For me the key challenges I think editors face are having to wear multiple hats as domain expert for specific classes of EIPs, acting as enforcement of the process, acting as pseudo-governance of the process, and also actual editorial review (e.g. missed spelled a work etc).
To me each of these tasks are big enough these days that they could be separated out at this point. Especially for volunteers who often time have secondary work outside of this.
Even just splitting off the need to be a domain expert and editorial review from the enforcement/governance of process would be helpful IMO. This could be done via the usage of a process to form working groups (WG) is what I’m thinking and as a part of this “chairs” and “editors” of the WG can exist to help steward specific proposals through the EIP process.
At face value this sounds simple, but there’s likely a lot of things that would still need to be addressed if there’s buy in to go in this direction.
For example,
- how do we know if there’s enough interest to establish a WG?
- How do we go about selecting people to run these WG?
- What expertise do they need to do so?
- What do we need to do to bring the appropriate people into these WGs to better establish consensus?
Additionally, I think it would be useful to consider how this might affect this other thread @xinbenlv has proposed here: Discussion of Criteria for advancing EIP status: A Straw-man Proposal - #8 by kdenhartog
Just some thoughts to keep the discussion moving here