The Executive Director at Ethereum Classic Cooperative [ETCC], Bob Summerwill, recently announced the extension of support for the ECIP-0001 proposal. However, along with some crucial changes, what is noteworthy about the same is that ECIP-0001 proposes the removal of Rust Developer Wei Tang too.
“Wei has repeatedly abused his position of power as ECIP Editor + author of ECIP-1000 + Parity-maintainer + Multi-Geth maintainer + protocol analyst (@corepaper) to bully, to threaten to fork ETC or to leave the ecosystem. ‘You need me’. No individual is bigger than network.”
Addressing the controversy, Tang responded with a blog post in which he revealed instances when soc1c “dismissed” reviews which Tang was asked to check up on.
Another issue that fueled this dispute was the ECIP-1061 vs ECIP-1072 debate of the Aztlan hard fork in which they couldn’t figure out whether the specification that they had actually accepted in the meeting was ECIP-1061 or ECIP-1072. He elaborated,
“soc1c’s argument was that we should only have one ECIP for a hard fork, but not any competing ones. My argument was that at that time ECIP-1072 had the final specification we agreed on, but copying it back to ECIP-1061 (which had the sad effect of making ECIP-1061 and ECIP-1072 identical) would not be a good idea. I raised my concern there, but again, I found it quickly met with soc1c’s ‘dismiss’ button.”
While the ECIP-1061 vs ECIP-1072 dispute has been resolved, Tang’s main concern is the power of the “dismiss” option. He claimed that using the “dismiss” button as a norm poses a “great centralization risk,” one that will allow organizations to be able to merge any modifications into ECIP, despite objections.
Following the same, Tang also revealed that the creation of a pull request in an attempt to confirm that the “dismiss” that happened in Aztlan ECIP-1061 was an exception and against the process, but not a norm. He further claimed that the actual argument shifted to him, rather than the doxxing soc1c.
AMBCrypto reached out to Tang for a comment on the issue. He said,
“The editor list in question (which I was accused of “doxxing”) was merged 6 months ago, with the whole community’s agreement including ETCC. The real name of the person in question “soc1c” was known since the beginning, about which you can find many independent evidences… And then we had the doxxing argument, which was only brought up recently, right after the incident, against a document everyone agreed 6 months ago, and only against me.”