Despite the passage of a few weeks since the topic was last discussed, there remains no definitive course of action for selecting new editors, with both support and reservations expressed for various candidates. To address this stagnation, McClelland proposes a structured approach to the decision-making process. He suggests dedicating a period until April 5th for the community to present arguments for or against potential candidates in a designated thread. Based on the feedback received, candidates who garner broad support could be appointed as new editors on April 8th. This timeline aims to resolve the issue expediently, allowing for progress whether or not consensus is achieved on new editor appointments.

Furthermore, McClelland advocates for equal privileges among all editors, particularly emphasizing the importance of equitable authority in assigning numbers to Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs). He mentions that if any specific guidelines are necessary for the process of number assignment or for determining number ranges for certain topics, such directions should be established within the proposed timeframe. The possibility of designating a single number authority among the editors is considered acceptable, provided it does not hinder the workflow.

Additionally, the assessment of technical soundness for BIPs is suggested to be a responsibility of the broader audience, reflecting a decentralized approach to evaluation. This proposal aligns with previous practices where BIPs have been published in the repository with a "rejected" status, clarifying that inclusion in the repository does not imply an automatic endorsement or recommendation for implementation. Through these measures, McClelland aims to facilitate a more efficient and inclusive process for managing and expanding the team of BIP Editors.