Call For Input: rename author(s) to maintainer(s) or proposer(s)

[g11tech]

Call for Input

Decision	Do we rename author(s) to maintainer(s) or proposer(s) in the EIP/ERC/RIP headers and webfronts
If Affirmed	The EIP header and renderings will be renamed from author(s) to maintainer(s) or proposer(s), and the process documents be updated to signal the new semantics of the field.
If Rejected	No change
Method	Rough Consensus
Deadline	March 20th, 2024

Background

Refer to the discussions on

• Call for Input: Adding Additional Author to ERC-5169 #308

Where it was discussed allowing an author to be added to a final EIP. A consensus for doing the same couldn't be reached for the same for reasons enumerated in the issue.

In light of the fact that its not feasible to credit every one involved unless rigorous references are mentioned and checked against (and also necessitating the need to evaluate authorship claims), it is suggested via this "Call for Input" to change the semantics of author to maintainer and hence reflect the same.

Once the EIP/ERC/RIP is submitted, the IP and copyright is waived off and hence belongs to the community, and the only relevance of the current author(s) field is permissions for them to update it till it is adopted by the community.

This can also resolve issues, where the current author of a stagnent EIP no longer supports it and EIP editors can take executive decision add someone else who is more motivated (can happen again via Call For input, but its an orthogonal issue but nevertheless the semantics change allows us to do this if the current author for e.g. is not cooperative for their stagnent EIP)

[SamWilsn]

So "author" is definitely the more recognized term in publishing, but I do agree that it doesn't transfer well here. For one, being an author implies that you agree to release your content under CC0, but you do not need to consent to being added as an author, so a misbehaving author could add, say, Brian Armstrong (CEO of Coinbase) to an EIP to give the impression that Coinbase releases the work to the public domain, when in fact they do not.

On the other hand, there is a significant amount of work in renaming the field. The renderer would need to be updated along with eipw, not to mention third-party integrations like airdrops.

---

For the above reasons, I am choosing to abstain for the time being.

[lightclient]

I vote no here, I don't think there is a problem to solve here.

[abcoathup]

No change: (I don't have a vote).
The effort in renaming made me vote no.

Rather than renaming, why not add an explicit definition to EIP-1 of what an author is and isn't.
https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-1#author-header

[g11tech]

Rather than renaming, why not add an explicit definition to EIP-1 of what an author is and isn't.

may be this is the minimum we can do

[SamWilsn]

I don't really see a clear consensus. @g11tech is likely in favour since he made this proposal, and @lightclient has clearly expressed his opposition. I'm going to close this as rejected, but am fine with re-opening if there's more discussion to be had.