Dear Community,
I’ve submitted a draft Informational EIP documenting the historical and current naming conventions used for Ethereum network upgrades across the Execution Layer, Consensus Layer, post-Merge combined upgrades, and Blob-Parameter-Only upgrades.
As upgrade cadence increases and multiple naming systems coexist (cities, stars, portmanteau names, BPO numbering), this information is increasingly scattered across repos, calls, and tribal knowledge. This EIP consolidates observed practice into a single canonical reference to improve clarity, reduce ambiguity, and support consistent ecosystem communication, with suggesting expectations for future naming decisions.
Covered areas:
• Early milestone-based naming (Frontier to Spurious Dragon)
• Metropolis historic city naming (Byzantium to Istanbul)
• Glacier naming for Ice Age forks
• Execution Layer city-based naming (Devcon / Devconnect)
• Consensus Layer star-based alphabetical naming
• Post-Merge combined names (e.g., Shapella, Dencun, Pectra)
• Blob-Parameter-Only (BPO) sequential naming
EIP should focus on current naming practice. History behind the names should be moved to the discussions topic.
Naming History
We should document the history of the names (before it is lost), including a table with a list of network upgrades and links to the naming discussions & decisions.
We should also link to historical discussions on naming processes:
I’d suggest including @timbeiko (current naming policy), @hwwang (consensus layer star names), myself (Eth Magicians naming signaling) & @leobago (IAU star names) as authors, along with the current ACD(C/E) call moderators @ralexstokes & @adietrichs.
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this and for sharing your suggestion. I really appreciate the thoughtful input.
For this proposal, the intent is to keep it as an Informational EIP rather than a Meta EIP. The primary goal is to curate and preserve data so it can be reliably referenced in the future, if and when needed.
The focus is on documenting the established pattern and the final outcomes, while remaining respectful of the community’s decision-making process. Rather than capturing how a decision was derived or who was involved in the discussion, the intent is to document what was decided and why, so the historical record remains clear, neutral, and durable over time.
For that reason, I’d prefer to stick with the current structure as proposed. That said, I truly appreciate the reference and the perspective you shared. Thank you again for taking the time to review and engage.