# Official reason to remove EOF from Fusaka

Source: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/9703

## Summary

The author, a participant in the Ethereum protocol process, argues that EOF should be removed from Fusaka despite several client teams supporting it. Their reasons are risk to the Fusaka timeline, since debating EOF variants delays shipping PeerDAS, which all client teams see as the top priority; uncertainty about the Option D variant, whose implications some participants did not understand on the call; and failures in ACD's prioritization process, where objections from community members were not adequately addressed. The post suggests EOF's champions could make their case for Glamsterdam, and it notes that PAY was left marked as CFI'd because people wanted it included in Fusaka regardless of EOF.

## Article

On "ACDT" 34, a decision was made to remove EOF from Fusaka.

The process here was highly unusual. I encourage people to listen to the full discussion. Here are the reasons why I think this is the correct outcome, despite several client teams expressing support for EOF:

Risks to Fusaka timelines: all client teams, ELs included, seem to agree that shipping PeerDAS ASAP is Ethereum's most important priority. While this wasn't a major topic of discussion on the call, it's worth acknowledging that debating variants of the EOF spec at this point affects our ability to ship. As we move towards Fusaka devnets, and coupling EL & CL changes, keeping EOF would increasingly become the default path. While there are ways to mitigate this risk, such as the modular EOF devnets proposed by the EIPs' champions, it is nevertheless a risk, and one we should only take if we feel the payoff is significant. Points (2) and (3) below make me question this.

Technical uncertainty about impact: while there seemed to be broad support on the call towards the Option D variant, midway through, some participants realized that they did not understand the implications of this variant. Reasoning about the implications of an EIP's semantic change should ideally happen much earlier in the process. Had another EIP with similar levels of open questions been proposed on today's call, ACD would have rejected it without hesitation.

Process considerations: last but not least, I think the entire EOF inclusion debate has shown failures in ACD's prioritization process. While core devs originally agreed to ship EOF (many times), at each occasion, many prominent community members raised objections to it. While, individually considered, it didn't seem like any of these concerns warranted EOF's removal, zooming out, it's clear that ACD's feedback loops failed at addressing these concerns.

Given the above, and the intention to reconfigure AllCoreDevs for Glamsterdam, it seems right to remove EOF from Fusaka while leaving the door for its champions to present a case for it in Glamsterdam, where hopefully the process begins by assessing what the highest impact changes for Ethereum as a whole are.

My apologies to everyone who has sunk more time into this than they should have because of the process failures. I hope we can learn from this to improve how we plan upgrades going forward 🙏 !

Minor note: I left PAY as CFI'd as people expressed wanting to include it in Fusaka independent of EOF. If that's not the case, we can fix this on the next ACDE.