I support this motion. BIP editors should actively review BIP drafts, apply the BIP process neutrally, and provide technically precise feedback.
Inactive editors do not need editorial permissions. This is even more true if their main activity in the last two years is using the role to advance a proposal they personally support while bypassing the established process, as Murch described. The basic duties of BIP editors require precise use of established technical terminology and good judgment. Luke routinely uses technical terms in ways that are incompatible with their established meanings. Recent examples of such misuse and poor judgment include saying that "BIP110 is Bitcoin," that "BIP110 has consensus," and that "Activation is certain" [1]. I find it particularly concerning that Luke, in his recent advocacy for BIP 110, irresponsibly misled users by repeatedly calling it "zero risk" [2]. The BIPs repository deserves editors who can communicate effectively and maintain a basic working relationship with the other editors. Calling Murch, one of the most productive BIP editors, "a liar" without even identifying what he allegedly lied about does not meet that standard [3]. [1] https://x.com/LukeDashjr/status/2082795948648919419 https://x.com/LukeDashjr/status/2081971093292662882 https://x.com/LukeDashjr/status/2086121519315374526 [2] https://x.com/LukeDashjr/status/2030565712629035382 https://x.com/LukeDashjr/status/2081086470194860053 https://x.com/LukeDashjr/status/2067690041669832963 [3] https://x.com/LukeDashjr/status/2046598586494857478 -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/cb930bf6-985c-47f1-bf99-0bc9ebd650b9%40gmail.com.
