Automatically merge all new EIP drafts

[Pandapip1]

Proposed Change

Currently, the process for creating an EIP is not very simple and it is pretty time-consuming just to get an EIP to draft. I imagine a large part of the reason that a lot of EIPs end up stagnant is that the effort even to get an EIP into draft is a lot - more than is probably needed when the criteria for drafts, per EIP-1, is them being "properly formatted." We have tooling that lets users know when their EIPs aren't properly formatted, and we might soon have tooling to automatically fix the most common errors.

Currently, when an EIP is initially proposed is when things like "is this EIP ideal for its current purpose" are discussed and block the progress. Having an actual EIP that is being built and on which people can submit PRs that propose changes is, IMHO, better than the status quo, and would actually allow the community to take some of the burden off of the EIP editors.

[SamWilsn]

This seems reasonable. I'd like to have a bit of discussion on it before we make a decision though.

I think we need a few more checks in eipw before I'm comfortable enabling this:

• Markdown lint to ensure inline solidity with a SPDX-License-Identifier has a license of CC0. eipw#11
• Lint to ensure the copyright waiver appears at the end of the file eipw#27

---

We'd also need an automated EIP number assigner.

[Pandapip1]

I agree that those specific checks should be required.

[SamWilsn]

@poojaranjan brought up a great point. A lot of EIPs die in the draft stage, so the first pull request is the only point editors have to influence these EIPs.

Plus we want to encourage discussion on magicians before draft, so we get bigger/more developed ideas in the repository.

I am now weakly against this proposal.

[xinbenlv]

I agree.

[Pandapip1]

I have to disagree here. Editors can always open PRs to modify EIPs (like any other person).

I think that having draft EIPs automatically merge would encourage more participation for draft EIPs, as it gives the Ethereum community a longer time to suggest and make changes formally. As such, the quality of Draft EIPs, on the whole, would be lower, but the quality of EIPs moving to Review would be higher as people would have more time to participate in the horizontal review process.

[Pandapip1]

Would like to bump this.

[lightclient]

IMO, if we're going to "auto-merge" drafts they should not get an EIP number. Other standards bodies have a draft stage where the proposal has not yet been assigned an RFC number (see Internet-Drafts). I would like to adopt a similar scheme. I think this would be valuable regardless if we move forward with the auto-merge.

[Pandapip1]

I would agree with them not getting an EIP number. And if they become stagnant, I think they could just be deleted. +1

[xinbenlv]

+1

but in that case we need to suggest a standard way for them to create file name with, for example
some mnemonic name, e.g. eip-some-name.md