I am a little shocked, and dismayed, to read this. Again, I find it to be far from reality.
My position in BCHN does not let me decide what goes into BCH.
I am one of several maintainers with the same effective powers to commit to the BCHN repository, and BCHN is but one of several node projects in BCH, from which users are able to freely choose.
Are you expecting some kind of central committee to approve what is accepted into consensus and deployed in the Bitcoin Cash network?
Such a thing does not exist, and I will continue to work towards ensuring that Bitcoin Cash development is able to follow a more open, decentralized and evidence-based course. The thinking and kind of process which I espouse there is very well described, generally, by a series of articles which I highly recommend reading:
I would say this has generally been working well in the fledgling CHIP process.
Obviously, your take on that is radically different.
Delegate authority to do what, exactly? You are misguided in your belief that I wield some kind of special power. I am a Bitcoin user, a developer, a BU member. I happened to take up the responsibility for the BCHN project when ABC leadership failed the Bitcoin Cash project.
I have fought, since entering into BCH development, for the vision that the Articles in BU represented. Not for a monoculture under one project or foundation, but of a diverse community, held together by a common vision for p2p electronic cash. What we used to refer to as Satoshi’s vision before a group of frauds misappropriated that terms.
So please don’t patronize me about delegating authority to anyone. We all run the code we want to, participate voluntarily in this. And occasionally re-read the Letter from the CEO of Bitcoin Cash.
I must read this as your personal rejection of the CHIP process.
How else am I to understand this?
Work is ongoing on the Group CHIP, the projects were working well with bitcoincashautist, it is a long process because it started out as a complex proposal but has since been simplified.
One of BCHN’s maintainers has already written code and we are planning to evaluate it.
Should we discuss whether that needs to continue?
You are sending very mixed signals here about BU’s commitment to work together with us - and also the other projects - who are trying to follow and establish sound process for getting consensus changes into the protocol. A process that does not and should not depend on the whims only of lead developers or maintainers, much less in a single project, but tries to involve the wider set of stakeholders, unlike before under ABC, or Core, where such stakeholders interacted more or less with their designated development team. That didn’t always work out too well.
P.S. The role of maintainers in BCHN is simply one of stewards of the code base and to interact with the other contributors to the project and make sure that developments are moved along where they can be.
If I hold any special powers within BCHN, I am not aware of them but welcome instruction. I hold a more or less symbolic role as “lead maintainer”, but in reality this doesn’t amount to special privileges, rather it confers some duties to account for the project, which I try to do best I can. (I can link you to our most recent Financial Report, if you wish. Can I request you link me to BU’s? This topic interests me greatly, and has for more than 1 year, speaking as a member.)