Perhaps I should separate the renaming so that the clarification of EIP-1 wording can be merged sooner.

I fully support this PR and I am the last author of a lot of the lines that are being updated.

@chriseth suggested Complete for the same state here, while @fubuloubu suggested introducing a new state Review prior to Last Call here.

I'm leaning towards this PR is a good middle ground and close enough what happens right now, but clarifies the states better.

@Arachnid @nicksavers @Souptacular @gcolvin any comments?

Rebased after #2236.

@nicksavers split out the renaming to make this eaiser, we can argue about renaming and the process to do the renaming in #2279.

"Final" is the state where something is ready to be reviewed for inclusion by All Core Devs. Why are we introducing another status?

"Final" is the state where something is ready to be reviewed for inclusion by All Core Devs.

It's not. This is what it originally said:

Accepted (Core EIPs only) -- This EIP is in the hands of the Ethereum client developers. Their process for deciding whether to encode it into their clients as part of a hard fork is not part of the EIP process.

➡️ Final -- Standards Track Core EIPs must be implemented in at least three viable Ethereum clients before it can be considered Final. When the implementation is complete and adopted by the community, the status will be changed to “Final”.

It explicitly says that ACD looks at it at the Accepted stage and may consider moving it to the Final stage.