Proposal: Forking ERCs from EIPs Repository

[shemnon]

@gcolvin

We are at the end of Last Call, and as a Meta proposal I have no big problems with this – moving this EIP to Final doesn’t necessarily mean we merge Move ERCs to separate repository by lightclient · Pull Request #7206 · ethereum/EIPs · GitHub , and it lays out that proposal well. Thanks.

You insisted I write an EIP but I resisted on the premise that it would be meaningless and you would move the goalposts in the end. That just happened

@gcolvin

Although you speak of repositories and processes, the deeper issues are around people and governance. In particular, does splitting the repositories mean splitting the Editors into separate organizations? It’s your proposal, so I’m not asking you to change your intent.

It’s Tim’s and lightclient’s proposal, which I fully support. I’m being a functionary in conforming to your process needs.

But splitting the org has always been part of the proposal. From the top of this very thread…

@timbeiko

TL;DR

• We should fork the EIP repo to create an ERC-only one, with ERCs displayed at ercs.ethereum.org
• Editors would be granfathered in both repos, free to resign on either side
• The processes can evolve independently, to suit the need of EIP vs. ERC authors, and welcome CL contributors to EIPs
• To avoid name collisions, EIPs get even numbers, and ERCs get odd ones.

Editors will be grandfathered in to both repos, processes can evolve independently. Was there specific wording you want to see? Please propose it so I can get it right in one pass.

@gcolvin

I think the most insightful comment on this is from @bumblefudge here . In part:

But notice the subtle slide from “split the repos” to “split the editorial processes into two separate deciding bodies with different processes.”

It’s not a shift. It’s literally in the tl;dr from the very beginning. Separate independent processes.

@gcolvin

And I’ve said in a few places that I’m trying to reduce the friction by getting the Editors “out of the workflow business”.

Then what do the editors do? Seriously, what EIP work have you done outside of governance and workflow debates since January? Editors who are not editing EIPs are not really editing. Perhaps we need to rename them “reviewers” to make it clear the work we do need from them.

[gcolvin]

Moving files doesn’t change anything about how persons organize themselves. I don’t object to moving the files. I object to splitting up the Editors into separate organizations. I’m leaving it to the other Editors to decide whether they want to do that.

[shemnon]

The original proposal was to both split org and repo. That you are willing to accept half of it does not change the original intent of the proposal.

[gcolvin]

I do not question your intent, Danno. My only ask is that you be more explicit from the start:

Abstract

Describes the motivation and rational for splitting the EIP process into an EIP Process, targeting core ethereum changes and an ERC process, targeting application layer specifications.

Processes can also evolve within an organization. Your intent is to split the Editors into two independent organizations, so please say so here. That’s all.