GitHub user fubuloubu commented on Meta EIP 956 that the EIP process should not be concerned with signaling changes to state. This leads to an interesting question: should there be a different process for deciding on modification to the state data?
Perhaps the addition of a line stating that EIPs are not meant to propose changes to the state of Ethereum, only the Protocol itself, might assuage this concern of “bailout” proposals being a problem.
You could still suggest an EIP that implements a process for state changes and communicating them to other clients through the Ethereum Protocol, but that should be it’s own discussion regarding the benefits/difficulties with that approach (like we had on 867). The EIP process should not be concerned with signaling changes to state, that is up to the wider community. We already have mechanisms for this e.g. hard fork.
Could it be helpful for there to be a new type of Standards Track / Core EIP which covers modifying the state data?
Considering the controversies surrounding rescuing stolen or stuck ether, Core EIPs which involve modifications to the state data may require a more deliberative acceptance process than Core EIPs which involve modifications to the protocol. Such a decision process involving state modification may not only be technical in nature, but involve ethics, philosophy, and law.