ohh sorry I forgot to answer here. we already discussed this on Discord. we will definitely revisit everything related to AEX proposals.
so generally everything is described here: AEXs/AEXS/aex-1.md at master · aeternity/AEXs · GitHub
IMO this wasn’t really followed in the existing issues and some PRs which probably produces some confusion on your side. also there exist a lot of issues that have e.g. AEX-4 in their names to discuss implementation related stuff. in the upcoming weeks I will try to clean that stuff up and if necessary close some older issues.
the process clearly defines that there are usually two choices for the AEX number (which will be set by one of the editors):
- the number of the PR (typical case)
- the number of the issue if there was some discussion about the AEX in the issue section of the repository (if preferred by the author)
personally I would always prefer to have first an issue with some discussion around the AEX where it is being specified and then create a PR including the specification. and if we decide to do it this way I would always prefer the number of the issue where it was discussed.
the funny thing here is that we didn’t even follow that for the AEX-9 token as it seems 
because issue/PR number 9 is an update for AEX-4. I have no idea why AEX-9 was chosen as a number. any comment on that @philipp.chain ? 
so to be clear from my side I propose that we go this route:
- you create an issue with your specification (without defining the number of the AEX already)
- we discuss the AEX proposal in this issue
- you provide a PR for the AEX if we have consensus in that discussion (or if you decide there is enough confidence to do so)
- an editor reviews the PR as described in AEX-1, defines a number (probably the number of the issue with the discussion) and merges the spec into the repo
any comments or other thoughts on this?
NO, please NOT!