This approach aligns with the security philosophy of "security through distrusting," as highlighted in a presentation by Joanna Rutkowska on Qubes OS at Black Hat Europe 2017, which can be found here. The emphasis is on ensuring the quality and readability of standards within the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) process, especially for contributions made by non-native English speakers. The experience of having technical texts corrected by other contributors underscores the value of having editors who understand multiple languages to ensure high-quality redaction.

There's an ongoing debate regarding whether certain tasks within the BIP process should be considered administrative, such as assigning numbers, or editorial, focusing on the creation of high-quality, well-written standards. To reduce bureaucracy, it's suggested that these tasks be divided among different groups of BIP process maintainers: one group to assign temporary numbers for experimental purposes and another to wait for more finalized drafts that meet quality standards before assigning final numbers for standard candidate deployment. This separation could streamline the process, making it less bureaucratic by distinguishing between roles more clearly. The idea is inspired by practices outside of the BIP process, such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), which does not assign RFC numbers to draft proposals, allowing for years of experimentation before formal recognition.

Additionally, the message touches upon decision-making processes and consensus, drawing a parallel with the United Nations where decisions don't require unanimity but rather a two-thirds majority of the general assembly. This reference serves to challenge the validity of seeking unanimous agreement in the context discussed, suggesting that a similar approach might be beneficial for the BIP process.