Proposed BIP editor: Kalle Alm

Proposed BIP editor: Kalle Alm
2021-04-23  3:36 ` Jeremy
                   ` (4 more replies)
  
From: Luke Dashjr @ 2021-04-23  2:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

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


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-04-23  2:09 Luke Dashjr

  2021-04-23  7:49   ` John Newbery
  2021-04-23  7:50 ` Pindar Wong
                   ` (3 subsequent siblings)
  
From: Jeremy @ 2021-04-23  3:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Luke Dashjr, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1384 bytes --]

ACK adding Kalle.

Kalle is a qualified reviewer / editor and well suited for this role.
--
@JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>


On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 7:09 PM Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2479 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-04-23  3:36 ` Jeremy

  
From: John Newbery @ 2021-04-23  7:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1739 bytes --]

ACK adding Kalle.

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 4:36 AM Jeremy via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> ACK adding Kalle.
>
> Kalle is a qualified reviewer / editor and well suited for this role.
> --
> @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
> <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 7:09 PM Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3326 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-04-23  2:09 Luke Dashjr
  2021-04-23  3:36 ` Jeremy

  2021-04-23  9:11   ` Eric Martindale
  2021-04-23 15:34 ` Antoine Riard
                   ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  
From: Pindar Wong @ 2021-04-23  7:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Luke Dashjr, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1221 bytes --]

ACK.

p.


On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 10:09 AM Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1846 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-04-23  7:50 ` Pindar Wong

  
From: Eric Martindale @ 2021-04-23  9:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pindar Wong, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1704 bytes --]

ACK.  Kalle has been exceptional throughout his contributions — especially
thankful for btcdeb 🙏

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 3:51 AM Pindar Wong via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> ACK.
>
> p.
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 10:09 AM Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2818 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
* 
  2021-04-23  2:09 Luke Dashjr
                   ` 
  2021-04-23 15:34 ` 

  2021-04-26 16:56   ` James O'Beirne
  2021-04-26 18:13 ` W. J. van der Laan
  4 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Sjors Provoost @ 2021-04-26 15:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1407 bytes --]

ACK for adding Kalle.

Recent drama aside, having a single editor is not ideal. There's currently 110 open pull requests to the BIPs repo.

- Sjors

> Op 23 apr. 2021, om 04:09 heeft Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[|nested] 17+ messages in thread
2021-04-24 14:45 ` Matt Corallo
  2021-04-26  0:36 ` David A. Harding
  
From: Greg Maxwell @ 2021-04-24  4:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Dev

I am opposed to the addition of Kalle Alm at this time.

Those who believe that adding him will resolve the situation with
Luke-jr's inappropriate behavior re: PR1104 are mistaken.



27e59ffd51ee5a95d0e0faff70e045faca10b00015e90abc1c8de48b1dfff40c


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-04-23 15:34 ` Antoine Riard

  
From: nopara73 @ 2021-04-24 10:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Antoine Riard, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2865 bytes --]

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 by
> 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 patient
> until a solution satisfy everyone.
>
> I would recommend the BIP editorship, once extended or not, to move in its
> own repository in the future.
>
> Cheers,
> Antoine
>
>
>
>
> Le jeu. 22 avr. 2021 à 22:09, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> a écrit :
>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>


-- 
Best,
Ádám

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4253 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-04-24  4:42 [bitcoin-dev] Proposed BIP editor: Kalle Alm Greg Maxwell

  2021-04-26  0:36 ` David A. Harding
  
From: Matt Corallo @ 2021-04-24 14:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Greg Maxwell, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

What is preventing the BIP maintainership role from moving to a bot? It does seem like a bot should be able to do a fine 
job given the explicit criteria (though ignoring obvious spam is often nice, its by no means a requirement).

Given recent events where humans have....acted like humans, it seems a move to a bot may be warranted.

Matt

On 4/24/21 00:42, Greg Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I am opposed to the addition of Kalle Alm at this time.
> 
> Those who believe that adding him will resolve the situation with
> Luke-jr's inappropriate behavior re: PR1104 are mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> 27e59ffd51ee5a95d0e0faff70e045faca10b00015e90abc1c8de48b1dfff40c
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> 


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-04-24  4:42 [bitcoin-dev] Proposed BIP editor: Kalle Alm Greg Maxwell
  2021-04-24 14:45 ` Matt Corallo

  2021-04-27 22:30   ` Jaime Caring
  
From: David A. Harding @ 2021-04-26  0:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Greg Maxwell, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 306 bytes --]

On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 04:42:12AM +0000, Greg Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I am opposed to the addition of Kalle Alm at this time.  Those who
> believe [this] will resolve the situation [...] re: PR1104 are
> mistaken.

PR1104 has been merged.  Do you continue to oppose the addition?

Thanks,

-Dave

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
* 
  2021-04-23  2:09 Luke Dashjr
                   ` 
  2021-04-26 15:02 ` 

  4 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: W. J. van der Laan @ 2021-04-26 18:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Luke Dashjr, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion


On Friday, April 23rd, 2021 at 4:09 AM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Unless there are objections, I intend to add Kalle Alm as a BIP editor to
> assist in merging PRs into the bips git repo.

