Building on an open standard can be a grind. I'm opening yet another encrypted group proposal, aware of the fact that it will only increase the noise and complexity involved in choosing the correct one. But it's also an attempt to reconcile multiple current drafts to result in a better end result.
Introducing multiple sources of truth by decentralizing the nips repo seems like an awful idea to me. I'm personally keen on the benevolent dictator model, exhausting as it must be for fiatjaf. We need a little dutch boy who can stem the tide of complexity it the protocol itself - and attacks by large entities seeking to capture the protocol.
Allowing anyone to claim to host a canonical NIPs list fractures the protocol and will kill interoperability as everyone will increasingly just do their own thing. In addition, it makes the winner the one with the biggest marketing budget, imagine if Apple announced support for nostr and pointed to their own repo? With a founder in charge we can at least complain, but if we eliminate authority, the whole thing shatters.
