Repository navigation
Call for Input: Add Associate EIP Editors #398
Description
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.
Activity
SamWilsn commentedon Jan 6, 2026
From the practical point of view, we would essentially add Associate Editors to
eip-editors.yml?lightclient commentedon Jan 9, 2026
@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 commentedon Jan 9, 2026
@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 commentedon Jan 9, 2026
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 commentedon Jan 9, 2026
That works too. A good start
[-]Add Associate EIP Editors[/-][+]Call for input: Add Associate EIP Editors[/+][-]Call for input: Add Associate EIP Editors[/-][+]Call for Input: Add Associate EIP Editors[/+]poojaranjan commentedon Jan 19, 2026
Adding EIP Reviewer to EIP-5069
After several months of survey data collection aimed at improving the PR handeling process, and identify "trusted" EIP Editors, "EIP Reviewer" was publicly introduced at the EIP Editors' Workshop in January 2025.
The EIP Reviewers: Survey & Contribution Report published in April 2025 clearly indicates that the role was well received, and the addition of an EIP Editor marks the successful completion of a full cycle.
I find this is the perfect time to document what is already established as a process. I am strongly in favor of adding "EIP Reviewer" to EIP-5069.
"EIP Editor Associate" is already a defined role in the process. The individual supports editors by allocating EIP numbers when editors are unable to do so within the first 24 hours.
Let’s avoid creating confusion within the community.
Their role in Governance
The associated PR suggests "Associate Editors do not participate in governance."
I believe reviewers would have strong visibility into incoming PRs and the issues faced by authors and contributors. As a result, they may be well-positioned to offer meaningful suggestions on how to address these problems. Therefore, stating that “Associate Editors do not participate in governance” does not sound accurate to me.
While I understand that voting on "Call For Input" may remain limited to editors, I believe reviewers should still have a voice in the discussion. I am open to being convinced otherwise.
IMHO, one concerning issue is that existing editors have limited ability to merge PRs. One possible way to reduce the number of open PRs would be to allow all EIP Editors to force-merge PRs. This would avoid duplicative reviews by multiple editors on the same PR and allow the time saved to be redirected toward reviewing unattended PRs as discussed in the last EIPIP meeting.
Given this is related to EIP-5069, this can also be moved to discussion thread for increased visibility.
SamWilsn commentedon Jan 19, 2026
I'm in favor
jochem-brouwer commentedon Jan 21, 2026
I'm in favour.
More editors, but without the risk of hijacking/influencing governance process, especially now we see more open PRs, seems like the way to go.
SamWilsn commentedon Apr 7, 2026
I'm closing, affirmed. Going to leave the issue open until an implementation pops up, however.
jochem-brouwer commentedon Apr 15, 2026
I think we would need this PR ready and merge it to make this decision final - ethereum/EIPs#11035
Regarding the implementation you mean we also need this in eth-bot right?
abcoathup commentedon May 1, 2026
I don't know of anyone else using the title Associate EIP editor, so recommend we go with that.
I want to be able to merge EIPs and close spam issues.