Define BIP Steward Process and set Temporary Editor #1113

pull JaimeCaring wants to merge 2 commits into bitcoin:master from JaimeCaring:steward changing 1 files +62 −3

JaimeCaring commented at 4:45 PM on April 26, 2021: none

On https://github.com/JaimeCaring/OpenBIPs/issues/2 I received feedback that a new repo was "nuclear".

Up-streaming the OpenBIPs process here. See the linked issue for motivation.

I'm happy for a non-nym editor to replace me championing this process, but I don't think anyone deserves the political and reputational loss for this necessary action.
Replace Luke Jr with Jaime Caring as BIP Editor a947ecc428
Define Stewardship Process and Initial Stewards 791c76928f
michaelfolkson commented at 11:02 AM on April 27, 2021: contributor

NACK. This seems to be being discussed on the mailing list by some of the proposed "stewards" and I don't see any reason why it won't be resolved in the usual way without getting 23 people involved. Thanks for trying to move this along but I don't think it is needed personally.
ghost commented at 1:49 PM on April 28, 2021: none

NACK everything mentioned in this PR
JeremyRubin commented at 6:54 PM on May 7, 2021: contributor

Concept ACK -- I don't think this is required right now, but it does seem like a decent enough path longer term for governing the BIP process... people might prefer ad hoc process, but I'm a frequent citationer of https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm, so I think defined processes end up being less corrupt and more robust than undefined.

curious what bip editor @luke-jr and editor-to-be @kallewoof think about standardizing something similar?
in bip-0002.mediawiki:92 in 791c76928f
```
  88 | +* @jnewbery John Newbery
  89 | +* @jonasschnelli Jonas Schnelli
  90 | +* @jonatack Jon Atack
  91 | +* @kallewoof kallewoof
  92 | +* @laanwj W. J. van der Laan
  93 | +* @MarcoFalke MarcoFalke
```
MarcoFalke commented at 6:38 AM on May 8, 2021:

NACK. Please stop spamming this repository and the list of people here. I am not aware that anyone in this list consents to being included here. In fact there are several that wished to be taken off the list. I can't speak for others, but I certainly don't want to be involved in this and I don't want to further my responsibilities in Bitcoin apart from quality assurance where I voluntarily provide my feedback.
MarcoFalke changes_requested
MarcoFalke commented at 6:40 AM on May 8, 2021: member

NACK. Please stop electing random people as "Stewards" even when they explicitly asked you not to do this: https://github.com/JaimeCaring/OpenBIPs/issues/2#issuecomment-831157867

Edit: Didn't realize the bip here was written before the comment above
MarcoFalke commented at 7:48 AM on May 10, 2021: member

I think this can be closed?
michaelfolkson commented at 11:00 AM on May 14, 2021: contributor

I think this can be closed?

Agree that this should be closed. It is a massive proposed change to BIP processes and clearly has strong opposition from many including a number of the proposed "stewards". Those "stewards" should have given their consent prior to be included. It appears none of them were aware that they were being put forward until the PR was opened. Other than perhaps @JeremyRubin I don't see anyone else supporting it.
luke-jr closed this on May 17, 2021

Contributors