Consider adopting a Community Specification License terms for the new ERC repo about eips HOT 9 OPEN

There was a discussion a while back for adding a CLA, which was shot down (IMO, for a bad reason). While this could definitely be useful, I don't see the extra effort of creating a brand-new license is worth the potential legal issues from not using a standard license.

from eips.

Currently, there is no security policy. Should an EIP or ERC have such a defect, wat do? I have emailed personally the EF before about a security issue and never gotten a response, though it may have been 'out of scope'.

If it only affects some implementations, contact those implementations, wait for the vulns to be fixed in the vulnerable implementations, and open a PR adding the vuln to the security considerations section.

Otherwise, the best way to address this IMO is to contact the EIP authors, who will be in the best position to determine the best course of action. If they can't be contacted, contact the EIP editors,, although we don't have an established procedure here and really the best we can do is an irregular state change to Withdrawn.

from eips.

There was a discussion a while back for adding a CLA, which was shot down (IMO, for a bad reason).

Do you have a link to the previous discussion?

from eips.

#5662

from eips.

There has been no activity on this issue for 1 week. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity.

from eips.

There has been no activity on this issue for 1 week. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity.

from eips.

Should I take this discussion to the ERC Repo?

from eips.

There has been no activity on this issue for 1 week. It will be closed after 3 months of inactivity.

from eips.