta process BIP. As soon as there is a new version, the previous version become inactive. The easiest way to achieve this is by simply editing the process BIP and merging the changes once they shall become active.

Should we start to create a new BIP every time someone fixes a typo or changes a sentence?

MarcoFalke cross-referenced this on May 7, 2021 from issue BIP: Process, revision 3 by kallewoof

luke-jr commented at 2:44 pm on May 7, 2021: member

For reference: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/BIP-Process-wishlist

dr-orlovsky approved

dr-orlovsky commented at 3:03 pm on May 7, 2021: contributor

ACK f5575fbaacb289fda64e22ed5db9abfc1d1c6756

harding commented at 4:25 pm on May 7, 2021: contributor

ACK f5575fbaacb289fda64e22ed5db9abfc1d1c6756

JeremyRubin commented at 6:46 pm on May 7, 2021: contributor

ACK adding @kallewoof as noted above.

I am sympathetic to the idea that the process of becoming or un-becoming an editor should be defined ’n documented, but I think that @kallewoof and @luke-jr can propose something as opposed to the more aggressive plan/nack from @JaimeCaring. I think they shouldn’t punt on doing so, however.

fjahr commented at 7:17 pm on May 13, 2021: contributor

ACK f5575fb

michaelfolkson commented at 8:25 pm on May 13, 2021: contributor

A judgement for the current BIP editor (@luke-jr) and the future BIP editor (@kallewoof) on if/when it is appropriate for this to be merged.

We have already had pressure for Taproot activation params to be merged (which they were), pressure for an additional BIP editor to be agreed to (which it was) and pressure for a new BIP editor to be chosen (which it was). At some point people need to step back and trust the individuals involved to move forward in their own time rather than pressuring for PR merges within a week of it being opened. Although ACKs from other reviewers are informative, in this repo ACKs generally only hold real weight re merge decisions if the ACKs are from BIP authors. @kallewoof: If you are uncomfortable with progress as you onboard as a new BIP editor in collaboration with Luke please raise it and we can discuss how to help you. Otherwise I’d ask people to leave them to it and consider the precedent they are setting by demanding merges within certain time periods.

Context: http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/2021-05-13.log

kallewoof commented at 5:05 am on May 14, 2021: member

As I noted on IRC, I’m not uncomfortable at all, and I’m grateful to John for championing this as he’s done so far. I have no issues waiting for Luke to get around to merging this, but I understand people’s frustration.

MarcoFalke commented at 5:12 am on May 14, 2021: member

in this repo ACKs generally only hold real weight re merge decisions if the ACKs are from BIP authors.

This is not true for meta BIPs, BIP 2 says:

A Process BIP describes a process surrounding Bitcoin, or proposes a change to (or an event in) a process. Process BIPs are like Standards Track BIPs but apply to areas other than the Bitcoin protocol itself. They may propose an implementation, but not to Bitcoin’s codebase; they often require community consensus; unlike Informational BIPs, they are more than recommendations, and users are typically not free to ignore them. Examples include procedures, guidelines, changes to the decision-making process, and changes to the tools or environment used in Bitcoin development. Any meta-BIP is also considered a Process BIP.

michaelfolkson commented at 10:04 am on May 14, 2021: contributor

This is not true for meta BIPs

Thanks for the correction. Then we need community consensus on potentially making multiple changes to BIP 2 or community consensus on what is included in a new BIP, BIP 3 as @kallewoof has tentatively put forward here. @kallewoof: What are your thoughts on making some of these proposed changes to the BIP process in BIP 2 versus starting afresh with a new BIP, i.e. BIP 3?

edit: As I’ve said earlier merging this single PR into BIP 2 doesn’t seem a problem to me. But if there are going to be multiple proposed changes to BIP 2 in addition to this PR we need to assess whether we need a new BIP 3 or not. I think @luke-jr would prefer a new BIP, BIP 3 for these changes and @MarcoFalke would prefer we just made changes to existing BIP 2. Presumably @jnewbery shares Marco’s view. But other than those three people, I have no idea what anyone else thinks. Personally I think if there are going to be multiple proposed changes then it makes sense to start afresh with BIP 3.

MarcoFalke commented at 10:19 am on May 14, 2021: member

I fail to see how my quote implies that a change that has community consensus and is ready to be merged needs to be held back and bundled with changes that don’t (yet) have community consensus.

Also, the discussion seems slightly off-topic for this thread and a separate discussion might be more appropriate.

michaelfolkson commented at 10:24 am on May 14, 2021: contributor

I fail to see how my quote implies that a change that has community consensus and is ready to be merged needs to be held back and bundled with changes that don’t (yet) have community consensus.

Because once you make one change to BIP 2 you might as well make multiple. That effectively makes the BIP 2/3 decision.

Also, the discussion seems slightly off-topic for this thread and a separate discussion might be more appropriate.

I disagree it is off-topic for previous rationale. Though I agree a separate discussion is appropriate and something I expect to happen in future when Luke, Kalle are ready to have that discussion. Rushing through merges doesn’t seem like a good idea to me generally, let alone when there are broader meta BIP issues to be resolved.

kallewoof commented at 10:46 am on May 14, 2021: member

I think updating BIP 2 to edit/add editors is a different question from modifying BIP 2, so I agree with @MarcoFalke here. Let’s move the discussion of extensive/further changes to a separate thread (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/BIP-Process-wishlist is a good starting point).

