search

ethcatherders / EIPIP

EIP Improvement Process
81 stars 37 forks source link

EIP-5000: Renumber to EIP-5159 (PR #5270) – Call for Transparency and Clean Rules #284

Closed ProphetZX closed 11 months ago

ProphetZX commented 11 months ago

With regard to „EIP 5000: (PR #5270) Renumber to EIP-5159“, I would like to ask for a review and call for transparency with regard to what happened in these EIPs, issues, and pull requests. Unfortunately, reading the codified responses, it is hard to grasp for a less technically-inclined person such as myself, what exactly happened here.

https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/5270

Thank you!

Aperon

SamWilsn commented 11 months ago

The extremely short version (from memory, so things may be out of order or just wrong):

  1. Pull request was opened by a bot waiting for number 5000. This was admitted by the EIP authors.
  2. I assigned the number 4998 instead, since we try and discourage number sniping.
  3. lightclient asked me in private if he could assign a different number.
  4. Pull request was merged as EIP-5000.
  5. Two other pull requests were opened, one to delete EIP-5000 and one to renumber it to EIP-5159.
  6. Argument among EIP Editors ensued.
  7. New decision making process ratified in EIP-5069.
  8. https://github.com/ethereum-cat-herders/EIPIP/issues/274
  9. Deadline elapsed.
  10. As Keeper of Consensus, I determined the rough consensus to be "don't renumber", with:
    • In favour of renumbering: myself, xinbenlv, and g11tech.
      • it was number sniping.
      • one of the EIP authors is an editor, and should've been held to a higher standard.
      • Broken Windows Theory.
      • Unfair to authors who didn't snipe, and to authors who sniped and were manually reassigned.
    • Opposed to renumbering: pandapip1, lightclient, gcolvin
      • Wasn't technically against the rules in EIP-1 at the time.
      • It's been so long it'll just cause more confusion now.