@Murch wrote the following message on the Bitcoin Developer's Mailing List last month:

Howdy everyone,

I noticed a couple weeks ago that the two-year anniversary of the “new” BIP Editors is coming up, and I want to comment on the state of the BIPs repository and BIP Editorship. In the past two years (2024-04-22–2026-04-22), the six BIP Editors left 4108 comments, processed 596 pull requests (382 merged), and facilitated the publication of 42 BIPs. We got a new BIP Process, touched up existing documents, tidied up abandoned submissions, and fixed up the CI scripts. There is still room for improvement, but I perceive a positive impact on development discussions and an increase in submissions as the BIPs repository became more lively again. I’m proud of what we have achieved so far.

For most of this time, two BIP Editors contributed most of the work. Then for the first quarter this year, I was the only BIP Editor that regularly contributed to and did the vast majority of the day-to-day work in the repository. I enjoy the work—but we added more BIP Editors two years ago because it’s more than a one-person job.

I’m grateful for my colleagues’ contributions as well as the splendid advice they’ve provided in our many discussions, and thankful that they volunteered to serve the community!

After two years, I propose that we refresh the BIP Editor team. My recommendation would be to aim for three BIP Editors that are all keen on regularly contributing to the BIP Editor work in the repository.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts,
Murch

Here's how Murch described the sort of background they are looking for:

I’d say we are looking for people that have
• some experience contributing to a Bitcoin project or Bitcoin protocol design
• solid command of English
• and enjoy detail-oriented work.

And here's a description of the daily work:

A BIP Editor should expect to invest at least 5–10 hours per week in the repository with an open ended upper bound. Part of the work is fairly clerical: keeping abreast of the open pull requests, nudging BIP owners for review or PR authors for updates, and merging PRs when they are ready for that. For modifications of existing BIPs, most of the review should optimally come from the owners of the affected BIP. For new BIPs, the editors should be able to give each a timely solid read, comment on the technical feasibility, and provide some actionable constructive feedback.

And finally, if it's something you are interested in, you can test it out by having a look at the BIPs repo and providing some editorial support:

Except for labeling PRs and merging them, essentially all of the work of BIP Editors could be done by any community member, so please feel free to try it out yourself: take a look at one of the open pull requests¹, give it a read, and leave some useful comments.

please feel free to give some of the open pull requests a solid review and leave some constructive comments. I expect that this conversation will probably move similarly slowly as two years ago. I would surmise that candidates who made pertinent contributions to the repository would be more likely to garner support for a BIP Editor role.