# EIP Editor & Reviewer's Interest Report

#### Summary report based on data collected via [Interest Form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1IpyAonFEYJuSHke9t4BKzKfjDAjynOhPHxpU1G5FsnQ/preview)

This report outlines insights gathered from individuals expressing interest in contributing as Ethereum Improvement Proposal (EIP) Editors or Reviewers. The purpose is to share their expertise, experience, and availability to support Ethereum’s technical documentation and proposal review process.

By sharing this report, we aim to increase transparency and encourage broader community participation in improving the quality and clarity of EIPs.

### **Motivations for Participation**
A common theme among respondents is their **desire to enhance Ethereum’s documentation and proposal quality**. Many are particularly interested in improving the consistency of core EIPs to prevent misinterpretation by developers and implementers. Others see an opportunity to make the process more accessible for newcomers, ensuring that the evolution of Ethereum remains well-documented and structured.

### **Prior Involvement with EIPs**
Responses reflect a mix of experience levels. Some individuals have made minor contributions, such as fixing EIP documentation and reviewing proposals, while others have been actively involved in Ethereum’s core development. A number of participants have contributed to execution and consensus layer clients, while others have focused on ERC standards and smart contract development.

### **Areas of Expertise**
| Expertise Area | Number of Respondents |
|--------------|----------------------|
| Core Development | 6 |
| Networking | 2 |
| Sharding (peerDAS) | 1 |
| ERC Standards | 3 |
| Layer 2 Scaling | 1 |
| Smart Contracts | 2 |

### **Technical Proficiency & Review Willingness**
Candidates were asked to rate their familiarity with Ethereum’s technical concepts and their comfort in reviewing complex technical documentation. Five respondents rated themselves at the highest proficiency level, three rated themselves slightly lower, and one respondent rated their familiarity at an intermediate level. When it comes to reviewing and providing public feedback, most candidates demonstrated confidence, with a majority rating their ability highly.

### **Availability for Reviewing EIPs**
The level of commitment varied among respondents. Six individuals indicated they could dedicate between **1-5 hours per week**, while two stated they could contribute over 10 hours per week. This variation in availability provides flexibility in assigning different levels of responsibility based on each individual's expertise and time commitment.

### **Suggested Areas for Improvement & Focus**
Respondents highlighted key areas where they believe improvements can be made:
- Enhancing clarity in technical explanations to make EIPs easier for client developers to implement.
- Introducing better standards for consistency in notation and terminology across EIPs.
- Ensuring early detection of potential rejections by improving pre-submission reviews.
- Improving the accessibility of the EIP process to encourage participation from newcomers.
- Providing better documentation on Ethereum protocol upgrades to facilitate better understanding among developers.
- Strengthening the review process to ensure that proposals are technically sound and unambiguous.
- Increasing transparency in the feedback and review process to enhance collaboration between authors and reviewers.

This report highlights strong community interest in contributing to the EIP review and editing process. The range of experience, from core protocol developers to ERC authors, suggests that new contributors could bring valuable perspectives to Ethereum’s governance and technical refinement. By engaging these individuals, the Ethereum ecosystem can continue to uphold high standards of documentation and proposal quality, ensuring a well-structured path for process improvemnt.