Call for Input: Add Associate EIP Editors

[lightclient]

Call for Input

Field	Description
Decision	Add new Associate EIP Editor role
If Affirmed	Merge ethereum/EIPs#11035
If Rejected	No change.
Method	Unanimous (minus the Editor being added)
Deadline	February 10, 2025

Background

The biggest complaint I hear about the EIP process is how slow it can be to move through the process, get editor attention, etc. It would be great to bring more contributors into the fold, but as it stands today, EIP editors are in a very high trust position. We are tasked with governing the EIP process in a way that is effective and sustainable for the long term. Although we now have a better forcing function with Keeper, I still think adding more full EIP editors is not something we should do lightly.

With that said, I still want to address the timeliness of the EIP process and that's where I think Associate EIP Editors can come in. They will have the same powers and responsibilities that EIP Editors have for executing the day-to-day processes. They just won't be eligible for formally voting on governance matters. I think this strikes a good balance between opening up editing to allow for more contributors without putting the process in unnecessary risk.

Proposal

See ethereum/EIPs#11035.

[SamWilsn]

From the practical point of view, we would essentially add Associate Editors to eip-editors.yml?

[lightclient]

@SamWilsn yeah that is probably the lightest touch thing to do, but technically if we have several associate editors they would be able to merge changes to EIP-1 with enough approvals so eventually would be good have a different role in the eip-editors.yml.

[xinbenlv]

@lightclient I love the idea

• @SamWilsn with respect to how to technically display / track that I think we can leave it to a new discussion.

• @lightclient one motivation I am in favor of this proposal is to bring more people with specific expertise. Do we consider adding track specific role like Associate Editor (Interface), Associate Editor (ERC) etc

[lightclient]

I think it's great to have specificity, but we haven't been too successful in the past getting domain experts to engage. So I would just try to get a generic associate editor role going and then to separately figure out how to engage domain experts effectively.

[xinbenlv]

I think it's great to have specificity, but we haven't been too successful in the past getting domain experts to engage. So I would just try to get a generic associate editor role going and then to separately figure out how to engage domain experts effectively.

That works too. A good start