The writer argues that this approach sets a bad precedent and makes it difficult to interact with the BIPs repository. They believe that actual consensus is much broader than the BIPs repository and evaluating BIPs solely based on implementation can lead to misinterpretation and potential problems. The email is signed by Andrew Poelstra, Director of Research at Blockstream.

In the email, the writer expresses agreement with the notion that evaluating BIPs based on their implementation or their impact on the network is not ideal. They argue that this approach could create a negative precedent and make it challenging to engage with the BIPs repository effectively. The writer believes that the BIPs repository alone does not represent the entire consensus within the community. It is mentioned that interpreting BIP numbers as an indication of endorsement by a specific influential group of individuals could lead to various issues.

The email is signed by Andrew Poelstra, who identifies themselves as the Director of Research at Blockstream. No further information about the sender is provided in the email.