EIP Improvement Process #127
Transcript
Call summary
Summary
EIPIP #127 closed the external-resources call for input (OWASP/CT-PA/CAI are licensed for republishing under the EIP-5757 process) and agreed to write a call for input to create a proper authorship-change policy, since none exists today. Editors agreed to keep oldest-waiting-first as the default review order while allowing PRs linked on the ACD agenda to be prioritized neutrally, debated Pooja's proposed dispute-resolution working group, and celebrated ERC-4337 being merged as Final at the 100th office hour.
Decisions
- •External-resources call for input (408) closed: OWASP, CT/PA, and CAI are licensed to allow republishing and are handled under the existing EIP-5757 process; no new process added now.
- •A call for input will be written to establish an authorship-change policy (none exists today); working direction is that authors may edit their own handle/email but cannot unilaterally remove other authors except via a defined process.
- •Review prioritization stays oldest-waiting-first by default, but PRs linked in the ACD agenda top post may be prioritized as an objective, neutral signal, without codifying a strict rule.
- •ERC-4337 was merged as Final.
- •No decision on the dispute-resolution working group; editors will review Pooja's proposal and guidelines documents async and revisit next meeting.
Highlights
- •ERC-4337 was merged as Final at the 100th EIP editing office hour, after being documented since 2021 and going through multiple account-abstraction versions.
- •Authorship changes: no policy exists; a call for input will define one. Working direction: an author may change their own handle/email, but one author should not be able to remove other authors except through a defined process (e.g. a compromised handle). Email-based approvals are verified by emailing the address for confirmation.
- •Review prioritization: default stays oldest-waiting-first, but a PR linked in the ACD agenda's top post can be prioritized as an objective, neutral signal; not codified as a strict rule.
- •Dispute resolution: Pooja proposed a working group plus lightweight guidelines; Sam prefers minimizing editor involvement and letting disputes fork. Debate on whether duplicate same-content EIPs confuse the community. No decision; editors to review async.
- •RTO's next-gen EIP working-group tooling: a recurring Sam/RTO sync was set up to push the 23-PR review, and a new contributor (Luke) offered to help with the Rust rendering rewrite.
- •A broken 'draft/all' listing on eip.ethereum.org is Jekyll picking up a template as an EIP; Sam to fix via a file-extension PR.
Action Items
- •Sam - Review the associate-EIP-editor PR and open a file-extension PR fixing the broken Jekyll draft listing; set up a recurring sync with RTO on the working-group tooling
- •Editors - Provide a second editor approval to merge the citation-status PR (405)
- •Pooja - Write the call(s) for input for the authorship-change policy and dispute resolution; check the ACD agenda on Tuesday mornings to prioritize linked PRs
- •Editors - Read and comment on the dispute-resolution working-group and guidelines documents async
- •Pooja / Sam - Check with David on EIP-numbering (issue 14) progress next week
Key decisions
ERC-4337 was merged as Final at the 100th EIP editing office hour.
Documented since 2021 and the most-used account-abstraction proposal; finalized after a 2-hour office-hour review session.Close the external-resources call for input (408): OWASP, CT/PA, and CAI carry licenses that allow republishing and are handled under the EIP-5757 process; no additional process is added for now.
Write a call for input to establish an authorship-change policy, since none currently exists; the working direction lets an author change their own handle/email but does not let one author unilaterally remove other authors except through a defined process (e.g. a compromised handle).
Prompted by a PR that changed an EIP's author list; removing a handle silently strips another author's merge rights and notifications.Keep oldest-waiting-first as the default review order, but allow PRs linked in the ACD agenda top post to be prioritized as an objective, neutral signal; do not codify a strict rule.
Balances governance timeliness against editors remaining credibly neutral.No decision on Pooja's proposed dispute-resolution working group; editors will review the proposal and lightweight guidelines documents async and revisit next meeting.
EIPs discussed
AI Disclaimer: Some content or metadata on EIPsInsight may be AI-inferred or automatically compiled. If you find any discrepancy, please contact us at dev@avarch.org.