Thanks for detailed improvement proposals. Feedback & additional improvement proposals below:
ACD Proposal 1: EIP Review Requests
Other than the moderator calling out the list of EIP review requests, there shouldn’t be a need to discuss non-CFId EIPs on ACD outside of Network Upgrade scoping discussions.
ACD Proposal 2: Breakout Room Templates
Recordings should include a view of the participants (to easily see who was there) and the chat. The chat often contains a large amount of context.
Created an example as a wiki page for Future of EOA/AA Breakout Room #3
ACD Proposal 4: ACD Templates
ACD calls should also follow a similar template to Breakout Room Templates
A summary of decisions and actions should be shared on Eth Magicians (a topic per ACD)
Tim currently shares an ACDE summary on Eth R&D Discord and more detailed notes on Twitter
Alex has started sharing an ACDC summary on Eth R&D Discord.
Independently Christine Kim does a write up of ACD calls, with WiEN doing a summary.
Decisions/action summaries should be consistent, durable and easy to find e.g. on Eth Magicians rather than a Discord or Twitter.
A transcript, including the chat should also be shared on Eth Magicians alongside the summary.
Created an example as a wiki page: All Core Devs - Consensus (ACDC) call #134
ACD Proposal 3: Async Team Updates
It would be great if client teams could include a TLDR (ideally in a similar format) with a list of EIPs that they support (recommend CFI) and EIPs they don’t support for specific upgrades, along with any caveats. So it is easy to see which EIPs have support for a particular upgrade.
Non-client teams & individuals could also do writeups with what they support.
ACD Proposal 4: Fortnightly ACD calls
Outside of Network upgrade scoping & during public testnet testing/upgrade/retro, ACD calls could be fortnightly (every two weeks) or even monthly.
If CFI/SFI EIPs need detailed discussion then this can be in a breakout room.
More async discussion allows wider participation (for those who are normally asleep during ACD).
Network Upgrade Process
Network upgrade process needs a major overhaul. It is the end of May, and the scope for Pectra is still not finalized, when formal discussions started in January. Pectra was originally envisaged as a small fork targeting late 2024.
NUP Proposal 1: PFI, CFI, SFI
Ideally we would be able to remove EIPs from Considered for Inclusion where the EIP definitely won’t be included in the upgrade. This reduces the CFI list to only possible EIPs.
e.g. EIP7547 inclusion lists had issues with EIP3074 which couldn’t be resolved for Electra, but remains CFId.
NUP Proposal 2: EIP Review Tracker
This would be of huge benefit if EIP authors and/or Eth Magicians mods maintained this for the discussion topic.
The topic could be a Discourse wiki that could be updated over time.
NUP Proposal 3.1: Client Team EIP Editors by Default
Each client team should nominate their editor.
Though editors should not assign their own EIP numbers (to avoid any perception of number sniping).
NUP Proposal 4: Multi-upgrade roadmap
Define a multi-upgrade roadmap of key major features. The next 3 upgrades should be named.
This would allow EIPs to be PFId for the most suitable upgrade in the next few years.
NUP Proposal 5: Defined upgrade phases
-
Upgrade breakout for PFI EIPs (beauty parade)
Each PFI EIP gets a ten minute slot to present (using a preshared presentation) showing what their EIP does, who/how it benefits Ethereum, which client teams support it and estimated effort. Ideally presentations would have a template they could follow. Have multiple breakouts until all PFI EIPs presented. -
Scoping
Client teams propose which PFI EIPs they support (along with other teams/independents), then a week later after all proposals are shared meet at ACD to finalize scope, with the aim to SFI EIPs. Any CFId EIPs which have caveats on being SFId should have a limited window (e.g. a month) to be SFId (caveats removed) or they should be removed from CFI. We should avoid having a situation where an EIP is CFId for a long period of time.New EIPs should not be added into scope after this phase, without support of a large number of client teams. This should be extraordinary circumstances.
-
Implementation
An EIP implementation tracker should be used. e.g. pectra-devnet-0 specs - HackMDACD should be used to report on issues blocking/delaying implementation. Any detailed discussions should be done async or in a breakout room.
ACD should be used for moving EIPs from CFI to SFI, removing EIPs from CFI and deciding if a major change in an EIP scope means it should be removed.
-
Testing
We should have a defined period of time and order to public testnets after devnets & shadow forks.
e.g. Holešky first, 3 week gap, then Sepolia, 4 week gap, then mainnet -
Upgrade
-
Retro
Public retro with written input from teams of what went well/what didn’t and how we improve the process
EthMag Proposal 2: Revamped Categories
Categories should be templated. To encourage topic authors to use the same format.
EthMag Proposal 3: Onboarding New Admins
Currently there are only 3 admins, no moderators and only 4 non-admin regulars (who can recategorize and rename topics). This may need to be part of someones paid role, or find a way to fund efforts (either grant or retroactively).