The concern was initially raised over the proposal to add five or six people simultaneously, which led to an examination of how candidates are currently evaluated and endorsed within the community. The debate underscores the importance of a selection process that transcends mere popularity, advocating instead for a system akin to the one used for appointing Bitcoin Core maintainers—through achieving rough consensus.

Endorsement counts for each candidate have been shared, revealing varying levels of support among community members. Kanzure leads with seventeen endorsements in favor and one against, followed by Murch and Jonatack both receiving thirteen endorsements. Ruben has garnered twelve endorsements, albeit with one objection, while Roasbeef received nine endorsements, and Michael Folkson received none. These figures highlight the community's general inclination towards certain candidates, despite a voiced preference against making the selection process a popularity contest.

The dialogue further reveals a lack of explicit objections to the majority of candidates, with specific concerns raised only against Kanzure and Ruben by a single individual. This situation suggests a broad consensus or at least a lack of significant opposition within the community regarding the suitability of most nominees. However, the discourse also notes that not all candidates have publicly confirmed their willingness to take on the role of BIP editor, despite being favored through endorsements. Direct communications were initiated with Kanzure, Ruben, and Roasbeef to ascertain their interest, with affirmative responses received from Kanzure and Ruben. Roasbeef's stance remains unconfirmed due to a lack of response.

This ongoing conversation reflects the complexities involved in community-driven nominations and selections for roles that require both technical expertise and community trust. It emphasizes the need for clear, transparent processes that allow for broad participation and consensus-building, avoiding the pitfalls of internal politics and popularity contests. The ultimate goal is to ensure that those chosen to serve as BIP editors or in similar capacities are both willing and able to contribute effectively to the community's objectives.