Rejected Status ecip-1049

[gitr0n1n]

Move ECIP-1049 to Rejected status due to inactivity after three years and lack of following the ECIP process. The only immaterial changes in the material redraft from 2020 were these changes by me in this PR. The author Alex Tsankov simply closed the old draft (13) and opened a new identical draft (394) in November 2020:
https://github.com/ethereumclassic/ECIPs/pull/400/files

The author (Alex Tsankov) has violated the ECIP process and after three years the ECIP-1000 recommends this proposal be pushed to Rejected status. It may only be revived if the champions perform the material redraft that is compliant with the ECIP-1000 and materially address the criticism of the proposal per requests by the community on the CDC 15 call in October 2020.
#382 (comment)
https://vimeo.com/464336957

ECIP-1000 Clause triggering this move to Rejected status:

The ECIP editor may also change the status to Deferred when no progress is being made on the ECIP.

An ECIP may only change status from Draft (or Rejected) to Last Call, when the author deems it is complete, has a working implementation (where applicable), and has community plans to progress it to Final status.

ECIPs should be changed from Draft or Last Call status, to Rejected, upon request by any person, if they have not made progress in three years. Such a ECIP may be changed to Draft status if the champion provides revisions that meaningfully address public criticism of the proposal, or to Last Call if it meets the criteria required as described in the previous paragraph.
http://ecips.ethereumclassic.org/ECIPs/ecip-1000

Justification for Rejected status:
The ECIP editor will not unreasonably reject an ECIP.

Reasons for rejecting ECIPs include duplication of effort, disregard for formatting rules, being too unfocused or too broad, being technically unsound, not providing proper motivation or addressing backwards compatibility, or not in keeping with the Ethereum Classic philosophy.
http://ecips.ethereumclassic.org/ECIPs/ecip-1000

Inactivity of this ECIP-1049 can be viewed in the following pdf.
ECIP-1049-draft-comparison.pdf

These changes were observed by comparing:

• the Finalized ECIP-1049 from September 2020 that failed its push to Accepted status on CDC 15, and;
  Finalized ECIP-1049 Proposal #379
• the material redraft that sits today.
  Add Bob Summerwill as author for ECIP-1049 #464

The General Public can compare the drafts in a program like Microsoft Word to view this lack of activity for themselves:

• Original: ECIP-1049: Change the ETC Proof of Work Algorithm to Keccak-256 #13
• Redrafted: Change the ETC Proof of Work Algorithm to Keccak-256 #394

[gitr0n1n]

I tried to add you @atoulme due to your ECIP Editor role , but you don't appear to be populating.

[gitr0n1n]

I'm going to lock the Conversation on this PR due to the contentious nature of the 1049 proposal.

This is merely an ECIP Editor procedural PR, the case for Rejected status is laid out fairly clearly above.

If the other ECIP editors would like to Unlock the Conversation feel free to, but #460 is likely a better place for that conversation to be had, imo.

edit: Actually, I'm not sure if a locked conversation is appropriate procedure, so I will leave it unlocked and let the other ECIP editors decide.

[meowsbits]

The ECIP editor will not unreasonably reject an ECIP.

[gitr0n1n]

As noted above @meowsbits

Justification for Rejected status:
The ECIP editor will not unreasonably reject an ECIP.

Reasons for rejecting ECIPs include duplication of effort, disregard for formatting rules, being too unfocused or too broad, being technically unsound, not providing proper motivation or addressing backwards compatibility, or not in keeping with the Ethereum Classic philosophy.

All valid reasons to Reject the previously abandoned proposal. @bobsummerwill as a new champion is afforded the time to clean up this previously abandoned proposal.

• being too unfocused or too broad
• being technically unsound
• not providing proper motivation or addressing backwards compatibility
• not in keeping with the Ethereum Classic philosophy

[gitr0n1n]

As noted: Justification for Rejected status: The ECIP editor will not unreasonably reject an ECIP.

Reasons for rejecting ECIPs include duplication of effort, disregard for formatting rules, being too unfocused or too broad, being technically unsound, not providing proper motivation or addressing backwards compatibility, or not in keeping with the Ethereum Classic philosophy.

All valid reasons to Reject the previously abandoned proposal. @bobsummerwill as a new champion is afforded the time to clean this abandoned proposal up.

• being too unfocused or too broad
• being technically unsound
• not providing proper motivation or addressing backwards compatibility
• not in keeping with the Ethereum Classic philosophy

Regarding this proposal in Rejected status: Such a ECIP may be changed to Draft status if the champion provides revisions that meaningfully address public criticism of the proposal

Note "Such a ECIP may be changed to Draft status if the champion provides revisions that meaningfully address public criticism of the proposal"

This has not happened in three years. The hope is this new champion will make this proposal ECIP-1000 compliant.

[gitr0n1n]

@bobsummerwill I'm going to leave this PR open while you work on these identified issues from the ECIP-1000 document.

ECIP-1049 - ECIP Process Violations.pdf

I believe there is more public criticism to address from the CDC 15 call, community calls, the GitHub threads, and now the CDC 22. But these basic changes for the ECIP-1000 document should be very helpful in getting this proposal to where it ought to be:

• Change the ETC Proof of Work Algorithm to Keccak-256 #394 (comment)
• Change the ETC Proof of Work Algorithm to Keccak-256 #394 (comment)
• Change the ETC Proof of Work Algorithm to Keccak-256 #394 (comment)

the champion provides revisions that meaningfully address public criticism of the proposal

Thanks for participating in the call and stepping up to champion this ECIP and vocalizing intent to approaching the ECIP process in a pragmatic way. 👍
https://github.com/ethereumclassic/ECIPs#ecips-historical-background

[gitr0n1n]

PR to Adjust to WIP (Work in Progress) while we wait for @bobsummerwill to materially redraft the ECIP-1049 document per CDC 22.
Update 1049 Title to appropriate status per ECIP-1000: #483

In the meantime, this PR to reject ECIP-1049 will stay open. The ECIP-1049 proposal will be reviewed in the future for ECIP-1000 compliance.

[gitr0n1n]

This proposal has been withdrawn by the champion for many of the reasons cited in the CDC 15 and 22 calls on the topic.

Thus this PR is obsolete due to the withdrawal of the proposal.
#486