This seems reasonable. I'd like to have a bit of discussion on it before we make a decision though.

I think we need a few more checks in eipw before I'm comfortable enabling this:

• Markdown lint to ensure inline solidity with a SPDX-License-Identifier has a license of CC0. eipw#11
• Lint to ensure the copyright waiver appears at the end of the file eipw#27

We'd also need an automated EIP number assigner.

I agree that those specific checks should be required.

@poojaranjan brought up a great point. A lot of EIPs die in the draft stage, so the first pull request is the only point editors have to influence these EIPs.

Plus we want to encourage discussion on magicians before draft, so we get bigger/more developed ideas in the repository.

I am now weakly against this proposal.

I agree.

I have to disagree here. Editors can always open PRs to modify EIPs (like any other person).

I think that having draft EIPs automatically merge would encourage more participation for draft EIPs, as it gives the Ethereum community a longer time to suggest and make changes formally. As such, the quality of Draft EIPs, on the whole, would be lower, but the quality of EIPs moving to Review would be higher as people would have more time to participate in the horizontal review process.

Would like to bump this.

IMO, if we're going to "auto-merge" drafts they should not get an EIP number. Other standards bodies have a draft stage where the proposal has not yet been assigned an RFC number (see Internet-Drafts). I would like to adopt a similar scheme. I think this would be valuable regardless if we move forward with the auto-merge.

I would agree with them not getting an EIP number. And if they become stagnant, I think they could just be deleted. +1

+1

but in that case we need to suggest a standard way for them to create file name with, for example
some mnemonic name, e.g. eip-some-name.md

Nothing says that EIP "numbers" even have to be numeric. EIP editors, right now, could literally assign an EIP "number" of hello. We wouldn't since that would be stupid, but we could do this without too many changes.

CC @SamWilsn, how feasible would this be to add to EIPw?

I think they should have a different prefix completely to avoid any confusion.

I think they should have a different prefix completely to avoid any confusion.

How about EIP-draft-X and ERC-draft-X?

How about EIP-draft-X and ERC-draft-X?

Sounds good.

X could be ether a number or a mnemonic alias string

I was thinking of a mnemonic, like I-Ds.

Mnmonecs sounds good to me. Better than a draft number, reducing chance of confusion with regular EIP number

@poojaranjan brought up a great point. A lot of EIPs die in the draft stage, so the first pull request is the only point editors have to influence these EIPs.

Plus we want to encourage discussion on magicians before draft, so we get bigger/more developed ideas in the repository.

I am now weakly against this proposal.

Yes good, kill them while the gestate. If you do not have the time to shepherd it through a GitHub pull request what chance do they have of championing it through all the factions in the greater community?

Plus why make more work for yourself, lol.

Plus why make more work for yourself, lol.

That's the problem I have with having two bars: you are doubling the workload. You have to review it once during draft, and again when it reaches review. The difference is that Review EIPs are typically nicer to review, having been somewhat proofread and shortened. So why not get rid of that first step?

There has been no activity on this issue for 1 week. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity.

Dismissing stale bot.

There has been no activity on this issue for 1 week. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity.

Dismissing stale bot.

I am very against this change if it assigns them an EIP number. I think it should give a DEIP number or something separate.

It will not. It will assign them a string identifier.

There has been no activity on this issue for 1 week. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity.

Dismissing stale bot

There has been no activity on this issue for 1 week. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity.

Dismissing stale bot

There has been no activity on this issue for 1 week. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity.

This is still being discussed is it not?

Yes. The bot is to prompt us to either continue discussion or let it stagnate. I would, again, very much like this.

Again, I think they should have a different prefix completely to avoid any confusion and gaming of the system.

I am +0 to a different prefix (not +1 because I would prefer a mnemonic instead, which would require far fewer CI changes)

There has been no activity on this issue for 1 week. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity.

Bump

There has been no activity on this issue for 1 week. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity.

Draft EIP numbers are being made possible by #6976

There has been no activity on this issue for 1 week. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity.

This issue was closed due to inactivity. If you are still pursuing it, feel free to reopen it and respond to any feedback.