The discussion highlights the need for more editors to assist in this endeavor, emphasizing the importance of not only developer skills but also contributions from non-developers in triaging tasks that do not require technical expertise. Specifically, the conversation points towards Jon Atack and Roasbeef as potential candidates for editor roles, given their extensive experience as developers within the community. However, there are reservations about Roasbeef's suitability for the position.

Furthermore, there's an acknowledgment of the complexity involved in evaluating BIPs, particularly in assessing the technical soundness of new proposals. This task evidently requires a deep understanding of the technology, underscoring the necessity for skilled developers in the editorial process. Despite these challenges, there's a push to expedite the addition of more editors to address the immediate needs of the community without delaying for a restructured coordination system for numbering BIPs. The suggestion includes experimenting with non-developer involvement in the triaging process, proposing individuals like Seccour and Greg Tonoski for these roles.

This discourse reflects a keen awareness within the Bitcoin development community of the need to balance inclusivity with the technical rigor required to maintain the integrity of the cryptocurrency's improvement process. It underlines a collective effort to optimize the workflow surrounding BIP reviews and assignments, aiming to enhance efficiency while ensuring that proposals meet the stringent criteria expected by the community.