pull down to refresh
Agreed, it's just added point/clarification on top of Giacomo's.
It again seems like a change done in Core space that does not seem to be having material immediate effect and it's done in an unfortunate time, which then has predictable outcome of lost of some trust, causing more infighting, causing more drama. In this case the bip110ers are busy mea-culping, so it probably won't have such notability, but folks like @giacomozucco will be referencing it for the years to come.
My general framework here (not talking directly about @Murch) is that when a negative reaction/outcome was generally predictable from your action, then you bare responsibility for the negative outcome. Such situation are then a great source of learning and root causing to improve prediction and actions next time.
The best would have been if Luke had resigned any time after stopping to perform the BIP Editor work. I had publicly asked for his resignation after him trying to assign a BIP number on Twitter for a BIP that hadn’t even been sent to the mailing list.
If we had removed Luke in the past few months, people like Giacomo would have said it’s retaliation for championing BIP110 or for calling us pedos all the same.
After not doing anything for years, all the crap he pulled, I don’t see how it would have been tenable to keep Luke on after he additionally announced his departure from Bitcoin development.
https://x.com/LukeDashjr/status/2086645671914840081
So, I’d be curious to hear what would have been a better time to remove Luke. What additional events would you have waited for, or which criteria would you have used?
It's of note that Giacomo was predicting for many months that Luke will be removed as BIP editor.