I have gone through and updated all existing EIPs to match this rule, including EIP-1.
In some cases, people were using markdown citations, I suspect because the long-form was a bit verbose to inline. Since the relative path is quite short, I moved these to inline but I wouldn't be opposed to putting them back to citation format if that is desired by the authors.
In doing the migration/cleanup, I found some EIP references to EIPs that don't actually exist. In these cases I tried to excise the reference from the EIP as best I could.
It is worth noting that the Readme actually already had this rule, it just wasn't expressed properly in EIP-1 and the "Citation Format" section of the readme I think caused people a bit of confusion (when citing externally, you should use the citation format).
* Add Matomo tracking
* Add development instructions to README
* Add dynamic metadata for EIP pages
* Escape title strings
* Remove Matomo
* Use variables from _config.yaml in head.html
* Omit Jekyll version from header
* Also use twitter_username from _config.yml
* EIP-1: make category field in EIP more clear
* Better heading in README
* EIP-2: fix typo in rendering
* EIP-1: clarify that an EIP can move from the Abandoned status to the Draft status
Also clarify that EIPs cannot move from the Rejected and Superseded states.
* EIP-1: rename WIP status to Idea
* EIP-1: change template formatting to fix markdown rendering
With angle brackets markdown renders them as HTML tags sometimes (depending on the rendering engine).
* EIP-1812: change copyright link to the correct CC0 link
* Updated README to be consistent with EIP-1
Update README to be consistent with EIP and this PR: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/1858/
* Updated index.html
Updated index.html to use the same definitions as the readme.
* Changes EIP-1 wording to focus on technicals not community sentiment.
All of the recent changes to the EIP process have been made to ensure that the EIP process is a technical one, and not one of sentiment analysis. There is a lot of discussion going on with regards to how we can improve the process and get valid community sentiment analysis pre-fork, but there doesn't exist a complete solution yet at this time (just proposals).
It appears that the Last Call PR introduced sentiment analysis into the process, which I do not believe was intended. From my recollection of the discussions around the Last Call stuff, the goal wasn't to fundamentally change how governance works, but rather to ensure that EIPs don't get stuck indefinitely in limbo.
This change simply removes the sentiment analysis wording from the process and makes it more clear that the EIP process is about gauging technical feasibility, not making judgement calls as to whether or not a thing is a good idea or not.
* Adds Active state
- Create `assets` folder
- Move existing EIPs (1, 107, 858) assets into the `assets` folder
- Update link to assets in EIPs 1, 107 and 858
- Describe the inclusion of assets for EIPs in `README.md`
EIP-1 is in the wrong table and no table exists for EIPs that are both Finalized
and Active. Quoting the EIP:
> Some Informational and Process EIPs may also have a status of “Active” if they are never meant to be completed. E.g. EIP 1 (this EIP).
This can lead to confusion just like it happened
[here](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/867#issuecomment-364483227).
To avoid that I am moving the EIP in the Readme to its own special table.
