The sender mentions that the PR has been open for nine months and they have commented multiple times, as well as reached out via DM and email, but haven't received a response from the BIP editors. They express frustration over the lack of communication and state that there has been a misunderstanding of the BIP process.

The sender explains that BIPs, particularly informational ones, are a form of technical documentation and their acceptance does not guarantee inclusion in any implementation or consensus among the community. They provide examples of preexisting BIPs, including hard-fork block size increases, proof-of-work changes, voting protocols, rejected soft fork proposals, encouragement of address reuse, and drivechain.

The sender believes that the ordinals BIP is in-scope and requests feedback from the BIP editors on whether it is suitable for a BIP. They ask for clarification on why it may not be in-scope and what changes need to be made for it to be accepted.

Overall, the email highlights the sender's efforts to seek clarification and progress the PR for the Ordinals BIP, expressing frustration over the lack of response from the BIP editors. They emphasize the importance of receiving feedback and guidance on the next steps for the BIP.