-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 37
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
Call for Input: Define "Meta" as only relating to processes (effectively excluding hardforks) #373
Comments
in favour Anything that reduces the ambiguity of categories is a plus in my book. |
The "Meta" category has been used for network upgrades since Homestead, for over 7 years now. We tried moving away from them from 2020-23, but reverted back as this felt like the clearest way to inform the community about upcoming upgrades and other important hard-fork related changes (e.g. reserved address space for rollups, the network upgrade process inclusion stages, etc.). It's quite hard for the broader Ethereum community to keep track of protocol upgrades and other important changes. I think we should avoid constantly changing where information lives, and, if doing so, be very clear about the transition and its rationale. Looking at the current Meta EIPs, 13/15 of the Final ones concern hard forks or related processes, and so do 100% of the Draft + Review ones. Even for Stagnant/Withdrawn ones, 6/8 concern hard forks. Given this, I'm opposed to merging https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/9153/files as-is and would rather explore other options such as:
At the very least, I think such a change should be broadly discussed in venues such as AllCoreDevs, Ethereum Magicians, etc. and have buy-in from more stakeholders than only EIP editors, as Meta EIPs are a fairly central hub of important information. |
Opposed (I am an associate editor so don't get a vote) My understanding of the EIP/ERC split was so that the EIP process could be more tailored to the needs of core devs. This change doesn't appear to do that. Whilst my preference is to use strict definitions, given the long standing existing use of Meta EIPs for upgrades I don't think this change adds enough value, given the community are used to upgrade Meta EIPs. If we really need, I would rather see a subcategory for network upgrades. |
The Ethereum network upgrade process is a good example of continuous improvement. I have multiple examples in mind but from the last EIPIP meeting,
FWIW the change with ethereum/EIPs#9153 is unlikely to have any significant impact on information accessibility. Anyone searching for EIP-7600: Hardfork Meta - Pectra will still be able to access the list of proposals for Pectra upgrade seamlessly. All Upgrade EIPs information will still be there except the proposed Call For Input will cement the original vision of Meta EIP mentioned in EIP-1 that “Any meta-EIP is also considered a Process EIP. Process EIPs are like Standards Track EIPs but apply to areas other than the Ethereum protocol itself. They may propose an implementation, but not to Ethereum’s codebase; they often require community consensus; unlike Informational EIPs, they are more than recommendations, and users are typically not free to ignore them.” This merge will also confirm that any proposal sharing information other than process will be added to the “Informational” type. A little back history
Do I think the Upgrade EIP is helpful? Absolutely. Does it need to be a “Meta” EIP?
This is not the first time a proposal’s Type or Category has been changed. For instance:
I’m not concerned about changing the process itself. My primary focus is ensuring clear communication about these changes to the community. That said, I’ll support the decision either way—whether it involves approving this Call For Input or updating EIP-1 to refine the definition of a “Meta” EIP or adding a new Type/Category. Lastly, I fully support sharing this discussion with the broader community, such as the All Core Developers (ACD) group. However, I encourage people to add comments to this Issue to consolidate thoughts in one place. |
IMHO, the current definition of Meta EIP in EIP-1 is clear and will remain valid even after 'Upgrade EIPs' are reclassified as "Informational". I don't see any need to update the definition text.
I prefer using "network upgrade" instead of "hardfork" to update "Informational EIP". |
Call for Input
Do we merge ethereum/EIPs#9153 ?
EIP-1 is updated, hardfork EIPs reclassified as Informational.
No change.
Rough Consensus
January 17th, 2025
Background
#365
Checklist
I, the opener of this Call for Input, have completed the following:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: