Call for Input: Change Author Username in ERC-6672

[SamWilsn]

Call for Input

Decision	Do we merge https://github.com/ethereum/ERCs/pull/285/files ?
If Affirmed	ERC-6672's author list is updated.
If Rejected	No change.
Method	Rough Consensus
Deadline	May 2nd, 2024

Background

@SamWilsn has verified the identity of the author by email.

[SamWilsn]

I am in favour of merging this pull request.

[SamWilsn]

@xinbenlv has also expressed support on the pull request.

[abcoathup]

I'm against (I don't have a vote).
I'm generally against any changes to final EIPs. We should have a wiki page for each EIP where errata/updates can be added.

For GitHub username changes, at the very least I would want a repeatable process.
Ideally a combination of both:

1. multiple authors of an EIP approve the GitHub name change
2. GitHub evidence that the name was changed by the author themselves

[g11tech]

i guess we would want to reflect the new names but as @abcoathup mentions, its better done by some repeatable process

[SamWilsn]

Is "open a Call for Input" an insufficiently repeatable process?

[xinbenlv]

my stance:

• Authors shall hold the power to update name or contact info, not editors. Editors merely facilitate authors to update it when tooling hasnt support author do it on their own or solo author.
• What is considered a prerequisite to update username shall be consistent and transparent ("At editor discretion" seems too abstract)

If that needs to be in errata instead of the preemble it's fine to me.

I am fine either way.

Call for input every time seems to be too slow and requires unnecessary consensus of editors which is scarce resource, but I am ok if everyone wants to do call for input.

[lightclient]

I approve

[abcoathup]

@SamWilsn

Is "open a Call for Input" an insufficiently repeatable process?

Call for input is too slow, takes up too much governance resources and should be for exceptions.
If the agreement is that username changes will be allowed under certain conditions (which appears to be the consensus) then any editor can merge when the conditions are met. e.g. >50% of authors approve

[SamWilsn]

Call for input is too slow

If editors responded more quickly/reliably, this wouldn't be an issue. The deadline is only there to keep things moving when some editors don't participate.

Is changing usernames on a final proposal a time sensitive issue?

If the agreement is that username changes will be allowed under certain conditions (which appears to be the consensus) then any editor can merge when the conditions are met. e.g. >50% of authors approve

This comes up rarely enough that I don't think we need a formal process. We're like... six people. Just ask one of us to make the change, and we can sort it out.

[xinbenlv]

Call for input every time seems to be too slow and requires unnecessary consensus of editors which is scarce resource, but I am ok if everyone wants to do call for input.

For the context of this issue, I am in favor while with a different reason

[SamWilsn]

The general consensus seems to be to merge this pull request.