Skip to content

Meta Meta Specification for Forking Meta ECIPs (Use Pull Requests version)#223

Closed
meowsbits wants to merge 6 commits into
meow/meta-metafrom
meow/meta-meta2
Closed

Meta Meta Specification for Forking Meta ECIPs (Use Pull Requests version)#223
meowsbits wants to merge 6 commits into
meow/meta-metafrom
meow/meta-meta2

Conversation

@meowsbits
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@meowsbits meowsbits commented Nov 30, 2019

Alternative to #222, here proposing using Changesets (eg Pull Requests) against a shell Forking Meta ECIP as a procedural pattern, as opposed to using distinct ECIP documents.

Builds on, conceptually includes, and is intended to supersede #221.

@meowsbits meowsbits changed the title Meta Meta Specification for Forking Meta ECIPs (Pull Requests) Meta Meta Specification for Forking Meta ECIPs (Use Pull Requests version) Nov 30, 2019
Comment thread _specs/ecip-_.md Outdated
A Forking Meta ECIP may only achieve `Last Call` status once a Changeset has been accepted and all other alternative marked as `Deferred`, `Withdrawn`, or `Rejected`.

Procedurally, compared to the historical and traditional practice of opening an essentially empty Forking Meta ECIP and working to fill in blanks, this proposed procedure makes only marginal and changes, demanding only that what was taken as implication, subtext, or conteext before now be made explicit. Rather than reviewing actual-or-theoretical proposed change sets to an ECIP (which sadly, have historically usually been theoretical), this forces proposed Forking Meta ECIP alternative outcomes to assume a fully qualified and standardized formats before becoming eligible for consideration.
This proposed procedure makes only marginal and changes, demanding only that what was taken as implication, subtext, or conteext before now be made explicit. Rather than reviewing actual-or-theoretical proposed changesets to an ECIP (which sadly, have historically usually been theoretical), this forces proposed Forking Meta ECIP alternative outcomes to assume a fully qualified and standardized formats before becoming eligible for consideration.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
This proposed procedure makes only marginal and changes, demanding only that what was taken as implication, subtext, or conteext before now be made explicit. Rather than reviewing actual-or-theoretical proposed changesets to an ECIP (which sadly, have historically usually been theoretical), this forces proposed Forking Meta ECIP alternative outcomes to assume a fully qualified and standardized formats before becoming eligible for consideration.
This proposed procedure makes only marginal and changes, demanding only that what was taken as implication, subtext, or context before now be made explicit. Rather than reviewing actual-or-theoretical proposed changesets to an ECIP (which sadly, have historically usually been theoretical), this forces proposed Forking Meta ECIP alternative outcomes to assume a fully qualified and standardized formats before becoming eligible for consideration.

Comment thread _specs/ecip-_.md
### Abstract

Forking Meta ECIPs (defined as Meta ECIPs specifying any Standards-Core track ECIP and an activation block number) should be complete and unique.
Forking Meta ECIPs (defined as Meta ECIPs _intended_ to specify any Standards-Core track ECIP and an activation block number) should contain only placeholder information
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We can actually give "Forking Meta ECIPs" a new category. A lot of people have pointed out that hard fork ECIPs does not nicely fit in "meta" category.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@meowsbits meowsbits Nov 30, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Interesting idea. Have taken a first swing at this with #224.

@meowsbits
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Last 4 commits were mess-ups. Wrong branch. Ooops.

@meowsbits
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Closing because I prefer #224.

@meowsbits meowsbits closed this Dec 1, 2019
@soc1c soc1c deleted the meow/meta-meta2 branch February 3, 2020 10:35
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants