ERC-5247: Smart Proposal #5247

xinbenlv · 2022-07-13T18:13:54Z

When opening a pull request to submit a new EIP, please use the suggested template: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/eip-template.md

We have a GitHub bot that automatically merges some PRs. It will merge yours immediately if certain criteria are met:

The PR edits only existing draft PRs.
The build passes.
Your GitHub username or email address is listed in the 'author' header of all affected PRs, inside .
If matching on email address, the email address is the one publicly listed on your GitHub profile.

eth-bot · 2022-07-13T18:14:41Z

All tests passed; auto-merging...

(pass) eip-5247.md

classification
`updateEIP`

passed!

EIPS/eip-executable-proposal

Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com>

xinbenlv

Done update

xinbenlv · 2022-07-14T01:05:18Z

@Pandapip1 thanks for the comment. I update it with your suggestion. I don't know why Auto-Merge Bot still yield

---
## (fail) EIPS/eip-5247.md
| classification |
| ------------- |
| `ambiguous` |
- eip-5247.md has no identifiable authors who can approve the PR (only considering the base version)
Error: Hi! I'm a bot, and I wanted to automerge your PR, but couldn't because of the following issue(s):
---
## (fail) EIPS/eip-5247.md
| classification |
| ------------- |
| `ambiguous` |
- eip-5247.md has no identifiable authors who can approve the PR (only considering the base version)
Error: Process completed with exit code 1.

Is it because I need an editor to give permission?

xinbenlv · 2022-07-14T03:36:35Z

Hi editors, all issues are resolved except for your review

- File with name EIPS/eip-5247.md is new and new files must be reviewed
- This PR requires review from one of [@lightclient, @axic, @samwilsn, @pandapip1]
Error: Process completed with exit code 1.

Pandapip1

Trigger EIPW

Pandapip1

Trigger EIPW

xinbenlv · 2022-07-14T20:06:42Z

I don't know why it's failing with

Setting environment variables for Vercel CLI
Error: No commit found for SHA: patch-14

Any suggestions?

MicahZoltu · 2022-07-15T04:34:41Z

cc @Pandapip1

xinbenlv · 2022-07-15T12:20:00Z

Trigger EIPW

xinbenlv · 2022-07-15T12:23:28Z

Seems everything else passed. Now looking for ERC track review from an Editor among @lightclient, @axic, @SamWilsn @Pandapip1

## (fail) eip-5247.md
| classification |
| ------------- |
| `newEIPFile` |
- File with name EIPS/eip-5247.md is new and new files must be reviewed
- This PR requires review from one of [@lightclient, @axic, @samwilsn, @pandapip1]

EIPS/eip-5247.md

Pandapip1 · 2022-07-15T13:47:50Z

EIPS/eip-5247.md

+    // TODO: add Proposal Cancel/Edit/Withdraw Event and Functions?
+
+    // TODO: decide whether we require generating ProposalId in the method or not?
+    // TODO: if require generating ProposalId internally, can it be incremental hash-generated?
+    // TODO: what if proposal need to demonstrate sufficient support? How to input quorum?
+    function createProposal(
+        uint256 proposalId,
+        string calldata proposalUri,
+        uint8[] calldata optionIds,
+        address[] calldata targets,
+        uint256[] calldata values,
+        bytes[] calldata calldatas,
+        uint256 startblock,
+        uint256 endblock,
+        bytes calldata extraParams
+    ) external returns (uint256 registeredProposalId);
+
+    // TODO: what's most proper way to update the voting period?
+    // TODO: do we want to include cancel or withdraw?
+    // TODO: what's the best way to include weight scheme?


These TODOs need to be either resolved or removed before this can be merged.

I generally allow TODOs in draft. The goal with DRAFT is to get something out, so as long as it generally is formatted correctly and it has all of the relevant sections and it isn't completely empty I will merge it as a draft. These definitely need to be addressed prior to Review though.

Pandapip1 · 2022-07-15T13:50:46Z

EIPS/eip-5247.md

+type: Standards Track
+category: ERC
+created: 2022-07-13
+requires: 7


Suggested change

requires: 7

requires: 7, 1202

requires is a bit of a misnomer; it really should be called references.

