Add EIP: On-chain upgrade signaling

[fulldecent]

Ready for draft, please

[eth-bot]

File EIPS/eip-7848.md

Requires 1 more reviewers from @g11tech, @lightclient, @SamWilsn

[g11tech]

not sure if this proposal is relevant to eth cc @SamWilsn as we may never go down this path

[fulldecent]

Relevance should be based on whether this is an implementable proposal and if I can be heard.

Hopefully it is and this can be merged as DRAFT.

And then LATER, a stricter test is whether to implement this.

[abcoathup]

Suggested change

	title: On-chain upgrade signaling
	title: Onchain upgrade signaling

I am not an editor. My personal preference is onchain.

[fulldecent]

Well noted.

At this point, on-chain is the preferred usage across other publications in this repo.

I'm happy to adopt the less common usage if we can point to it as a best practice.

And either way that should be after merging this as draft.

[fulldecent]

@g11tech requesting a merge for PR please so this can be discussed as draft

[fulldecent]

Hi @g11tech, will you be blocking discussion on this draft, or may it please proceed to draft status?

[g11tech]

Hi @g11tech, will you be blocking discussion on this draft, or may it please proceed to draft status?

not really blocking discussion since discussion should ideally happen via eth-magicians. if this has enough indication from client devs, could merge it.

otherwise need inputs of @SamWilsn and @lightclient on it. I will bring this PR to their notice in the discord channel of ethcarherders. you are free to join and present your case there as well.

[fulldecent]

@g11tech So you are saying that a condition of making a draft for the EIP repo is that client devs must have in interest in building it. Did I read that correctly?

[g11tech]

@g11tech So you are saying that a condition of making a draft for the EIP repo is that client devs must have in interest in building it. Did I read that correctly?

yes thats the point of EIPs to be honest should be relevant but i would like to discuss this with other editors before taking a stand

[fulldecent]

Got it, thank you.

What you are saying conflicts with EIP-1 which states:

In EIP is merged [to draft status] by an EIP Editor into the EIP repository when properly formatted.

---

If what you are saying is in fact the correct stance then EIP-1 should be updated to reflect this reality.

I have worked on EIP-1 for years and it can be helpful if the process and criteria are properly documented and then documented process and criteria are faithfully implemented.

---

Personal note: I have no hard feelings to you and this process, and I'll be happy whichever is the direction, and I'll make PRs as needed to make it easier for the next people.

And I appreciate that you are passing this along.

[g11tech]

@timbeiko since this proposed EIP touches on upgrade process and also mentions EF, I would like to see your opinions on it

[fulldecent]

I have updated this branch to remove language "it will be necessary for Ethereum Foundation to...". That may be out of scope of an EIP. And this specific EIP need not depend on that sentence.

Does that address the issue and make this palatable as a draft?

[github-actions]

The commit 1026ef2 (as a parent of edf22aa) contains errors.
Please inspect the Run Summary for details.

[g11tech]

I have updated this branch to remove language "it will be necessary for Ethereum Foundation to...". That may be out of scope of an EIP. And this specific EIP need not depend on that sentence.

Does that address the issue and make this palatable as a draft?

@poojaranjan has added to next EIPIP meeting for discussion, you can join us if you want.

ethcatherders/EIPIP#375

[timbeiko]

@g11tech I don't think we should block merging the EIP on my opinion, as it'd be better to have the discussion about the merits in a less ephemeral place than this PR.

For the record, I disagree pretty strongly with the framing in line 66, even though I'm sympathetic towards improving the language used in the blog posts.