Call for Input: Adding Additional Author to ERC-5169

[SamWilsn]

Call for Input

Decision	Do we merge ethereum/ERCs#184 ?
If Affirmed	@CharlesFus is added as an author to ERC-5169 (Final.)
If Rejected	No new author is added.
Method	Rough Consensus
Deadline	February 8th, 2024

Background

@JamesSmartCell (an original author of ERC-5169) would like to add @CharlesFus as an author. ERC-5169 is final.

[g11tech]

but why? again authors is not the credit list and we shouldnt treat it like that. so unless it needs maintenance which it does not I vote NO

[abcoathup]

Final is final, I vote no (but don't have a vote). There shouldn't be changes after an ERC is final, it is too late to add an author. They can do credits elsewhere e.g. on a website for the ERC.

[xinbenlv]

@JamesSmartCell, could you state your justification here? We haven't had precedents for adding an author after finalization, nor do we have precedents for rejecting a request to add an author; hence, I think it's worthy of a discussion. Also, can you join the EIPIP meeting next Wednesday? That would be a good venue to make your case before the editors.

[lightclient]

I vote no

[bumblefudge]

i'd rather PR EIP-1 to make the semantic of authorship strictly change-control, not credit or endorsement.
https://sites.tufts.edu/english292b/files/2012/01/Barthes-The-Death-of-the-Author.pdf

[SamWilsn]

@gcolvin feels pretty strongly that authors should represent people who make meaningful contributions to the document, even if it means changing it after Final.

I'm assuming that means he's for merging this PR.

[SamWilsn]

For my part, @g11tech convinced me with this argument, roughly quoted:

EIPs aren't here to pump people's resumes. I can imagine someone bribing authors of a popular EIP to get authorship credit, and we don't want to be in the business of dealing with that.

---

I am against adding a new author.

[SamWilsn]

The prevailing opinion is to not modify a final EIP.

[gcolvin]

authors is not the credit list and we shouldnt treat it like that

I disagree, @g11tech. I suggest you ask the Duck or the Google about "authorship credit."

This is an Errata. I've added the need for an Errata section to the next meeting agenda.

[SamWilsn]

Hopefully I noted your objection correctly in #308 (comment).

[gcolvin]

Yes, you have. And I'm pointing out that it's not just my own opinion. We can discuss it on the Agenda issue. #312