Discussion: Consider Moving EIPs to Another Medium

[ghost]

(early draft)

background: #2172 (comment)

• The current medium (github) does not meet the requirements for effective (technical) document collaboration.

Requirements

(requirements should be as neutral as possibly. First, agree on the requirements, then go on to the candidates)

General

• No special technical knowledge necessary to contribute (e.g. just an account-creation)
• Transparency (each and every step can be seen, either directly or from an history-archive)

Authoring

• Basic Editor knowledge should be enough (usable by anyone)
• Convenient(!) Functionality for Tables
• Data-Import (e.g. automated population of tables based from different sources like db, other documents)
• nice: diagramming

Comments/Edits

Comments/Edits/Discussions

• should point to the origin in the document (e.g. from a sidebar)
• Discussions should be threaded
• Discussions/Comments/Edits should be solvable (disappear e.g. to archive, once solved)

Work-Flow

• Ideally: contains a simple work-flow-engine
• Allows for roles and permissions (Owner, Editor, Commenters, ...)

License / Costs

• Should have 0 costs for any contributor

Candidates

Github (current medium)

Weaknesses

• PR work-flow not adequate for non-techs
• PR work-flow can be annoying on documents (even for devs)
• Discussion has no threading, sub-threads, sub-issues
• Professional-Grade Documents not possible
• Tables and other complex information difficult (within markdown)
• ???

Google Docs (free)

• To avoid to much theoretical talk: this can be actually be tried for a few EIPs, just to see how it works in practice. If it's bad -> move back.

Other Free Tools

...

Commercial Tools

• Professional-Grade Documents, build with Professional-Grade Processes
  • can have cost for the Ethereum Foundation
  • no cost for viewers / contributors

[xinbenlv]

Thanks for starting it. This will help.

One minor style / format suggestion is instead of directly proposing what's required for new medium, can you include a list of what's actually pain.

For example

Simple Document-Authoring-Tool, ideally WYSIWYG

For example that this one, I will argue that Markdown makes it much easier to publish across other consumption, and WYSIWYG gives it too much flexibility such as different font size etc. Therefore, without discussion on what's currently painful, it's hard for us to support or propose against a requirement.

my 2gWei.

[ghost]

(early draft)

patience!

[gcolvin]

I really can't see the editorial process moving off of Github and Markdown at this point, despite their weaknesses. But authors are free to discuss and maintain their own drafts anywhere they choose, using whatever tools they choose. Editors are generally happy to help with the PRs, but anything that could make that easier would be a good thing.

[ghost]

I really can't see

No worries, many blind folks in the eth domain.

Focus on this for now

First, agree on the requirements,

[xinbenlv]

Given the proposal account is deleted and lack completion, shall we consider this issue closed? The proposer can always revive if not the case.

[kevinsimper]

@xinbenlv I think we should :)

[xinbenlv]

Request close the issue.
Ground: lack of activity, proposer account deleted, no further support.

[github-actions]

There has been no activity on this issue for two months. It will be closed in a week if no further activity occurs. If you would like to move this EIP forward, please respond to any outstanding feedback or add a comment indicating that you have addressed all required feedback and are ready for a review.

[github-actions]

This issue was closed due to inactivity. If you are still pursuing it, feel free to reopen it and respond to any feedback or request a review in a comment.