Sam Wilson
Sam Wilson
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.
Would you mind also rebasing on top of `master`? The GitHub workflow file in this branch is out of date (and is missing some checks.)
While I very much _love_ this idea in theory, I want to mention a couple possible drawbacks: - Editors now have to think about whether an EIP number is auctioned...
I don't think so. I think this is just the default for GitHub actions.
> I would prefer if you also removed the first Specification section. Like the whole section, or just the header?
> It's still not clear what the consensus among editors is. Consensus was reached and documented in [this thread](https://discord.com/channels/916516304972824576/916713912970412103/1009300460810809416). We aren't waiting on editors to approve, but rather one of...
I think we're just waiting on three more approvals.
```markdown GFM supports footnotes like this[^1] [^1]: hello ``` GFM supports footnotes like this[^1] [^1]: hello
I, unfortunately, have volunteered to write and maintain whatever bot we agree on.
> @SamWilsn Didn't you have two versions of the rand bot, one that guarantees larger numbers are newer and the other which guarantees that all numbers are eventually used (no...