Hardfork Meta EIP-1679: Istanbul discussion

EIP-1702 and EIP-1803 has no discussions-to

Here’s a spreadheet summarizing the scope of the proposed EIPs. - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1evVKtEwEQwy4Gr84RjOpuf4CnjoISuB3865mvrXl-oc/edit?usp=sharing

Thanks, this look great!

I think the proper list of pending proposals is the following though: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+label%3Aistanbul

Your spreadsheet seems to miss some of them.

I went through both and made a Readiness Checklist.

Steps for Checkpoint 1

  • Submit PR
  • Formatted Correctly
  • Received Review
  • Merged as Draft

Chart Link

I will go through and update more. Would love feedback on milestones to add to the checklist?

What does this stage means?

Basically means it builds and passes the formatting checks the bots do. Also, resolved any formatting requests on the PR.

After I go through and update the rest of the EIPs I think it will tease this out a little more. I know you have been putting a ton of work into this @axic :bowing_man:

I managed to pull the mergeable_status from the GitHub API Directly.

So at least checking if it builds and is mergable can be automated

1 Like

This is fantastic James! Nice work!

I’ve added this link to the wiki page https://en.ethereum.wiki/roadmap/istanbul

Re: milestones – I think if we can use this as the progress tracker that would be interesting. Less about the EIP spec and more about “implemented in” and then links to PRs / issues / commits in the clients.

Since the “hard deadline” for proposals came and went, what’s next for us champions? How do we know what is required of us moving forwards?

The short version: code reference implementations and schedule yourself into an ACD to get to Accepted.

Tests would be nice.

I think that’s about it? I mean, the other part I can think of is connecting with client teams on if they want to code their own implementation or if they want you to submit a PR.

What am I missing?

1 Like

Perhaps there is a special case for mine, since 1344 and 1965 might conflict.

More than willing to work on implementations in geth and parity for it.

For me the biggest indicator that an EIP should be accepted would be for someone to “Champion” it on this weeks or the next, 7 Jun, AllCoreDevs call. There are so many EIPs (especially EIPs submitted at the buzzer) that if a champion doesn’t step up on the call and gets immediate consensus I think the EIP should be bumped to “Asiago.”

1 Like

If that is the expectation we need to reach out and contact all the champions. I’ve sort of been thinking about this and @tvanepps helped put names to a number of them on the wiki.

Those that are officially under a working group should ideally be grouped and labelled as well.

Let’s use @MadeofTin’s spreadsheet to add some extra data like this.

1 Like

Well, I have already attended a Core Dev call and publicly advocated being a Champion for my EIP. From my perspective, I have no idea what else I should do.

I understand that helping to implement my EIP is helpful, but unsure if this is strictly required ahead of the next milestone (client implementations complete). Anything else that is required of me hasn’t really been well communicated, if there is anything.

It would be a little easier if we had a list of champions somewhere. Perhaps a list that doesn’t require the author’s permission to edit. (i.e. not a new field in the submitted EIP) I could then pull that list into the spreadsheet as well. A meta EIP like 1679, but for tracking Champions/Shepards.

I could also look at pulling information from the wiki into the spreadsheet. It feels a bit like a meta-EIP may be better than the wiki, but I would want to think about it more. What are your thoughts here @boris ?

I’m confused. The list of champions is the authors of the EIPs. If none of them actually champion it, then there’s no point having it listed.

I don’t see how can a champion be separate from an author, because championing it through the process likely requires a lot of updates (clarifications) made to the EIP draft.

Yes, I am thinking of this case.

  • You can’t be a champion without being an Author
  • But, You can have an EIP with Authors but no active champion

If the only list is in the EIP itself, then only the authors can update this information. Which if it is inactive, then the authors aren’t even there to update it. That is a catch-22. Having a separate list somewhere of who is the current champion means other editors are able to update this information.

If it is updated in error it will be pretty simple to bump someone to be the active champion again which is also a good signal of the EIPs real activity.

Perhaps there is a better way of handling this, but leaving it up to the authors to self-report inactivity seems a bit fruitless.

That is actually not true, the EIP Editors can extend that (at least it happened in the past), especially for those EIPs which have an open source license (all of them do, with the exception of this list).

The “champion” needs to submit a PR adding themselves to the draft and editors can merge that.

My solution to the problem where someone doesn’t want to step up as an author, but merely editing the EIP for stylistic changes is this: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/797

However I would argue even such changes give you authorship, perhaps not a technical contribution, but authorship nonetheless.

EIP-1702 seems to have one (https://github.com/sorpaas/EIPs/issues/2)

EIP-1803 doesn’t have any, but the discussions-to field is still marked as optional in EIP-1. Should I add one for 1803?

1 Like

There would still need to be added an “active champion” field somewhere on the EIP for editors to update this information. Currently, looking at an EIP I have no way of knowing

  1. If there is an active author (Is the EIP active?)
  2. Who is the active author (Who is the Current Champion?)

For some background. I am running into these problems since I signed up to help Dimitry with testing coordination. I made the spreadsheet so I can track the progress of testing among EIPs and I am also compiling a list of Point of Contacts (Active-Champion) so I can update the progress of testing. It didn’t make sense to keep this information to myself as I am already going to need to maintain it and would rather share it. Also, I don’t want to be an EIP editor, so some way to maintain and share the lists without becoming an EIP-Editor would be preferable.

I would love to see this go through.

I have 20 hours a week I can spend and I want those to be where they are most helpful. I would appreciate some guidance as it is really difficult to get a sense what helps verses what adds work for others in a permissionless leaderless group. So instead I have been bumbling around trying my best to do what I see. Maybe it would be good to have a call @axic?

1 Like