EIPIP Meeting 1

Transcript

all right well it is about five minutes after 1500 UTC so I think we can get started welcome everybody thanks for coming to the first EW I pee movie movie movie yeah we're making a movie no this is the first a IP IP meeting not a movie and today we're gonna be discussing the first order of business EW IP does it mean II I pee improvement processes meeting or a IP improvement proposals meeting yeah I think processes would be better and that's what I've

mostly been saying I've gone back and forth though so we have that with that out of the way I think for today's meeting it's not gonna be super long but we do want to go over some of what we discussed in the telegram group maybe give some intros for everybody figure out some solid next steps what the cadence of the meeting should be what tools we'll be using because I had a few in mind mostly Google Docs related tools for coming up with group discussion and group edits on certain documents so yeah I'm gonna pull up the EIP improvement proposal EW

improvement processes meeting dock telegram and look through that a little bit while we go through intros and so then we can talk about some of what was been discussed in there so we'll start with a net hi everyone I'm Anna and they're from the magician said just to see where magicians can help out in my pap process and just to see what we can help basically these improvement proposals of babies thank you thanks Annette next we'll talk to Brent

yeah there's a brand Alsop I'm with canonize er the consensus building and tracking system okay thank you next we have Bruno yep I'm with the foundation I'm here to learn from you guys and maybe contribute something useful in return but mainly as an outside observer and commenter okay great Charles everyone charles with maker dao and part of the dreamcatchers here to add some ideas to the process that we've chatted in a few in the past sorry and see where this can go okay

next we have James James Hancock I do a lot of work with the all core devs I pray hard for coordination and stuff like that so it excited to get this improving okay or Lewis sorry I might be saying that wrong I blanked Lewis Scott men are you on here you're muted if you are okay we'll come back to them pooja I am

pooja from Italy and katidis and I'm here to help out with the improvement process yeah the improvement process all right way hi I'm way from party really excited to be here great William and TRACON hi I'm will I've been writing some IPs also involved in solidity and magicians thank you William Schwab hi I'm also William and I'm here with the cat herders and I'm also here basically to see what

I might be able to offer the the IEP process excellent I think that's everybody as people come in we can also just get them intro'd but for now let's move on to the next step which is kind of slowly or not slowly necessarily but carefully defining what scope we want to actually tackle using these meetings and using these like github issues we're gonna be opening and just to be clear this isn't a dictatorship of meetings to change everything it's basically a way for discussion to happen more quickly and then for that discussion to be

transferred on to something like github issues or a theory of Magicians forms or something like that so the broader community can participate if they're not able to participate through these calls like if the time doesn't line up or they don't have telegram or things like that we want this to be very open and accessible to everyone who wants to be involved so I think there's a lot of issues that we have with the e IPS so let's go ahead and start voicing some of those and then from that we'll just go around and start saying you know kind of things we think can be improved some things we don't like and

from there we can identify the most urgent places to address so examples of this could be I'm confused what a IP one has to do with anything or like this processes in the IP one I think it's too hard to get an e rc or an EIP other other type of e IP approved there's not enough editors things like that so who wants to go first I have one I'd like to see a project scope for e IPS in general like why are we doing this what is the goal of the IEP not the proposals but the project so now can you define

project scope a little bit better for for people who haven't really ever done a project project scope so we would like to know the purpose of a project scope is so that you can quickly close issues that are out of scope people want it there's a lot of people that want to contribute so rather than having sad discussions when someone thinks that they want to make a change and someone else thinks this is not part of the project you have a scope that which you pointed soon you say the reason why we can't do this is because it's a let's go for exactly the way this affects us practically is there's a lot of discussions on the IP one while we're having this meeting and we'd like to know why are we doing the artsy's at all what you have kids at all how does it

fit into changes in general and so for example when the scope is not clear for this project you will see the EIP such as one where we should not have any state changes that like pros like the protest the IP so do we want to have that in our discussion here is that out of scope that helps define you know are we doing this to track the ideas that are out there or are we just is this a not is just purely technical you know we've I think and I think this has changed so in the past the IP knees were about what changes are good ideas now yeah I peas are more like let's just document specifications I think that's more where we are today I think there's

an understanding on that but I don't think it's written down so I'd like it to be written down clearway that everybody agrees on hmm another one that kind of made me think earlier on in the EIP process in the beginning there was this need and this acceptance of the vagueness around the EIP process to make it flexible and to make it so that there wasn't like this really harsh handed this is how things are gonna be this about it and we do want to keep some of that spirit with the fact that there can be multiple like people can make multiple token standards and even though one of them's an final if someone else is in draft you can definitely use that standard and stuff

like that so making sure to avoid words and statements and things within the written procedures and written scope of work for any IP that would dictate it to be the like ultimate sounding like The Ultimates what's what am I looking for like end-all-be-all for all of the different IPS that could be submitted is probably not what we should be going for in my opinion but is something that I think people expect out of the process so I agree that writing down project scope would be a good idea who's next who wants to say something else when we

