Thought it was important to flag that the rule about “not being able to resubmit a headliner EIP as a vanilla EIP” doesn’t seem fair.
I think it’s great to keep experimenting on new ways to ship forks faster, in a more streamlined way (e.g., the new headliner initiative EIP-7773: Glamsterdam Network Upgrade Meta Thread). But it turns out FOCIL is basically the archetype of an EIP that doesn’t neatly fit into the headliner structure because it touches both the EL and the CL, and because it is a “not too big, not too small” upgrade.
To be fair, @timbeiko pointed out it was mentioned here: “Once a feature is declined as a potential headliner, it cannot return as a regular EIP within the same fork cycle to prevent back-door reprioritization.” (Community Consensus, Fork Headliners & ACD Working Groups). But I think most people were not aware of the rule, and it still doesn’t make sense to me in practice. I also don’t think the risks of back-door reprioritization are real, if people don’t like an EIP they just wouldn’t include it in a fork either way.
A potential worst case scenario that could be considered as capture risk is an EIP that cannot be CFI’d just because it doesn’t fit into the governance process. Fork scope/complexity are both valid arguments but I wouldn’t want the process to just exclude EIPs for the sake of new/experimental rules.