ACK on adding Kalle.

I'm happy to finally see someone else interested in BIP maintainer role, for years no one really seemed to care about doing this mostly procedural/bureaucratic function, which is (part of) the reason Luke-Jr ended up as the only BIP maintainer for such a long time.

And I disagree that a bot could do this just as well. Auto-merging would open it up to all kinds of DoS attacks, vandalism, and low-effort scams that a person can easily ward against.

-W


^ permalink raw reply	[|nested] 17+ messages in thread
2021-04-26 15:02 ` Sjors Provoost

  
From: James O'Beirne @ 2021-04-26 16:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Sjors Provoost, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1749 bytes --]

ACK for Kalle.

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 09:55 Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> ACK for adding Kalle.
>
> Recent drama aside, having a single editor is not ideal. There's currently
> 110 open pull requests to the BIPs repo.
>
> - Sjors
>
> > Op 23 apr. 2021, om 04:09 heeft Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> het volgende geschreven:
> >
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2760 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-04-23  2:09 Luke Dashjr
                   ` 
  2021-04-26 15:02 ` 

  
From: W. J. van der Laan @ 2021-04-26 18:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Luke Dashjr, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion


On Friday, April 23rd, 2021 at 4:09 AM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Unless there are objections, I intend to add Kalle Alm as a BIP editor to
> assist in merging PRs into the bips git repo.

ACK on adding Kalle.

I'm happy to finally see someone else interested in BIP maintainer role, for years no one really seemed to care about doing this mostly procedural/bureaucratic function, which is (part of) the reason Luke-Jr ended up as the only BIP maintainer for such a long time.

And I disagree that a bot could do this just as well. Auto-merging would open it up to all kinds of DoS attacks, vandalism, and low-effort scams that a person can easily ward against.

-W


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-04-26  0:36 ` David A. Harding

  2021-04-28  9:52     ` Amir Taaki
  
From: Jaime Caring @ 2021-04-27 22:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: David A. Harding, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1286 bytes --]

Kalle should not be made an editor by an ad-hoc process. I reiterate Greg's
NACK.

I propose that we form a stewardship committee of frequent contributors,
including you, Greg, and 21 others. The stewards appoint a small set of
editors with permanent oversight by the stewards. A defined process
prevents this controversy from arising in the future and makes proceedings
clear.

My proposal has been moderated off of this list, but may be viewed here:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1113

I care not for the role of initial transitory editor. I would be pleased
should any responsible community member shoulder this onus in my stead.

Peace be upon you,

JC

On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 at 00:37, David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 04:42:12AM +0000, Greg Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > I am opposed to the addition of Kalle Alm at this time.  Those who
> > believe [this] will resolve the situation [...] re: PR1104 are
> > mistaken.
>
> PR1104 has been merged.  Do you continue to oppose the addition?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Dave
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2065 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-04-27 22:30   ` Jaime Caring

  2021-04-30 15:39       ` Karl
  2021-04-30 16:58       ` Jameson Lopp
  
From: Amir Taaki @ 2021-04-28  9:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev

A committee to guide the committee? You guys truly have lost the plot.

All the good minds and cryptographers have left Bitcoin. What remains is
an empty echo chamber.

Truth is these problems start with lack of vision and long-term roadmap,
not with the processes themselves.

And the Bitcoin Core monopoly created this situation; one coin, one
client, one vision. And the inevitable infighting for ultimate power.

Really if we want to go down this route, there should be a long period
of self reflection about where the problems began rather than patching
some process and moving on.

I propose Bitcoin Core is dissolved as the official Bitcoin project. The
community is free to elect their preferred version of Bitcoin. And most
importantly, Bitcoin developers commit to a fully specced standard that
all implementations move towards using.

On 4/28/21 12:30 AM, Jaime Caring via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Kalle should not be made an editor by an ad-hoc process. I reiterate
> Greg's NACK.
> 
> I propose that we form a stewardship committee of frequent contributors,
> including you, Greg, and 21 others. The stewards appoint a small set of
> editors with permanent oversight by the stewards. A defined process
> prevents this controversy from arising in the future and makes
> proceedings clear.
> 
> My proposal has been moderated off of this list, but may be viewed here:
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1113
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1113>
> 
> I care not for the role of initial transitory editor. I would be pleased
> should any responsible community member shoulder this onus in my stead.
> 
> Peace be upon you,
> 
> JC
> 
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 at 00:37, David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
> 
>     On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 04:42:12AM +0000, Greg Maxwell via
>     bitcoin-dev wrote:
>     > I am opposed to the addition of Kalle Alm at this time.  Those who
>     > believe [this] will resolve the situation [...] re: PR1104 are
>     > mistaken.
> 
>     PR1104 has been merged.  Do you continue to oppose the addition?
> 
>     Thanks,
> 
>     -Dave
>     _______________________________________________
>     bitcoin-dev mailing list
>     bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>     <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
>     https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>     <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
> 


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-04-28  9:52     ` Amir Taaki

  2021-04-30 16:58       ` Jameson Lopp
  
From: Karl @ 2021-04-30 15:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Amir Taaki, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3483 bytes --]

A good solution here is to make it clear to visitors that facilitation,
mediation, and organisation help is badly needed in the core development
team.

