Am I only the guy, who is totally overwhelmed by new EIPs, ERCs, and other proposals?
I don’t want to miss something important, but currently reading tons of EIPs that look like a DesignPattern, but not a Standard change or proposal.
A Standard requires a community’s formal acceptance and release, but DesignPattern do not.
I think we are missing a tag signalling what the EIP’s Author is looking for. Is he looking for discussion? Is he looking for formal acceptance or consensus?
I am open for better ideas, but I would definitely play down the number of EIPs we have - many of them are not EIPs at all.
No - I have the same problem. I had an idea once that might help to mitigate the problem a bit: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/896 - it got some positive words - but never real traction. Also I am not sure how to roll this out. Perhaps a second attempt is needed as the pain is now even bigger? Ideas very welcome - I am still a big fan of the idea of splitting it. Not only for better structure - also because this EIP<>ERC thing really sucks in my eyes - sometimes you read ERC- - sometimes EIP-55 - clear naming and structure would be so nice also for this.
// PRELIMINARY THOUGHTS
hmm… I think we should discuss in depth about it. Currently, I am not convinced, because your naming pattern looks like too narrow to me. There are proposals, that will fall in many different categories at the same time. This shouldn’t reflected by name, it should be reflected by tag (multiple tags).
The EIP naming has only two goals:
- to refer the proposal
- to signal, that this proposal SHOULD be reviewed by whole community.
IMHO, everything that should not be discussed by whole community, should not be an EIP (but can be other xIP).
hmm… what about influencing groups and the “strange loop”? this could be a way to structure the EIP discussion…
Just posting for prosperity: