We propose the creation of the following Canonizer algorithms to gauge and compare the support for each:
We must also develop and build consensus around solutions for any other issues people may raise, such as EIP editors facing legal jeopardy. Consensus will be defined as eliminating any reason for anyone to sue.
Determining whether any particular EIP is good for the community is a complex technical and moral process. It is necessary to develop a capable process which people can trust. There could be “experts” that seek or campaign to become such analysts. Experts could be compensated. Payments could be proposed by the people seeking to get the EIP accepted, possibly a commission in the form of a percentage of the capital recovered. There could be some kind of initial deposit locked into a contract should the EIP be rejected or accepted.
People could campaign, asking for people to delegate their support to them in specifically designed voting topics. The experts with the most delegated support, as specified by a predetermined Canonizer algorithm, would be selected to receive the contracted reward for doing such decision-making analysis. With a real-time infinite delegation system if any of the selected experts stopped performing, anyone could instantly delegate their support to someone else.
We could start by taking one of the larger / controversial EIPs that has been rejected and see if enough consensus could be built for approval as a proof of concept.