EIP-1776: Legal Governance Token Standard

[j0xhn]

No description provided.

[eth-bot]

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

---

(fail) EIPS/eip-1776.md

classification
ambiguous

• A 'type' header is required for all EIPs, 'eip-1776.md' does not have a 'type'

[poojaranjan]

As per the EIP-1, an EIP number is determined by the EIP editor(s), which in most cases is the pull request number of the "Draft" proposal. This proposal seems to be relatively new. However, the EIP number seems to be from old series.
@j0xhn Do you happen to have any old reference for this proposal that you would like to add?

Additional changes requested:

• Remove "Table of contents" & "Simple Summary" from Table of Content as they not a standard content for an EIP
• Add "Description" to preamble

"Simple Summary" has been replaced by "Description". Please check EIP Formats and Template for reference.

[j0xhn]

Ahh, yes I was attempting to claim that EIP number as it wasn't being used by any other project and because it's a governance related EIP thought the 1776 reference as the declaration of independence was fitting. Would it be possible to keep that specific number or is it forbidden to go back to earlier numbers even if there isn't a working proposal with the same number? 🙏🏼

…

On Wed, Jan 26, 2022, 3:12 PM Pooja Ranjan ***@***.***> wrote: As per the EIP-1 <https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-1>, an EIP number is determined by the EIP editor(s), which in most cases is the pull request number of the "Draft" proposal. This proposal seems to be relatively new. However, the EIP number seems to be from old series. @j0xhn <https://github.com/j0xhn> Do you happen to have any old reference for this proposal that you would like to add? Additional changes requested: - Remove "Table of contents" & "Simple Summary" from Table of Content as they not a standard content for an EIP - Add "Description" to preamble "Simple Summary" has been replaced by "Description". Please check EIP Formats and Template <https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-1#eip-formats-and-templates> for reference. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#4713 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAUGCJVLOHP57Z57Z5R7SJLUYBIUBANCNFSM5MTCLM2A> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[poojaranjan]

Thanks for the response, @j0xhn.

Historically, allocation of EIP number is editors' responsibility. Tagging EIP editors to weigh in @MicahZoltu @axic @lightclient @gcolvin

[wighawag]

Note that 1776 is already used : #1776
The issue is closed but that was due to auto bot and can be reopened

[j0xhn]

Merge suggestions from editors

[j0xhn]

@wighawag I received permission to re-open 1776 with this being a meta-standard. Is that something we add to their issue thread? Possible to re-open those? Didn't see anything on my end so figured perhaps there are certain admin functionalities you are possibly privy to?

[wighawag]

@wighawag I received permission to re-open 1776 with this being a meta-standard. Is that something we add to their issue thread? Possible to re-open those? Didn't see anything on my end so figured perhaps there are certain admin functionalities you are possibly privy to?

Not sure I understand the question

What I am saying is that EIP-1776 already exists and so you ll have to use another number

[MicahZoltu]

@wighawag There is no EIP-1776.

@j0xhn In order to take over authorship of an existing EIP, you will need to get the authors to add you to the authors list. This requires a PR to an existing EIP and the existing authors to approve that PR. In this case, there is no EIP-1776 so there is no EIP to take over authorship of. When creating a new EIP, editors will assign a number. Numbers aren't something that EIP authors get to choose. Number selection is a nearly automated (but not fully automated) process. If you want a memorable EIP you should come up with a memorable title and a quality EIP, the number is just meant to be a unique identifier.

[wighawag]

@MicahZoltu

Well my point is that there is already usage of the EIP-1776 name in that draft: #1776

The fact that as part of EIP guideline, it is common to use the issue/PR number as the number to be given to the EIP when merged, it is normal to expect that draft to use that number when it merge.

And this guideline is actually important, It allows EIP author to feel confident of the stability of the number when mentioning it elsewhere.

While the issue is currently closed, it could be re-open and there are already several references to it in the outside :

• gitcoin : https://gitcoin.co/hackathon/MetaMask/projects/124/eip-1776-singleton-meta-transaction-processor
• ethereum magicians : https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/lets-discuss-metamasks-hackathon-on-generalized-meta-transactions/3923/29
• Metamask refers to it in its hakathon blog post: https://medium.com/metamask/our-metatransaction-hackathon-winner-a620551ccb9b
• My blog refers to it : https://ronan.eth.link/blog/ethereum-gas-dangers/

[MicahZoltu]

Well my point is that there is already usage of the EIP-1776 name in that draft: #1776

Unless there is a PR that actually get merged, there is no EIP, and thus no number. People mention numbers all the time, but the official policy is that if there is no merged Draft, then there is no EIP.

And this guideline is actually important, It allows EIP author to feel confident of the stability of the number when mentioning it elsewhere.

We are extremely explicit that you don't have a number until it is assigned! You SHOULD NOT be talking about a numbered EIP until there is a draft. Just because people do a thing doesn't mean it is correct. 😀 In fact, I have a pretty strong inclination to intentionally assign a different number once a draft EIP is actually created just to make it very clear to people that numbers are assigned by editors, and until you have a merged Draft EIP you don't have a number.

[wighawag]

ok, point taken

Just because people do a thing doesn't mean it is correct.

Well that depends :) (this how language works :) )