Update EIP-5069: add concept of associate editors#11035
Update EIP-5069: add concept of associate editors#11035lightclient wants to merge 1 commit intoethereum:masterfrom
Conversation
|
✅ All reviewers have approved. |
eth-bot
changed the title
eth-bot
left a comment
eth-bot
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All Reviewers Have Approved; Performing Automatic Merge...
|
@poojaranjan gave me the title of associate editor that I have been using when assigning numbers. Do I need a new title or do I need to become an associate editor if I want to keep assigning numbers? |
|
Adding more people to support the process is a good idea. While we cannot avoid onboarding new EIP editors over time, I agree that a high level of trust is essential before bringing someone in. We can update an onboarding process to share with the community in the “Membership” section in EIP-5069. In January 2025, the concept of an "EIP Reviewer" was introduced with a similar goal, but with greater emphasis on subject-matter expertise, keeping them more aligned to the Ethereum ecosystem. While EIP editors focus primarily on editorial consistency and process enforcement, EIP Reviewers can also contribute technical or domain expertise to add value. Notably, we have successfully onboarded an EIP editor using this pathway. We have now completed a full cycle from contributing as EIP Reviewers to EIP editor. I would support documenting this well-tested and proven in practice process within EIP-5069, rather than introducing a new mechanism altogether. I would also prefer to keep the “Associate EIP Editor” role unchanged to avoid confusion. |
4 participants
The biggest complaint I hear about the EIP process is how slow it can be to move through the process, get editor attention, etc. It would be great to bring more contributors into the fold, but as it stands today, EIP editors are in a very high trust position. We are tasked with governing the EIP process in a way that is effective and sustainable for the long term. Although we now have a better forcing function with Keeper, I still think adding more full EIP editors is not something we should do lightly.
With that said, I still want to address the timeliness of the EIP process and that's where I think Associate EIP Editors can come in. They will have the same powers and responsibilities that EIP Editors have for executing the day-to-day processes. They just won't be eligible for formally voting on governance matters. I think this strikes a good balance between opening up editing to allow for more contributors without putting the process in unnecessary risk.