My reasoning: abstract and simple summary kind of is the same thing. For a while there was a suggestion that "simple summary" is a non-technical description and "abstract" is a technical description, but inevitably it results in duplication and a lot of people feel it as a burden without any benefits.

Question: should existing simple summaries removed from merged EIPs?

cc @nicksavers @Arachnid @karalabe @fjl

+1

@axic Can you give examples of where they are redundant?
And any examples where they actually add value?

Examples where they are redundant, based on opening random EIPs: 1203, 1538, 1973.

@nicksavers I have yet to find an example where it is useful to have both.

It's actually pretty nice to have a simple TL;DR of the proposal up front in one or two lines.
The last two examples given are pretty useful to me, but I agree not all are equally useful. I'm not yet convinced. I think it's mostly a deterrent for those that haven't fully understood their own proposal yet.

In EIP-615 it's much better in my opinion.

Well EIP-1 gives no explanation about the difference. When asked, I've kept saying "simple summary is a non-technical description, while abstract is a technical description". Making it mandatory creates some tension and in most of the cases it results in an extra useless section.

I have nothing against leaving it in optionally, but not sure it provides enough value. Why shouldn't just the abstract start out with a single clear sentence explaining what it is?

@nicksavers @axic: so do I understand it correctly:

Simple Summary = What this EIP does

Abstract = How this EIP technically does it

If separating them is the purpose, how about we re-phrase Abstract to Technical Outline, etc., so the difference between it and the Simple Summary is more obvious?

@xinbenlv I don't think the abstract is intended to describe how the standard 'does it'. It's not clear to me that it's possible to write a clean summary of that in a couple of sentences anyway.

Without looking at the current standard, how would you write a simple summary and abstract for ERC20, for example?

@Arachnid:
if I may us ERC-20 as an example

What this EIP does:

A standard interface for tokens.

How it does

The following standard allows for the implementation of a standard API for tokens within smart contracts. This standard provides basic functionality to transfer tokens, as well as allow tokens to be approved so they can be spent by another on-chain third party.

@xinbenlv It seems to me that the former makes a good title, while the latter makes a good abstract.

@Arachnid agree. I actually think that in most academic articles I've personally seen or in other context, a "Abstract" will usually contain those information.

If you are proposing that:

• Simple Summary -> Title
• Abstract -> (remain) Abstract

I am also supporting this idea.

Well, we already have a title, so this proposal devolves to the same one @axic started with - drop 'simple summary'.

Cool, I am for that too.

@nicksavers : WDYT? if you agree, then we have consensus on this issue.

@nicksavers ping

@nicksavers what should happen to this one?

@nicksavers can we merge this or do you have an objection?

@nicksavers ping

@Arachnid @nicksavers @Souptacular @gcolvin can this be merged?

I still think here is a slight difference, but not big enough to break consensus.