Update EIP-5000: Renumber to EIP-5159 #5270
Conversation
The EIP number was sniped using a bot. In order to discourage sniping, we're renumbering the EIP to a less attractive number.
|
I am generally against this solution to the problem compared to #5255 because this basically does not punish the attacker for attempting the attack in any way. It essentially says, "you failed at the attack, but go ahead and try again next time because there is no punishment and the EIP editors will do the work of cleaning up your mess". If there was some reason to believe that this was an honest mistake or the person just didn't know the rules then I would be more lenient, but there is just a preponderance of evidence here that this was very intentional. |
|
You, @MicahZoltu, are often fond of saying that editors are not curators, and that we should not put ourselves in a position to decide what is allowed in an EIP. In this case, I would say that editors are not executioners, and that we should not (often) put ourselves in a position to punish non-editors for their actions. If the draft hadn't been merged, the obvious solution would've been to change the number in the PR before merging, as you've done before. As far as I am aware, merging wasn't @hrkrshnn's decision, and so they shouldn't be punished for it. |
|
Regardless, I would like to resolve this quickly, to avoid creating any more confusion than necessary in the ecosystem. If you would rather #5255 over this, I'll gladly approve it. |
I generally agree, we should not be punishing authors for bad behavior in most cases, especially if there is a plausible argument that they didn't know they were doing a bad thing. The editor involvement in this case though is what makes it cross the line for me from "user naively trying to play a silly game that they think doesn't matter" to "people in positions of power within the system attempting to capture and abuse that power". |
|
I have been thinking more on this and am coming around to this over #5255. If the rest of the editors all are in agreement on one or the other I'll go along with either, though I am still pretty strongly against doing nothing. |
|
@MicahZoltu go ahead and merge. |
|
Since this is such a contentious issue (with editors being both for and against it, rather than neutral), I would like to get more editor consensus than just 3 of us before merging, or at the least discuss it in our fortnightly call. At some point we may need to take action so this doesn't hold up progress on this EIP unnecessarily, but I am still hopeful that we can eventually reach some kind of agreement. |
|
Nobody has disapproved of renumbering. The only objections have been to the deletion. We can merge this PR. |
|
Since it is such a contentious issue, and we haven't gotten approval from @lightclient or @axic, I would like to wait at least until we discuss it at the EIPIP meeting, if not longer. While I can certainly appreciate the desire to settle the matter, I am generally against rapidly moving forward under disagreement. |
Pandapip1
changed the title
Pandapip1
changed the title
|
Also CC @gcolvin |
|
There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review. |
|
Still contentious. |
| @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ | |||
| --- | |||
| eip: 5000 | |||
| eip: 5159 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same as #5255, waiting for editor consensus....
|
There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review. |
|
There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review. |
|
Not stale. |
|
@MicahZoltu @SamWilsn do you have something new to contribute to this? |
|
Nothing new, but I also don't consider the issue resolved either. Your comments in #7396 and #7388 are concerning, but @Pandapip1 has already said what I would have said so I didn't feel the need to repeat. |
|
It's kind of pointless to just leave this sitting here open. I had the right to number it as I did and I don't think it should be changed. It feels more like you're spamming this repo by constantly bumping the issue with no further substance. |
|
My request is for the editors, as a group, to decide how to handle this issue. The impression I have is that there is not yet agreement on how to proceed with this, and even the future of how numbering will be handled still seems to be uncertain. |
|
TLDR: Number sniping not being penalized is unfair but it was not against the rules in EIP-1. This issue can be closed. Number sniping was not allowed by convention prior to PR #5000 and EIP/ERCs with numbers being manually assigned. It is unfair to authors, both those who complied with convention and also those authors who number sniped & had a manual number assigned that PR #5000 was merged without the requested renumbering by an editor. Proposed change to EIP-1 would codify that number sniping is not allowed: #7388 After much consideration, given this was within the rules, whilst I would prefer the EIP to be renumbered, the rules at the time mean that it was allowed. I think this issue can be closed. I'd encourage the authors of #5000 to seek a new number so their EIP isn't tainted by this apparent unfairness. |
|
I second @abcoathup 's suggestion |
|
Another thing worth noting - this EIP is getting close to becoming stagnant. |
|
I've opened a formal Call for Input. |
|
There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review. |
|
Still active, waiting on resolution of ethcatherders/EIPIP#274. |
|
There has been no activity on this pull request for 2 weeks. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity. If you would like to move this PR forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review. |
|
Still waiting on ethcatherders/EIPIP#274 |
|
As mentioned in ethcatherders/EIPIP#274, the consensus is to not renumber EIP-5000. |
The EIP number was sniped using a bot. In order to discourage sniping,
we're renumbering the EIP to a less attractive number.