Call for Input: Renumber EIP-5000

[SamWilsn]

Decision	Will we merge ethereum/EIPs#5270 ?
Method	Rough Consensus
Deadline	October 13, 2023

[Pandapip1]

-0.9 (Vote: "NO") for reasons previously stated.

[g11tech]

+1, reasoning: broken window (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory)

[xinbenlv]

+1, I left my comment in original PR ethereum/EIPs#5270 (comment):
there are suspicious number snipping activities preceding the 5000 numbering and author is an EIP editor.

Normally authors have the benefit of doubt. However this time the author an EIP Editor in a position of trust so I think we shall hold them to a higher standard. Therefore, I seconded the suggestion @abcoathup that the author seek a different number.

[lightclient]

no

[lightclient]

@g11tech the "broken window theory" isn't very good reasoning for renumbering this because assigning the number 5000 wasn't a "crime". You don't make something illegal and then go back and prosecute people who broke the law before it was a law.

[abcoathup]

No (but I don't have a vote). EIP editors shouldn't force a renumber, though I encourage the authors to seek a new number.
Whilst the numbering is unfair, it wasn't against the rules in EIP-1
ethereum/EIPs#5270 (comment)

[xinbenlv]

Thanks for clarifying. I do agree with you it's better the author of this EIP seek a different number themselves first.

Maybe different from you, in the event the author is not responding i do think due to editors shall be held higher standards when authoring, in event of doubt, I support merging the PR of renumbering

[SamWilsn]

I am in favour of renumbering.

[SamWilsn]

From @gcolvin:

Just let it go, why are we wasting time on this. It wasn't against the rules at the time.

[SamWilsn]

Official Keeper of Consensus ruling: consensus is to not renumber.

[SamWilsn]

The extremely short summary (from memory, so things may be out of order or just wrong):

1. Pull request was opened by a bot waiting for number 5000. This was admitted by the EIP authors.
2. I assigned the number 4998 instead, since we try and discourage number sniping.
3. lightclient asked me in private if he could assign a different number.
4. Pull request was merged as EIP-5000.
5. Two other pull requests were opened, one to delete EIP-5000 and one to renumber it to EIP-5159.
6. Argument among EIP Editors ensued.
7. New decision making process ratified in EIP-5069.
8. https://github.com/ethereum-cat-herders/EIPIP/issues/274
9. Deadline elapsed.
10. As Keeper of Consensus, I determined the rough consensus to be "don't renumber", with:
    • In favour of renumbering: myself, xinbenlv, and g11tech.
      • it was number sniping.
      • one of the EIP authors is an editor, and should've been held to a higher standard.
      • Broken Windows Theory.
      • Unfair to authors who didn't snipe, and to authors who sniped and were manually reassigned.
    • Opposed to renumbering: pandapip1, lightclient, gcolvin
      • Wasn't technically against the rules in EIP-1 at the time.
      • It's been so long it'll just cause more confusion now.