About Champions and Heroes

Good point! I think you are right here in that the distinction was blurred. Also totally agree that someone who doesn’t already have cred is probably not the best fit to champion an initiative.

Another good point! I think I’m just a bit sensitive to projects/teams using altruism as a way to avoid rewarding their community. That’s obviously not happening here, however, so thanks for calling that out.

Good things come in threes and this is another good thing. Agree that, upon further analysis, boosting does not provide the same incentives as championing. Thanks for helping to clarify that :slight_smile:

1 Like

Reading through the Bitcoin Improvement Process (BIP) and came across this:

“The BIP process begins with a new idea for Bitcoin. Each potential BIP must have a champion – someone who writes the BIP using the style and format described below, shepherds the discussions in the appropriate forums, and attempts to build community consensus around the idea. The BIP champion (a.k.a. Author) should first attempt to ascertain whether the idea is BIP-able.”

Yes, the term champion in that sense is fairly common. For instance, TC39 proposals have champions. There are, I think, some differences in connotation. A TC39 or BIP champion writes or helps write the initial proposal, and helps get the proposal through committee, but doesn’t necessarily carry the same implication of reliability and accountability that we’ve described in this thread. But certainly the two senses are related.

(Interestingly, one might speculate that the TC39-style term derives from champion as a verb, while @Beanow’s inspiration was from the noun form. Again, slightly different. :slight_smile: )