Proposals to close EIP Discussion Issues

[poojaranjan]

In the EIPIP meeting 57, the group briefly discussed options for closing EIP discussions open Issues.
Please respond with your recommendation to design a bot or take manual actions accordingly.

1. Bot closes all "discussion-to" Issues with a remark, continue discussion on "Fellowship of Ethereum Magicians" and author may migrate discussion.
2. Bot closes any Issue inactive for 6 months, irrespective of it being a "discussion-to" link
3. Admin closes "discussion-to" Issues for proposals in Final, Stagnant, Withdrawn status

[Pandapip1]

I'll keep track of the relevant issues here.

Isn't a discussion-to link (either just a proposal with no EIP, or the discussion-to was migrated):

• None

Final EIPs:

• None

Withdrawn EIPs :

• None

Stagnant EIPs:

• None

Last Call:

• EIP-2535: Diamonds #2535 (EIP-2535, Deadline 2020-08-15)

Draft EIPs:

• EIP-634: Storage of text records in ENS #2439 (EIP-634)
• EIP-3224: Described Data #3225 (EIP-3224)
• EIP-3754: A vanilla non-fungible token standard #3753 (EIP-3754)
• EIP-4341: Multi NFT Ordered Standard #3782 (EIP-4341)

Review EIPs:

• EIP-2612: 712-signed token approvals #2613 (EIP-2612)
• EIP-2980: Swiss Compliant Asset Token #2983 (EIP-2980)

[Pandapip1]

I am weakly in favor of no. 1. I think that attaching a link to the (closed) GitHub issue is sufficient to continue the discussion. I propose that to avoid EIP editor work, it should be the responsibility of the EIP authors to migrate the links. However, I can see how this might be inconvenient, so if it could be determined that the inconvenience of migrating the discussion link is greater than the inconvenience/confusion caused by the presence of the issues,

I am weakly in favor of no. 2, as the discussions-to links aren't even up to date. Most discussion-to links aren't marked as such (and #4431 is marked as discussions-to despite the real discussions-to link being migrated to Ethereum magicians). However, I am weakly against the stale bot in general. I feel that every issue should be manually determined to be stale (and if the number of issues moves down to one page when no. 3 is implemented, this is very feasible).

I am strongly in favor of no. 3. Closing Final and Withdrawn EIPs is a no-brainer; they aren't going to be changed, so there's no discussion to be had. All discussion should be for a new EIP that fixes/improves the older one. Stagnant EIPs should also be closed, as the links can always be re-opened if/when said EIP moves out of stagnant.

[poojaranjan]

Inviting EIP editors to weigh in
cc: @MicahZoltu @lightclient @SamWilsn @axic @gcolvin

[MicahZoltu]

I suspect that (3) will likely be the least contentious and so I suggest we focus on that in the short term.

Migrating from GitHub to Ethereum Magicians is unlikely to go smoothly. Some discussions-to links have a lot of discussion, and just copy/pasting that into the body of a single message will make it much harder to read and link compared to current discussions. The common case is that an issue receives a lot of discussion while it is actively being edited, but that eventually dies out. I think if we simply close those issues (via (2) or (3)) the negative effects of this problem will go away and we won't have to do a bunch of work.

[mryalamanchi]

In strong favour of 3., writing bot and solving for that is just extra work and it can be rather quickly done manually!

Since @Pandapip1 has already created a list to start with, we can focus on that and find the rest async and keep updating the list here in the comments itself.

Wdyt?

[MicahZoltu]

I would like to get additional feedback from other editors before moving forward with 3, but so far it does seem like the popular choice.

[gcolvin]

3 is fine by me. The author can re-open if need be.

[SamWilsn]

3 is also fine with me.

[MicahZoltu]

I have closed the discussions-to for the Stagnant and Final EIPs listed by @Pandapip1.

[Pandapip1]

While you're at it, you should close all the issues in the first list, as they aren't discussion-to links.

[Pandapip1]

I would also like to add another option:

4. All discussion-to issues are manually closed, but the discussion may continue. The EIP authors should create threads on Ethereum magicians, directing users to use the closed GitHub issue.

[MicahZoltu]

While you're at it, you should close all the issues in the first list, as they aren't discussion-to links.

Done.

[lightclient]

I'm good with 2) and 3).

[gcolvin]

I think the consensus is 3?

[MicahZoltu]

I believe we have completed (3) at this point. There will be stragglers over time as grandfathered EIPs enter final/stagnant/withdrawn but there should be relatively few at this point. Do you feel this issue is resolved enough to warrant closing it @Pandapip1?

[Pandapip1]

Sure. I'm not sure if there is consensus over (1) and (2), but manual closings should be fine.

[poojaranjan]

Closing as per rough consensus in favor of option 3.