Thank you for the suggestion. but I would humbly reject this revision suggestion
I was hoping to have a separate reference eip or related eip in the preemble. But while it's still requires, I would not add 1202 to avoid confusion. The purpose is to decouple 1202 and 5247

Let me know if it's ok for you @Pandapip1

It's a bit of a contentious point, so I'll let this slide for now. It can always be changed later if/when this goes to Review, for example.

Can you rewrite the text of the EIP so it doesn't reference EIPs that aren't required? Generally speaking, EIPs shouldn't be making comparative arguments, they should focus exclusively on specifying a thing. If you are just referring to other EIPs to compare against then that sort of content probably should just be left out of the EIP entirely.

EIPS/eip-5247.md

Pandapip1 · 2022-07-15T13:55:09Z

EIPS/eip-5247.md

+    // TODO: add Proposal Cancel/Edit/Withdraw Event and Functions?
+
+    // TODO: decide whether we require generating ProposalId in the method or not?
+    // TODO: if require generating ProposalId internally, can it be incremental hash-generated?
+    // TODO: what if proposal need to demonstrate sufficient support? How to input quorum?


These TODOs need to be either resolved or removed before this can be merged.

Can I keep them as draft and as highlight these design decision to invoke discussion? I will guarantee to remove/resolve these TODOs before moving to review

@SamWilsn would this be okay? I'm inclined to say yes but I'd like to have another opinion on this.

I generally allow TODOs up until Review stage. The original intent of Draft was that the barrier to entry for a draft should be very low, just enough to get you a number and a place people could start to submit PRs against. We have drifted a bit away from that since then and also started requiring that people structure the file properly, but I don't think we should go so far as to require a draft EIP actually be finished.

Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com>

Thank you for the suggestion! Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com>

Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com>

xinbenlv · 2022-07-16T12:41:36Z

On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 05:39 Micah Zoltu ***@***.***> wrote: ***@***.**** commented on this pull request. ------------------------------ In EIPS/eip-5247.md <#5247 (comment)>: > @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +--- +eip: 5247 +title: Smart Proposal +description: An interface of "proposals" that is submitted to, recorded on and possibly executed and enforced onchain. +author: Zainan Victor Zhou ***@***.***) +discussions-to: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/erc-5247-executable-proposal-standard/9938 +status: Draft +type: Standards Track +category: ERC +created: 2022-07-13 +requires: 7 Can you rewrite the text of the EIP so it doesn't reference EIPs that aren't required? Generally speaking, EIPs shouldn't be making comparative arguments, they should focus exclusively on specifying a thing. If you are just referring to other EIPs to compare against then that sort of content probably should just be left out of the EIP entirely.

how about in rationale describing the "why" of design choice?

…

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#5247 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAE4KRM5HNRS44YCDWPSHK3VUKUQNANCNFSM53PTQJHA> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

MicahZoltu · 2022-07-16T12:46:37Z

how about in rationale describing the "why" of design choice?

Is it possible to describe the "why" without linking to another EIP and instead describing the different design choice in the other EIP briefly? That is generally preferable, as it allows you to focus specifically on the thing that is different without requiring the read understand the entire other EIP.

xinbenlv · 2022-07-16T13:02:28Z

On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 05:46 Micah Zoltu ***@***.***> wrote: how about in rationale describing the "why" of design choice? Is it possible to describe the "why" without linking to another EIP and instead describing the different design choice in the other EIP briefly? That is generally preferable, as it allows you to focus specifically on the thing that is different without requiring the read understand the entire other EIP.

Which particular mentioning of EIPs are you referring to when suggesting removing? In Smart Proposal we might refer to EIPs that easily illustrative the use case of Smart Proposal such as "here is a contract call in bytecode to make a EIP20 transfer" this helps reader to much easier understand what this EIP can be put into context. —

…

Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#5247 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAE4KRJ2Z6QKK5DAH7C5MSTVUKVLPANCNFSM53PTQJHA> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

MicahZoltu · 2022-07-17T06:04:54Z

Which particular mentioning of EIPs are you referring to when suggesting removing? In Smart Proposal we might refer to EIPs that easily illustrative the use case of Smart Proposal such as "here is a contract call in bytecode to make a EIP20 transfer" this helps reader to much easier understand what this EIP can be put into context.

