cc @jamesob

For what it's worth, I am happy to champion and maintain this BIP -- I certainly think it would be a worthwhile change to Bitcoin -- however I haven't contributed materially to the proposal, aside from doing some tangential code writing, implementation review, and conceptual work that motivates this BIP's adoption (e.g. #1421).

I'm not sure how this is best expressed, or if it even needs to be expressed formally. But I worry that listing me as an author might be somewhat of a misrepresentation. Curious for what the maintainers of the BIP repo think here. cc @luke-jr @kallewoof

new metadata category sounds fine to me.

I haven't contributed materially to the proposal

As possibly a point of interest, I didn't materially contribute to anything related to BIP125. I just wrote the draft of the BIP at the request of some other devs. I didn't list myself as an author on the first draft, but Peter Todd insisted I add my name. Ever since then, I've had to correct many people who vastly overstated my role in the development and deployment of opt-in RBF.

If I could go back in time, I would not have allowed my name to be in the Author field of BIP125 merely for having written the document.

That said, BIP1 and BIP2 talk about each BIP having a champion "AKA author", and I think @jamesob has certainly been a champion of CTV in addition to @JeremyRubin . If the field were named "Champion", I think James would be a great addition, even if he had nothing to do with the original authorship.

from BIP-002,

It occasionally becomes necessary to transfer ownership of BIPs to a new champion. In general, we'd like to retain the original author as a co-author of the transferred BIP, but that's really up to the original author. A good reason to transfer ownership is because the original author no longer has the time or interest in updating it or following through with the BIP process, or has fallen off the face of the 'net (i.e. is unreachable or not responding to email). A bad reason to transfer ownership is because you don't agree with the direction of the BIP. We try to build consensus around a BIP, but if that's not possible, you can always submit a competing BIP.

A new term should be earmarked as a separate issue to address when updating the extant process. James would be empowered -- as a coauthor -- to update the field later to drop co-author and add a different metadata attribute.