I agree with Tim's thoughts here.

I think Jon Atack, Reuben Somsen, Kanzure or Roasbeef would all make great 
candidates.

On Thursday, February 29, 2024 at 10:55:52 AM UTC-6 Tim Ruffing wrote:

> On Tue, 2024-02-27 at 17:40 -0500, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> > The hard part is evaluating 
> > if the new proposal meets the criteria - which definitely needs dev 
> > skills (mainly for technical soundness).
>
> I'm aware that checking technical soundness is in accordance with BIP2
> [1], but I believe that this is one of the main problems of the current
> process, and I can imagine that this is what eats the time of editors.
>
> I'd prefer a BIP process in which the editors merely check that the
> proposal is related to the Bitcoin ecosystem and meets some minimal
> formal criteria that we already enforce now (i.e., is a full self-
> contained document, has the required sections, etc...). This relieves
> the editors not just from the effort, but also from the responsibility
> to do so. Technical soundness should be evaluated by the audience of a
> BIP, not by the editor. 
>
> Best,
> Tim
>
>
> [1] BIP2 says: 
> "For each new BIP that comes in an editor does the following: 
>
> - Read the BIP to check if it is ready: sound and complete. The ideas
> must make technical sense, even if they don't seem likely to be
> accepted.
> [...]"
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/d1e7183c-30e6-4f1a-8fd6-cddc46f129a2n%40googlegroups.com.