People with such expertise can even be hired directly.

A good facilitator opens communication paths between all parties, leaving
everyone satisfied with decisions.  Don't accept a compromise if you can
look for something better.

On Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 8:00 AM Amir Taaki via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> A committee to guide the committee? You guys truly have lost the plot.
>
> All the good minds and cryptographers have left Bitcoin. What remains is
> an empty echo chamber.
>
> Truth is these problems start with lack of vision and long-term roadmap,
> not with the processes themselves.
>
> And the Bitcoin Core monopoly created this situation; one coin, one
> client, one vision. And the inevitable infighting for ultimate power.
>
> Really if we want to go down this route, there should be a long period
> of self reflection about where the problems began rather than patching
> some process and moving on.
>
> I propose Bitcoin Core is dissolved as the official Bitcoin project. The
> community is free to elect their preferred version of Bitcoin. And most
> importantly, Bitcoin developers commit to a fully specced standard that
> all implementations move towards using.
>
> On 4/28/21 12:30 AM, Jaime Caring via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Kalle should not be made an editor by an ad-hoc process. I reiterate
> > Greg's NACK.
> >
> > I propose that we form a stewardship committee of frequent contributors,
> > including you, Greg, and 21 others. The stewards appoint a small set of
> > editors with permanent oversight by the stewards. A defined process
> > prevents this controversy from arising in the future and makes
> > proceedings clear.
> >
> > My proposal has been moderated off of this list, but may be viewed here:
> > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1113
> > <https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1113>
> >
> > I care not for the role of initial transitory editor. I would be pleased
> > should any responsible community member shoulder this onus in my stead.
> >
> > Peace be upon you,
> >
> > JC
> >
> > On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 at 00:37, David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev
> > <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
> >
> >     On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 04:42:12AM +0000, Greg Maxwell via
> >     bitcoin-dev wrote:
> >     > I am opposed to the addition of Kalle Alm at this time.  Those who
> >     > believe [this] will resolve the situation [...] re: PR1104 are
> >     > mistaken.
> >
> >     PR1104 has been merged.  Do you continue to oppose the addition?
> >
> >     Thanks,
> >
> >     -Dave
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     bitcoin-dev mailing list
> >     bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> >     <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> >     https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >     <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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5561 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-04-28  9:52     ` Amir Taaki
  2021-04-30 15:39       ` Karl

  
From: Jameson Lopp @ 2021-04-30 16:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Amir Taaki, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3350 bytes --]

On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 7:59 AM Amir Taaki via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> A committee to guide the committee? You guys truly have lost the plot.
>
> All the good minds and cryptographers have left Bitcoin. What remains is
> an empty echo chamber.
>
> Truth is these problems start with lack of vision and long-term roadmap,
> not with the processes themselves.
>
> And the Bitcoin Core monopoly created this situation; one coin, one
> client, one vision. And the inevitable infighting for ultimate power.
>
> Really if we want to go down this route, there should be a long period
> of self reflection about where the problems began rather than patching
> some process and moving on.
>
> I propose Bitcoin Core is dissolved as the official Bitcoin project.


Nonsense, as it is not the official Bitcoin project. There is no such thing.

The community is free to elect their preferred version of Bitcoin.


Individuals have voted with their feet and are free to continue to do so.
It's anarchy, I tell you!


> And most importantly, Bitcoin developers commit to a fully specced
> standard that
> all implementations move towards using.
>

Who decides the spec? Perhaps... a committee of some sort?


>
> On 4/28/21 12:30 AM, Jaime Caring via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Kalle should not be made an editor by an ad-hoc process. I reiterate
> > Greg's NACK.
> >
> > I propose that we form a stewardship committee of frequent contributors,
> > including you, Greg, and 21 others. The stewards appoint a small set of
> > editors with permanent oversight by the stewards. A defined process
> > prevents this controversy from arising in the future and makes
> > proceedings clear.
> >
> > My proposal has been moderated off of this list, but may be viewed here:
> > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1113
> > <https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1113>
> >
> > I care not for the role of initial transitory editor. I would be pleased
> > should any responsible community member shoulder this onus in my stead.
> >
> > Peace be upon you,
> >
> > JC
> >
> > On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 at 00:37, David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev
> > <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
> >
> >     On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 04:42:12AM +0000, Greg Maxwell via
> >     bitcoin-dev wrote:
> >     > I am opposed to the addition of Kalle Alm at this time.  Those who
> >     > believe [this] will resolve the situation [...] re: PR1104 are
> >     > mistaken.
> >
> >     PR1104 has been merged.  Do you continue to oppose the addition?
> >
> >     Thanks,
> >
> >     -Dave
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     bitcoin-dev mailing list
> >     bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> >     <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> >     https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >     <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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5699 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]