NicolasDorier commented at 8:01 am on May 20, 2021: contributor

ACK

MarcoFalke commented at 8:05 am on May 20, 2021: member

@luke-jr Seems ready for merge

laanwj commented at 7:35 pm on May 20, 2021: member

ACK f5575fbaacb289fda64e22ed5db9abfc1d1c6756

jnewbery commented at 8:23 pm on May 20, 2021: member

Summary

Proposal originally made on 22-04-2021 (28 days ago)

18 ACKs

Rspigler commented at 5:33 pm on May 24, 2021: contributor

Concept ACK (I have not proof read the text yet)

MarcoFalke commented at 12:00 pm on May 31, 2021: member

@luke-jr

Rspigler commented at 1:50 am on June 1, 2021: contributor

ACK commit f5575fbaacb289fda64e22ed5db9abfc1d1c6756

dr-orlovsky approved

dr-orlovsky commented at 10:32 am on June 6, 2021: contributor

ACK f5575fbaacb289fda64e22ed5db9abfc1d1c6756

ajtowns commented at 4:28 am on June 8, 2021: contributor

ACK f5575fbaacb289fda64e22ed5db9abfc1d1c6756

in bip-0002.mediawiki:51 in f5575fbaac outdated

49 It is highly recommended that a single BIP contain a single key proposal or new idea. The more focused the BIP, the more successful it tends to be. If in doubt, split your BIP into several well-focused ones.
50 
51-When the BIP draft is complete, the BIP editor will assign the BIP a number, label it as Standards Track, Informational, or Process, and merge the pull request to the BIPs git repository.
52-The BIP editor will not unreasonably reject a BIP.
53+When the BIP draft is complete, a BIP editor will assign the BIP a number, label it as Standards Track, Informational, or Process, and merge the pull request to the BIPs git repository.
54+A BIP editor will not unreasonably reject a BIP.

luke-jr commented at 6:06 am on June 11, 2021:

0The BIP editors will not unreasonably reject a BIP.

in bip-0002.mediawiki:64 in f5575fbaac outdated

60@@ -61,16 +61,19 @@ The BIP author may update the draft as necessary in the git repository. Updates
61 
62 It occasionally becomes necessary to transfer ownership of BIPs to a new champion. In general, we'd like to retain the original author as a co-author of the transferred BIP, but that's really up to the original author. A good reason to transfer ownership is because the original author no longer has the time or interest in updating it or following through with the BIP process, or has fallen off the face of the 'net (i.e. is unreachable or not responding to email). A bad reason to transfer ownership is because you don't agree with the direction of the BIP. We try to build consensus around a BIP, but if that's not possible, you can always submit a competing BIP.
63 
64-If you are interested in assuming ownership of a BIP, send a message asking to take over, addressed to both the original author and the BIP editor. If the original author doesn't respond to email in a timely manner, the BIP editor will make a unilateral decision (it's not like such decisions can't be reversed :).
65+If you are interested in assuming ownership of a BIP, send a message asking to take over, addressed to both the original author and a BIP editor. If the original author doesn't respond to email in a timely manner, a BIP editor will make a unilateral decision (it's not like such decisions can't be reversed :).

luke-jr commented at 6:07 am on June 11, 2021:

0If you are interested in assuming ownership of a BIP, send a message asking to take over, addressed to both the original author and the BIP editors. If the original author doesn't respond to email in a timely manner, the BIP editors will make a unilateral decision (it's not like such decisions can't be reversed :).

in bip-0002.mediawiki:76 in f5575fbaac outdated

75 ===BIP Editor Responsibilities & Workflow===
76 
77-The BIP editor subscribes to the Bitcoin development mailing list.
78-Off-list BIP-related correspondence should be sent (or CC'd) to luke_bipeditor@dashjr.org.
79+The BIP editors subscribe to the Bitcoin development mailing list.
80+Off-list BIP-related correspondence should be sent (or CC'd) to one of the BIP editors.

luke-jr commented at 6:07 am on June 11, 2021:

0Off-list BIP-related correspondence should be sent (or CC'd) to the BIP editors.

luke-jr changes_requested

luke-jr commented at 6:08 am on June 11, 2021: member

Looks good for the most part.

A few nits:

Add Kalle Alm as BIP editor

Update language to clarify that there are multiple editors.

4e53b6e6c4

jnewbery force-pushed on Jun 11, 2021

jnewbery commented at 9:19 am on June 11, 2021: member

@luke-jr - I’ve taken your review comments.

This is ready for merge.

ajtowns commented at 9:46 am on June 11, 2021: contributor

ACK 4e53b6e6c4b279e76ccf107a5a315911466bda4b

corrects choice of singular editor to all editors in a few places

kallewoof commented at 10:48 am on June 11, 2021: member

ACK, thanks for the patience everyone.

kallewoof merged this on Jun 11, 2021

kallewoof closed this on Jun 11, 2021

jnewbery deleted the branch on Jun 11, 2021

michaelfolkson cross-referenced this on Jan 12, 2023 from issue contrib: add vasild to trusted keys by vasild

Add Kalle Alm as BIP editor #1116

Summary