-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Update EIP-1: Add adoptable field #5533
Conversation
* Add resuscitatable field * Add EIP-1 description * Update EIPS/eip-1.md Co-authored-by: Sam Wilson <57262657+SamWilsn@users.noreply.github.com> * Update EIPS/eip-1.md Co-authored-by: Sam Wilson <57262657+SamWilsn@users.noreply.github.com> * Update eip-template.md * Update eip-1.md * Clear up what is considered "abandoned" * Update eip-template.md Co-authored-by: Sam Wilson <57262657+SamWilsn@users.noreply.github.com>
🛑 |
@eth-bot rerun |
I don't think this provides much value. It should simply be left up to editor discretion if a stagnant EIP can be reassigned. And I generally don't think that should happen unless the original author agrees. |
This flag is basically the author in advance stating "Yes, I am okay with someone else taking over this proposal." EIP Editors still have to approve to move it out of stagnant. |
Also - this flag is optional. Anyone can choose to not have their EIP adoptable. |
I am, as usual, torn on this proposal. I dislike reassigning proposals to new authors, but I equally dislike abandoning a well-known EIP number just because the authors can't be reached. I would feel more comfortable if the authors opt-in to the adoption process over just reassigning without their permission. |
Should the adoptable field be by default set to false then? |
Since enough people objected, I've set the adoptable entry in the template to be default-false, so that new EIPs are opt-in instead of opt-out. This is a reminder: existing EIPs are, have been, and will always be opt-in. |
The commit 6be8d02 (as a parent of 303a47f) contains errors. |
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 would like this. |
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. |
This pull request was closed due to inactivity. If you are still pursuing it, feel free to reopen it and respond to any feedback or request a review in a comment. |
Would like to reopen this. |
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. |
Bump... |
I thought we had decided we weren't doing this? |
I also thought we agreed not to do this |
I thought I had simply stopped bringing it up. I probably misremembered then. Closing. |
FWIW I would still like this |
Reopening the discussion from #5463.
I merged without waiting for sufficient consensus, so I've reverted that PR, and opened this one.