Call for Input: Informational EIP's end status

[poojaranjan]

Call for Input

Decision	Informational EIP Upgrade Nomenclature's end status be`Final` or `Living`.
If Affirmed	Merge ethereum/EIPs/pull/11161 and follow the standard status advancement process towards `Final`.
If Rejected	Merge ethereum/EIPs/pull/11161 and follow the process to move this EIP to `Living`.
Method	Rough Consensus
Deadline	March 17, 2026

Background

Informational EIPs are intended to provide general guidelines or document relevant information for the Ethereum community. This EIP records the network upgrade naming process that has already been followed in practice and serves as a reference for future upgrade naming.

Two possible approaches are being considered:

1. Keep the EIP as “Living”: allowing it to evolve alongside the naming process.
2. Move the EIP to “Final”: with the understanding that future upgrade names may continue to be specified within the respective Hardfork Meta EIPs. If the naming process changes materially, a new Informational EIP can be proposed to document that change.

Historically, similar documentation efforts such as EIP-6953: Network Upgrade Activation Triggers has progressed to Final status. A potential future example of process documentation could be EIP-8066: Upgrade Mascots.

This call for input aims to gather feedback and reach a decision prior to merging this EIP as Draft.

Checklist

I, the opener of this Call for Input, have completed the following:

• Filled in a descriptive title.
• Filled in the "Decision" field.
• Filled in the "If Affirmed" field.
• Filled in the "If Rejected" field.
• Filled in the "Method" field.
• Filled in the "Deadline" field to be thirty days from creation.
• Added any relevant background information (or removed the section.)
• Published a notice in writing to the usual channels frequented by EIP Editors (likely Discord.)
• Commented on this Call for Input, clearly stating my opinion (or abstention.)

[g11tech]

living

because otherwise it will be cumbersome for someone to follow a bunch of EIPs to come to a final understanding of processes

[abcoathup]

Final (I don't have a vote).
It represents upgrade naming as it currently is.
If it is living then need to add authors involved in the current naming process (e.g. ACD moderators, me etc), also has to be maintained forever.

[SamWilsn]

Final should always be the goal.

---

New processes/definitions/etc. should be given new numbers.

I also second @abcoathup's thoughts on maintaining the author list.

[SamWilsn]

I believe @xinbenlv is on the same page as @abcoathup and I.

[SamWilsn]

I'm going to add on to this discussion a little bit, even though the deadline has passed.

Living EIPs are interesting from an ownership perspective. There are two cases: owned by Editors, and not.

Living EIPs owned by Editors are easy. We have a list of official Editors that's always up-to-date, and we have a governance process for making decisions. If all of the Editors rotate out, we still have a defined group; and if all Editors quit, well, we have bigger problems. This makes it easy to approve/reject edits to Living proposals owned by Editors, and there will always be a group responsible for the document.

Living EIPs owned by non-Editors also have a list of Authors, but unlike the list of Editors, there is no assumption that there will always be Authors available and responsive. If all of the Authors of a proposal disappear, the document lives on forever but no one will have permission to modify it (unless the Editors step in and reassign it, which is a situation I don't want to be in). So we could end up in a position where we have a Living document that can never be changed (because the Authors don't approve PRs) and to move forward, we need to open a new proposal with a new number and Author list. This would be very confusing.

IMHO, it's just easier/safer to reserve Living for documents owned by Editors where we are the ultimate authority on their content. I'd like to punt responsibility for, say, interpreting the will of All Core Devs outside of the Editor group. That way anyone can come up with a naming scheme, and then the ecosystem is free to choose what naming system they want to follow.

[SamWilsn]

@g11tech how strongly do you feel about Living? Do we need to discuss more, or are you happy to close?