[Draft Proposal] - Naming convention & acronyms adjustments to differentiate EPNS Protocol Improvements from Push Governance Improvements

🗳️ Governance Proposals
1

Background:

This proposal aims to add more specificity to the acronyms and naming conventions used for EPNS Protocol Improvement Proposals, against the PUSH Governance-specific proposals.

The goal is to use PIP for Push Protocol Improvement Proposals, and PGIP for Push Governance Improvement Proposals

Proposal Description

At present, PIPs or Push Improvement Proposals are mainly used to refer to proposals on governance. As we grow closer to making EPNS a DAO, it becomes imperative to involve the community in technical decisions.

The web3 developer community is very familiar with the Ethereum Improvement Proposals (EIPs). So following similar standards, it is proposed to use Push Improvement Proposals (PIPs) to describe the technical standards/improvements of the EPNS protocol.

Proposals on the Governance side will then take on a new name of PGIP i.e, Push Governance Improvement Proposal.

Conclusion

If the feedback from the community is affirmative, this proposal would be promoted to the Discussion Phase and then to formal voting. If ratified PIPs will be used to describe technical standards/improvements and PGIPs will be the go-to place for Governance proposals.

8 Likes
2

I support this proposal.

3

I am in favor of this Proposal.

Using PIPs to describe the technical standards and improvements of the EPNS protocol specifically sounds better.

1 Like
4

I support this proposal.

It’s great way to improve EPNS Protocol standards by the community directly participating in it.

1 Like
5

This adjustment is clearly aligned towards supporting the growth of the Project.

Establishing a clear differentiation between Protocol improvements and Governance improvements will bring more clarity to all the different types of participants and contributors to the project.

6

I support this proposal!

7

Naming Conventions play a huge role on a protocols efficiency, all in on this proposal

8

I fully support this new proposal. I believe this will clear up the voting process and allow investors to key into their specific voting needs. I hope this vote passes!

9

I support the proposal

10

With a lot of engagement received in the first 48 hrs after proposal submission, this proposal is eligible to get promoted via Fast-Tracking Route.