# EIP Dispute Resolution Working Group

## Why EIP Editors Should Participate in the Working Group

EIP Editors are responsible for maintaining the EIP process and are often the first participants asked to facilitate, interpret, or respond to disputes involving proposals. Their involvement is important to ensure that any proposed dispute resolution framework aligns with existing EIP processes, editorial responsibilities, and community expectations.

Editors can provide:
- Historical context on recurring disputes and how they have been handled previously.
- Insight into gaps, ambiguities, or pain points within the current process.
- Feedback on whether proposed guidance is practical and enforceable.
- Perspective on maintaining editor neutrality while supporting contributor coordination.
- Recommendations on where such guidance should live, including EIP-1, CONTRIBUTING.md, or other process documentation.

The working group is not intended to transfer dispute ownership to Editors, but rather to ensure that any proposed framework reflects the realities of the EIP process and does not unintentionally expand or alter the role of Editors without community consensus.

# Questions for Editors Before Pursuing a Dispute Resolution Framework

## Problem Definition

1. Is there a recurring problem that requires a documented dispute resolution process?
2. What dispute types occur most frequently today?
3. Are existing processes insufficient to resolve these disputes?
4. Can recent examples be identified that would have benefited from clearer guidance?

## Scope

5. Which dispute categories should be in scope?
- Authorship and attribution
- Feature scope and technical design
- Duplicate or overlapping proposals
- Editorial and process concerns
- Behavioral and communication concerns

6. Which dispute categories should remain out of scope?

## Ownership

7. Who should be responsible for resolving each dispute category?
8. What role should EIP Editors play in dispute resolution?
9. Should Editors act only as facilitators, or should they have decision-making authority in certain cases?
10. Are there disputes that should be resolved exclusively by Authors, implementation teams, ACD participants, or community moderation processes?

## Process

11. What should the escalation path be when direct discussion fails?
12. What constitutes sufficient evidence when evaluating a dispute?
13. Should dispute outcomes be documented publicly?
14. Under what circumstances may a dispute be reopened?

## Governance Considerations

15. Should dispute resolution guidance be added to EIP-1, CONTRIBUTING.md, another governance document, or a separate Meta EIP?
16. Should the guidance be normative (using MUST/SHOULD language) or informational?
17. Would introducing a dispute resolution framework create unintended governance authority for Editors?

## Success Criteria

18. What outcome would indicate that a dispute resolution framework is successful?
19. Would the framework improve contributor experience, transparency, and consistency?
20. Could the same goals be achieved through clarifications to existing documentation instead of introducing a new process?

## Key Discussion Question

What are the top three dispute scenarios that are not adequately handled by existing processes today, and who should be responsible for resolving each of them?

------------------

# Proposed Next Steps for the Dispute Resolution Working Group

## Phase 1: Problem Discovery

1. Collect examples of past disputes from the EIP process.
2. Categorize disputes by type:
- Authorship and attribution
- Feature scope and technical design
- Duplicate or overlapping proposals
- Editorial and process concerns
- Behavioral and communication concerns
3. Identify recurring patterns, gaps, and unresolved questions.
4. Determine whether existing processes already provide sufficient resolution mechanisms.

## Phase 2: Define Scope

5. Agree on which dispute categories are in scope.
6. Identify which categories should remain under existing community moderation or governance processes.
7. Determine whether the effort should focus on guidance, process clarification, or formal dispute resolution.

## Phase 3: Define Ownership

8. Identify the appropriate decision-makers for each dispute category.
9. Clarify the role of:
- Authors
- Contributors
- Editors
- Implementation teams
- ACD participants
- Community moderators
10. Establish where Editors facilitate versus where they make decisions.

## Phase 4: Draft Resolution Framework

11. Document recommended principles and escalation paths.
12. Define expectations for transparency, evidence, and public rationale.
13. Seek community feedback through Ethereum Magicians, EIP Office Hours, and editor discussions.

## Phase 5: Determine Publication Path

14. Decide whether the outcome should be:
- An update to EIP-1
- An update to CONTRIBUTING.md
- A new governance/process document
- A standalone Meta EIP

15. Evaluate whether the proposed solution introduces unnecessary governance complexity or editor responsibilities.

## Deliverables

- List of recurring dispute categories
- Proposed ownership model
- Recommended escalation paths
- Draft guidance document
- Recommendation on where the guidance should live

## Success Criteria

- Clear expectations for contributors and editors
- Reduced ambiguity around common disputes
- Preservation of editor neutrality
- Minimal additional governance overhead
- Community-supported documentation and processes