For that example, I don't see why you need to refer to EIP-20. You can just say something like, "here is an example call of the function transfer(address, uint256) ..." The fact that it happens to match the signature from EIP-20 is not relevant to this EIP.

xinbenlv · 2022-07-17T18:16:57Z

Which particular mentioning of EIPs are you referring to when suggesting removing? In Smart Proposal we might refer to EIPs that easily illustrative the use case of Smart Proposal such as "here is a contract call in bytecode to make a EIP20 transfer" this helps reader to much easier understand what this EIP can be put into context.

For that example, I don't see why you need to refer to EIP-20. You can just say something like, "here is an example call of the function transfer(address, uint256) ..." The fact that it happens to match the signature from EIP-20 is not relevant to this EIP.

Micah, please allow me to debate with the question about "whether one should remove EIP" via an argument of the the purpose of an EIP.

First of all, let me explain this particular case: Here is a logic chain rationale:

Why one would want to specify a calldata in the proposal? -> because they may want to make arbitrary function call
Why would one want to make arbitrary function call? -> because one may want to make call to transfer
Why would one want to make call to transfer? -> because one may want to do ERC20 calls.

Maybe one would say, the 3rd point is not necessary, because anyone familiar enough with ERC20 and the fact that they are specifying transfer would easily come up with their derived conclusion easily. Considering ERC20 is one of the most widely used applications, as an EIP author I find it much easier to explain to an arbitrary reader (assuming Ethereum community member) why being able to interact with ERC is useful.

Secondly, let's generalize:

If we want to reduce the rationale linking to the context, why don't we just remove rationale section? (It's not that I am proposing to remove rationale section, I just feel that a lot of suggestion in removing references has made the EIP proposal towards the direction of harder to read.

As far as I read, EIP spells out as "Ethereum Improvement Proposal", and ERC spells "Ethereum Request for Comment", both term give me a sense that author need to both demonstrate "what to do" and "why" so as to rally community members for adoption.

Therefore, given the purpose of EIP / ERC, I would like to advocate a principle of testing of an editorial change: from a lay Ethereum community member, do the suggested editing change make the document more readable or less readable.

* Create eip-executable-proposal * Update EIPS/eip-executable-proposal Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com> * Update EIPS/eip-executable-proposal Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com> * Update EIPS/eip-executable-proposal Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com> * Update EIPS/eip-executable-proposal Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com> * Update EIPS/eip-executable-proposal Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com> * Update EIPS/eip-executable-proposal Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com> * Update EIPS/eip-executable-proposal Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com> * Update EIPS/eip-executable-proposal Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com> * Update EIPS/eip-executable-proposal Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com> * Update eip-executable-proposal * Change file name to EIP-num * Change authors to author * Update * With rationale of decoupling voting and proposal * Update eip-5247.md * Update eip-5247.md * Update eip-5247.md * Update eip-5247.md * Update EIPS/eip-5247.md Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com> * Update EIPS/eip-5247.md Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com> * Update EIPS/eip-5247.md Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com> * Update EIPS/eip-5247.md Thank you for the suggestion! Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com> * Update EIPS/eip-5247.md Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com> * Update EIPS/eip-5247.md Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com>

Create eip-executable-proposal

75433cb

xinbenlv changed the title ~~Create eip-executable-proposal~~ Executable Proposal Standard Jul 13, 2022

xinbenlv changed the title ~~Executable Proposal Standard~~ Proposal Standard Jul 13, 2022

eth-bot added the ambiguous label Jul 13, 2022

xinbenlv changed the title ~~Proposal Standard~~ Executable Proposal Standard Jul 13, 2022

Pandapip1 reviewed Jul 13, 2022

View reviewed changes

EIPS/eip-executable-proposal Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Pandapip1 requested changes Jul 13, 2022

View reviewed changes

xinbenlv and others added 9 commits July 13, 2022 17:17

Update EIPS/eip-executable-proposal

f1bac2b

Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com>

Update EIPS/eip-executable-proposal

4c8a713

Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com>

Update EIPS/eip-executable-proposal

a98cc16

Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com>

Update EIPS/eip-executable-proposal

70a6a0b

Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com>

Update EIPS/eip-executable-proposal

e8f3ec3

Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com>

Update EIPS/eip-executable-proposal

e823ed8

Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com>

Update EIPS/eip-executable-proposal

6c1ec15

Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com>

Update EIPS/eip-executable-proposal

fded780

Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com>

Update EIPS/eip-executable-proposal

5be09e0

Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com>

xinbenlv changed the title ~~Executable Proposal Standard~~ ERC-5247: Executable Proposal Standard Jul 14, 2022

xinbenlv and others added 3 commits July 13, 2022 17:49

Update eip-executable-proposal

95b8503

Merge branch 'ethereum:master' into patch-14

2fe66fc

Change file name to EIP-num

1998fa0

xinbenlv commented Jul 14, 2022

View reviewed changes

Change authors to author

bf03943

eth-bot added newEIPFile and removed ambiguous labels Jul 14, 2022

Update

a48c378

xinbenlv changed the title ~~ERC-5247: Executable Proposal Standard~~ ERC-5247: Smart Proposal Jul 14, 2022

