Open lidel opened 2 years ago
Not a strong opinion. Feel free to ignore.
Appreciate being considered here as a libp2p steward. Though I don't think I should have any special permissions. That is not to say that I am not happy to be involved, but for that involvement, why would I need permissions beyond what any other ipfs user has?
I have a specific rationale for this, but it is also not a strong opinion, feedback welcome!
One of the challenges around ipfs/specs
is "legacy go-ipfs monoculture".
Another is "tight coupling and leaky abstractions due to same people wearing multiple hats".
A solution is including maintainers of PL's ipld libp2p implementations (js/go/rust) in the specs group.
This would keep the group diverse in more than one dimension:
It also acts as a soft forcing function to follow ecosystem evolution, keeping key stakeholders in sync long-term.
@b5 @dignifiedquire would like to have someone representing Iroh, to be in the loop around specs and IPIPs. This is mostly a formality, in day-to-day this person will get group-ping for PR reviews (https://github.com/notifications?query=reason%3Ateam-mention) and that is all.
Thanks @lidel, I'd be happy to represent Iroh.
@ipfs/specs-stewards team was created as part of https://github.com/ipfs/specs/pull/289
We need to decide who should belong to the team, sharing responsibility of triaging and reviewing improvement proposals (#289).
My initial idea is to add past/recent lead implementation maintainers from existing stewards teams, namely:
Starting with a smaller group should be enough to get us started. Over time, we will add trusted leads from other organizations maintaining IPFS implementations.
TODO