@loredanacirstea thanks for kicking this off. To recap, in the linked GitHub issue, several of us suggested that more process wasn’t needed, but rather just doing the work of regularly reviewing EIPs & ERCs.
Basically, I believe the issue is actually recruiting knowledgeable people and asking them to commit time to do the work — not handing someone a title.
If there were a line up of people begging for editor titles and/or tons of people consistently reviewing — this might be needed.
If it were me, I would put effort into recruiting more people rather than adding process that it’s unclear what it solves.
That’s my 2gwei. Good luck!
Here are some quick thoughts on ideas that might grow participation / how to participate more:
Subscribe to new GitHub issues / PRs by “Watching”
Leave a comment saying “I’m reviewing”
- this lets people know if anyone is working on a particular EIP
Run “what is an EIP / how do EIPs work” sessions at various conferences.
- Any in person conferences and Hackathons are good times for this
Hold a weekly EIP review / edit session
- Pick a time, gather in the EIPs Gitter
- Post chats as you edit / Review
- Have one or more existing editors there to approve PRs and do issue management
Run a weekly review of new EIPs
- post them here and on Twitter
Use GitHub issues for more categorization:
- if the current repo maintainers want to add new people (essentially more editors), then labels and other GitHub features could be used.
Related — I still have a PR in to add a full RSS feed of all EIPs. That handles them when they hit Draft on the website, not when they first get added to GitHub.
Anyway, the main thing is getting more humans involved. The bar for helping to correct EIPs into Draft is quite low. The next step of reviewing the technical content is probably about cross posting an announce here to the forum and promotion.
Also: I think Core EIPs have way different issues, so a lot of this mainly applies to ERCs.