EIPs
EIPs copied to clipboard
ethereum
Update EIP-5000: Renumber to EIP-5159
The EIP number was sniped using a bot. In order to discourage sniping, we're renumbering the EIP to a less attractive number.
File EIPS/eip-5159.md
Requires 1 more reviewers from @axic, @chfast, @hrkrshnn
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 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.
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.
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.
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] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
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.
I really don't care about this anymore. At some point, it's just a number and we let it go.
Letting it go just means this will happen again. We have a history of letting it go "just this one time" and I think a strong signal should be sent that this sort of behavior is not acceptable and you cannot get away with it, like every other time in the past.
A strong signal was sent, and it clearly won't be allowed to happen again. We've already made the author of 6000 renumber their EIP.
From Discord:
Micah: I agreed to close https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/5255 under the presumption that consensus would be achieved on 5270 which appeared to be much closer to finding resolution, but I'll re-open it if 5270 simply no longer has a champion (but no consensus was achieved). Or perhaps I could open up a new one that mirrors #5270 in hopes of actually getting a real resolution. Sam: I closed it because I don't think there will ever be sufficient consensus on it to make a change. If you're going to make a duplicate of it, I'll just re-open it, for all the good it'll do.
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.
@Pandapip1 is there a label that can be set on this to indicate that it is a "long term thing that shouldn't be auto-closed"?
We should close it, no progress is being made and it becomes a sillier grudge the longer it goes on.
Or we could just merge it, since no progress is being made and it becomes a sillier grudge the longer it goes on.
Nop is better in this case as is doesn't cause confusion for the EIP which has now been merged for over 6 months.
The EIP never should have been merged as it was. This is just "fixing the bug". We also made it quite clear to the authors that the number may change very early on (within days of it being merged) so I don't feel very remorseful if the authors ignored that and started advertising under that number.
What bug? I had the authority to merge it and I merged it. The only issue is that there was communication out-of-band and there was some disagreement among editors.
As previously discussed, I disagree that you had the authority to override Sam's numbering without any public discussion. Especially given that we had discussed this sort of scenario in the past and at the least I believe it was quite clear to all of the editors involved that some editors felt strongly about the scenario being worthy of discussion.
This situation felt quite underhanded given all of the private conversations that occurred, despite essentially all other EIP editorial work happening in public, and it being well known that this is a scenario that some editors felt strongly about.
I disagree that you had the authority
That's fine, but EIP-1 does not agree with you. EIP-1 states than an EIP editor will assign the draft EIP a number. I, an EIP editor, assigned the EIP a number and merged the PR.