Update README: Clarify which standards are useful submissions

[fulldecent]

Here is the blog post https://blog.phor.net/2022/09/30/What-kinds-of-things-should-be-standardized.html

This PR adds it as recommended reading.

[eth-bot]

Hi! I'm a bot, and I wanted to automerge your PR, but couldn't because of the following issue(s):

---

(fail) eip-1.md

classification
updateEIP

• Changes to EIP 1 require at least 5 unique approvals from editors; there's currently 0 approvals; the remaining editors are @axic, @samwilsn, @pandapip1, @lightclient, @gcolvin

(pass) assets/eip-1/useful-submissions.md

classification
ambiguous

• file assets/eip-1/useful-submissions.md is associated with EIP 1; because there are also changes being made to EIPS/eip-1.md all changes to corresponding assets are also allowed

[xinbenlv]

@fulldecent

I like this personal essay, but I think publishing it at personal venue is better. As of now, I am not sure EIP-1 / README is a good place for personal essay.

I also feel the link that @fulldecent add here about what shall be standardized is biased towards some particular scenarios which doesn't apply to a majority of cases. See my counter examples to what's proposed in the essay. https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/erc-2135-consumable-interface-e-g-nft-event-tickets/3439/11 and https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/erc-2135-consumable-interface-e-g-nft-event-tickets/3439/12

---

Until EIP-1, README decide to be linking to personal essays and is committed to have a complete and balanced representations on views on the same issue, I would not be in support of this proposed inclusion.

[SamWilsn]

This is good content, but I shy away from adding an external link. Would you be open to publishing this as an EIP-1 asset?

[fulldecent]

@SamWilsn Thank you. So adding into EIP-1 or a separate item?

[Pandapip1]

So adding into EIP-1 or a separate item?

Put a Markdown version of the article in /assets/eip-1/useful-submissions.md.

[xinbenlv]

I object to add this doc to EIP repository as per my commented above

[fulldecent]

@Pandapip1 Updated presentation to the format as you said.

[xinbenlv]

Hi @Pandapip1

Based on this “suggestion”, ERC165 shouldnt be proposed. ERC5289 that @Pandapip1 you proposed should also not be proposed as an EIP because there were no pri~adoption. And many EIPs shall not be proposed

This is why oppose this "suggestion".

[Pandapip1]

Well, as it turns out, EIP-165 could have been improved had it been tried as a project beforehand. I think EIP-165 is a good example of why this should be the case.

[xinbenlv]

@Pandapip1 it might be the case. But there is also merit in publishing thr ERC165 first that drives consensus and adoption. It is chick-and-egg problem: ERC drives adoption or adotions provides feedback for iteration.

I think the "suggestion" is to say that ERC165 or ERC5289 and ENS standards shall not be even worth proposed unless tried and adopted first. I think this is not the case for many of the existing and useful ERCs. 4337 is also a counter example to this "suggestion"

Another bad example that is supported by this "suggestion" is https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-5313 which provides very limited value in addtion to the existing of ERC173.

Regardless, I think inclusion of this "suggestion" into EIP-1 I think is worthy of a EMF discussion thread.

Can i request author @fulldecent to open a discussion thread in ethereum-magicians.org to drive communitu consensus?

[github-actions[bot]]

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.

[github-actions[bot]]

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.