With rationale of decoupling voting and proposal

d7021b4

Pandapip1 reviewed Jul 14, 2022

View reviewed changes

xinbenlv added 3 commits July 14, 2022 10:40

Update eip-5247.md

7974fea

Update eip-5247.md

b2f6e59

Update eip-5247.md

5518e59

Update eip-5247.md

f6ecb5d

Pandapip1 reviewed Jul 15, 2022

View reviewed changes

xinbenlv and others added 6 commits July 15, 2022 22:05

Update EIPS/eip-5247.md

24116b4

Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com>

Update EIPS/eip-5247.md

8006b56

Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com>

Update EIPS/eip-5247.md

efb4fa7

Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com>

Update EIPS/eip-5247.md

21c5228

Thank you for the suggestion! Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com>

Update EIPS/eip-5247.md

f5f39df

Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com>

Update EIPS/eip-5247.md

440fc38

Co-authored-by: Pandapip1 <45835846+Pandapip1@users.noreply.github.com>

Pandapip1 approved these changes Jul 16, 2022

View reviewed changes

eth-bot added updateEIP and removed newEIPFile labels Jul 16, 2022

kodiakhq bot merged commit d768349 into ethereum:master Jul 16, 2022

lightclient mentioned this pull request Jul 26, 2022

Disallow the word "smart" in EIP titles and descriptions #5316

Closed

xinbenlv deleted the patch-14 branch December 9, 2022 03:40

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

ERC-5247: Smart Proposal #5247

ERC-5247: Smart Proposal #5247

xinbenlv commented Jul 13, 2022

eth-bot commented Jul 13, 2022 •

edited

xinbenlv left a comment

xinbenlv commented Jul 14, 2022

xinbenlv commented Jul 14, 2022

Pandapip1 left a comment

Pandapip1 left a comment

xinbenlv commented Jul 14, 2022

MicahZoltu commented Jul 15, 2022

xinbenlv commented Jul 15, 2022

xinbenlv commented Jul 15, 2022 •

edited

Pandapip1 Jul 15, 2022

MicahZoltu Jul 16, 2022

Pandapip1 Jul 15, 2022

xinbenlv Jul 16, 2022

xinbenlv Jul 16, 2022

Pandapip1 Jul 16, 2022

MicahZoltu Jul 16, 2022

Pandapip1 Jul 15, 2022

xinbenlv Jul 16, 2022

Pandapip1 Jul 16, 2022

MicahZoltu Jul 16, 2022

xinbenlv commented Jul 16, 2022 via email

MicahZoltu commented Jul 16, 2022

xinbenlv commented Jul 16, 2022 via email

MicahZoltu commented Jul 17, 2022

xinbenlv commented Jul 17, 2022 •

edited

ERC-5247: Smart Proposal #5247

ERC-5247: Smart Proposal #5247

Conversation

xinbenlv commented Jul 13, 2022

eth-bot commented Jul 13, 2022 • edited

All tests passed; auto-merging...

(pass) eip-5247.md

xinbenlv left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xinbenlv commented Jul 14, 2022

xinbenlv commented Jul 14, 2022

Pandapip1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pandapip1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xinbenlv commented Jul 14, 2022

MicahZoltu commented Jul 15, 2022

xinbenlv commented Jul 15, 2022

xinbenlv commented Jul 15, 2022 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xinbenlv commented Jul 16, 2022 via email

MicahZoltu commented Jul 16, 2022

xinbenlv commented Jul 16, 2022 via email

MicahZoltu commented Jul 17, 2022

xinbenlv commented Jul 17, 2022 • edited

eth-bot commented Jul 13, 2022 •

edited

xinbenlv commented Jul 15, 2022 •

edited

xinbenlv commented Jul 17, 2022 •

edited