started this discussion initially about the improvement process so we have kind of discussed and attracted something here in the telegram group about the layout how we should be going ahead in the sense like when we are talking about improvement process we need to consider about the issues that we are facing at the time the problems that we need to identify first in order to actually be able to solve it with the improvement process so if we can go through this document we have we are trying to define the problem the existing problems and one of the most important thing that we

need to do is about the onboarding of the editors so I think that is going to be an important aspects for this group to be taken care of excellent I love that document we should look at that and and see what we can do about contributing to that and before we go further Bob we did intros with everyone so we'll do a quick intro with you as well you can just say who you are and why you're excited to be here what you do or whatever hey guys so yeah my name is Bob Samwell I was previously at the foundation the consensus been involved with the their own community for four and a half years now I'm now

the executive director at the etherium classic cooperative as well so yeah very interested in the IPP process backing that standards you know how about how about you know how that fits together with all participants like Enterprise like you know how EA and he ip's fit together how we IPS and EC IPS fit together you know this whole process is a lot of interest to me okay thank you and what we're doing right now bob is just going around and if you and coming up with things like the ones listed on the sheath that pooja put in chat problems that they think are with the e IPS from

like a meta perspective and overview perspective specific issues there's not enough editors the IP ones confusing stuff like that and we're just voicing those because there is someone note-taking and we can go back we can kind of shuffle through those between now and the next meeting and I'll organize them in a document using telegram as a kind of a way to organize participation and then the next meeting have like a clear list of priorities or at least something we can finalize is a list of priorities for this subgroup so who else has anything they want to discuss about like if you could have something as a cool end goal of this whole initiative what would it be or

what a problem up that do you want me to put up the documents like screen share it yeah if you could screen share that'd be great thank you here's a practical goal we we could endeavour to clear the backlog of PRS and issues yes that's a good one yeah just the further that under the existing IP is the one that so still I'm having a defined archive kind of timeline for which II IPS would then be archived and out of the whole mess

which would have to be cleaned up incrementally would be cool like six month to nine month time we're at the AIP has been left or there's no progress that he gets archived I agree it's it's a lot easier to bulldoze through when you have a bulldozer yeah other people what Oh James you're cutting out or you're muted it was kind of crackly hopefully Oh hey James that whole thing cut out I

think your your connections Skippy yep I will get back to you no problem next anybody I have just a comment it was mentioned about defining scope or making rules or anything like that just my belief is that consensus can override everything including blockchain state and everything if you can demonstrate and prove that everyone agrees that we should do something it should be done and so anyway just to comment so I think that's an important point to bring up is that how much how much is this group going to define what it means for

something to be under consensus or approved what generally has been the rule of thumb is that we leave it up to the quote community and then the EIP editors being more of the judges of when something comes to consensus more or less as practically how it out how it's happening right now and I'm not finding huge problems in that except for the fact that there's too many IPS for the EIP editors to go through and the IP editors to go through and approve or decline or things like that and there's also no expiration dates on the IPS where that might be something we want and so I don't know how much we should

focus as a priority on what is defined as consensus but that doesn't mean we shouldn't put the tools out there to make sure that people know about them and can utilize them and maybe give suggest new suggestions and the template to say hey here's some things that are available for you like reach out to Twitter to Reddit use different tools to like assess your your community consensus of who's using the tools and things like that about how many active IIPs are there at the moment compared to the number of editors is that cognitive load is obviously like a must be a real

big problem now yes I don't have the numbers and when you say active define active well listed and not resolved listed not resolved yes so because of the fact that like that no one really does the decline option very much we just kind of lose track or lose sight of where any ip's been and there's no archive mode that we would probably want to create I mean there's in the hundreds if not a thousand or more if someone has the page pulled up they could answer because I have my full screen recording on so I can't pull it up we have we have hundreds of quote draft and then de-facto draft like they pretty

specified in an issue but just not committed as a file as a draft so I would say hundreds in the past three months we're looking at dozens so they're active in the past three months I mean we've got ones from years ago but are still getting comments but actually specifying the past few months or just dozens because I know on on on the ECI peas where there's a you know the same same kind of process but a lot smaller number of them you know even there we've got a bunch of sort of stale stuff that you know there's too much stuff and and especially in some cases you know that's the this the stuff is never gonna go through right it's it's it's not sufficient quality or it's just a stupid idea but you've got this sort of balance

between not wanting to like throw away people's work but also knowing you know that it's not helpful to have it there I mean I guess it's a little bit like the problem that you have in general when open source projects have sort of like rejecting pull requests right just thinking you know like not wanting to drive valuable contributors away but also you haven't you know you have to manage the load and sometimes you have to say no but how do you say no you know in in a consensus process of an open network over to comments on that we are we are starting as a community project and we're working into an enterprise

size project so to benchmark against some other projects I just want to put these two notes out there if you're interested you can read up on it one of them is vs code which is the most popular project on github if anybody's ever opened at issue on vs code you know that if your issue is not top quality it will be closed automatically and with and you won't be sad about it because it will tell you why it's closed and there's a policy and that's done the solution when you have too much is to have good policies so feelings don't get hurt that the worst thing is when you turn people off those feelings get hurt because they think something's in scope and it's not so I think that we've got this on the map here how does it put it on the table and we have I think that's

