Some of the big takeaways are about overall process improvement, and failure to adhere to the listing process. I drafted a process improvement based on some FEM threads in this PR:
master ← fubuloubu:patch-1
opened 12:18AM - 26 Jan 19 UTC
This PR adds a "Key Stakeholder Review" process that all PRs go through, after a… Draft is considered ready to Review, and prior to it entering Last Call (aka "public request for comment").
In the [post-mortem](https://medium.com/ethereum-cat-herders/a-post-mortem-report-the-constantinople-ethereum-hard-fork-postponement-dd780d7ae63d) for the aborted Constantinople fork that was set to occur on Jan 16, 2019, it was recommended to:
> Create a more formalized process for reviewing and analyzing EIPs
This process change suggests "substantial internal review by relevant stakeholder groups" occur before a suggested change is brought to the wider community for final discovery of any issues with the proposal. During Draft, stakeholder groups are suggested by EIP editors and anyone else participating in the conversation. The list of stakeholder groups is TBD, but should be compiled from active discussion groups focused along a particular topic that meets on a regular basis such as FEM Rings. When moving from Draft to Review, the editor will contact and record meeting dates where the EIP is set to be discussed (if those stakeholder groups have not done so already).
During Review, stakeholder groups will discuss and provide feedback from that discussion, as well as the consensus recommendation of the group. When all groups have given their feedback, and the feedback is a GO, it will move to Last Call to solicit any final feedback the community might have. If a group chooses not to give feedback (or feels like they don't need to), they can leave "no comment". If a group forgets to or chooses not to give feedback, we can discuss what happens in that circumstance.
---
Stakeholder Group Requirements:
- a stakeholder group should have a clear summary of what types of issues they review
- a stakeholder group should have a regularly scheduled meeting, as well as participation information
- a stakeholder group should ideally have a main point of contact
This information should be displayed publicly so that community members are aware these groups exist (and can join them!). These groups should also be made available as tags, so that relevant stakeholders can easily filter on items with their particular tag in the right status for discovery in case the editor forgets to contact them.
---
The primary motivation behind this change is to ensure that a more focused review occurs on all EIPs, in order to solicit the most amount of feedback before bringing it to a Last Call review. This will prevent substantial wasted discussion or a lack of review from relying only on a general, public review (which may not occur to the level of risk present in the proposal).
Some relevant background material:
* https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/decentralizing-eip-workflow/1525/7
* https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/proposal-add-ring-tags-to-eips-solicit-comments-from-ring-s/1592
* https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/956
* https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/1100
* https://medium.com/ethereum-cat-herders/a-post-mortem-report-the-constantinople-ethereum-hard-fork-postponement-dd780d7ae63d
* https://github.com/trailofbits/publications/blob/master/reviews/EIP-1283.pdf
Some more links about EIP process improvement suggestions: