status-im/EIPs
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/status-im/EIPs.git synced 2025-01-14 17:04:11 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity

EIP-1: remove requirement for simple summary (#2186)

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Alex Beregszaszi 2019-09-15 18:55:17 +01:00 committed by Nick Savers
parent b79097b07c
commit 81b36ca559
1 changed files with 1 additions and 2 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

3
EIPS/eip-1.md
View File

@ -104,8 +104,7 @@ Other exceptional statuses include:
Each EIP should have the following parts:
- Preamble - RFC 822 style headers containing metadata about the EIP, including the EIP number, a short descriptive title (limited to a maximum of 44 characters), and the author details. See [below](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-1.md#eip-header-preamble) for details.
- Simple Summary - “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” Provide a simplified and layman-accessible explanation of the EIP.
- Abstract - a short (~200 word) description of the technical issue being addressed.
- Abstract - A short (~200 word) description of the technical issue being addressed.
- Motivation (*optional) - The motivation is critical for EIPs that want to change the Ethereum protocol. It should clearly explain why the existing protocol specification is inadequate to address the problem that the EIP solves. EIP submissions without sufficient motivation may be rejected outright.
- Specification - The technical specification should describe the syntax and semantics of any new feature. The specification should be detailed enough to allow competing, interoperable implementations for any of the current Ethereum platforms (cpp-ethereum, go-ethereum, parity, ethereumJ, ethereumjs-lib, [and others](https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Clients).
- Rationale - The rationale fleshes out the specification by describing what motivated the design and why particular design decisions were made. It should describe alternate designs that were considered and related work, e.g. how the feature is supported in other languages. The rationale may also provide evidence of consensus within the community, and should discuss important objections or concerns raised during discussion.