gonna be solved a second one and maybe this is an issue for our brainstorming here is the swift evolution project on this is where the idea for last call came from on swift evolution is made by Apple then a very innovative language they have specifications and proposals to change it David I think it's a very good process and it gets a lot of active review so whenever there's a new idea there's a lot of review that's why we have RSS feeds for all of our AI peas that are in last call I always look to them for the ideas on how do you solve these problems when you've got a lot coming in and you don't want to hurt people's feelings that's some good comments I would also say that I think we need to probably

reach out to bitcoins the cash and aetherium classic to see how their policies and their structures are different than ours since the II IPS initially came from the Bitcoin improvement proposals which initially came from the Python environment proposals or its PE Peas I forgot what it stood for but it's kind of has a history of itself and each group I think iterates differently on doing it with different ideas so getting an understanding of what they're doing differently I think would be very helpful because again you said a Bitcoin improvement yeah proposals aetherium

classic NZ cash the cash has the cash improvement proposals and I know that they do really well organizing theirs Thank You Brent you had something yeah just another comment again trying to make red tape and rules and what's in scope and what's out of scope what really needs to happen is everything needs to be prioritized what stop what are the top ten things on the list and we work on those and so if you can find the entire community for example we could create a topic where you rank all of the e IPS and everyone can say this is my top most importantly IP top ten and so on and then you can find out the entire community these are the top ten and then if someone has an issue that's

real old it's been hanging around that in a new technology that makes that possible then then they can start recruiting can rise up in popularity and lower down in popularity but it's all about prioritizing thing and and so all large communities fail miserably at that kind of stuff and the best they get is making rules to try and in scope and out scope and have a whole bunch of sensors trying to make people mad by saying we're shutting your project down but if you find out what everyone wants and do concise they and quantitatively get if you can know what everyone wants that by definition isn't consensus and if everyone can prioritize things and if you can measure consensus by what is the ether think people voting there ether what are the peer ranked core developers

what do they all think what are the miners think and if you can canonize things in different ways that allows you to prioritize all your work and and and problems like that become much easier solve so what you're saying is you you want to encourage you want to make it easier for these good ideas to find the encouragement they deserve yeah and and you measure how good ideas are by how many people are supporting them and and also you have to have a way for people that don't want particular things to happen to also have a competing camp and and you find out what both camps want and then you have negotiation to find out where the agreement is you focus on the agreement and you push the disagreement to lower-level supporting sub camps and and it's all about finding out and getting everyone everything you

want and not censoring or anyone any at any time so if I may I think this is I mean I'm going to be a bit harsh on this one I think it's wishful thinking to believe that people get going to get more involved that they are today what happen in sort of community that there is like you dial just like people you think just actually want to get pushed to push things forward and those are the one do and we actually do things otherwise just I don't expect the community to rise now and say oh I'm against this or I'm in favor of this and I think the the problem right now we have with CIP is not that we we don't we don't have support or like we don't have people

coming and saying oh I'm interested that we don't have people that are sufficiently interested to actually do it into the work or do the duty or come forward and say and proof Doozer so the the rest of the core dev at this point that they actually did the work of sorting things out I would really I would really agree with that um Louis if you could just introduce yourself so people can know yeah yeah sure sure so Louis I'm from start where we thought we got involved with the IP process or in the case of the AP 2028 which was the introduction of transaction costs transaction cost [Music]

transaction basic it's any old data reducing cost on in Istanbul and and from my experience because I came in pretty late into the the only IEP and like some what doesn't come from v4 information or any sort of big organization that's already be part of the 24y there was two thing that I find very challenging at first to when when I was trying to get involved first of all when you get into the leader there is like many many codes that are very hard to understand from the outside and you need to basically I still like a month and a half as a stalker trying to understand how you can intervene how someone can enjoy how you basically prove your point and provide you to the rest of the of the core dev and and also

the thing that I saw from from my perspective and from what I saw in the Eastern Guru process there is there was some like the IP that went through also the one who were pushing it where even not even like not even in volunteer or psyche there was some sort of inertia because oh at some point we say yes and then now we just recognized that we need to continue and no one keep pushing so that finger gives me an upset from the perspective of the future of the other of the network because we end up with like proposal that get accepted and end up being barely used for many many reasons or or just were implemented in well

worth pacification we're just not appropriate because there is only one people one group of people who worked on it Louie to summarize our the the issue that you faced I'm assuming that maybe people who are not coming directly from the etherium foundation or maybe redevelopment work on on a regular basis the challenges that they are facing at the initial level is how to proceed from you know proposing the proposal the EIP from draft to accept it and how we can steer along like taking help from the code em or did reviewer is it what you're trying to communicate so what I'm

trying to say that my believe is that the court F should be the safe keeper they would be they should not outside of Politico and like for instance the price of them like the cost of mining I'm not going to talk about those those are critical and depends but everything that is purely technical what the change should be well my core believe at the end what the sort of and the student understand meant I got from the core dev is that they are the safe keeper there are the one who basically say they found this is not sound and ear are taking a reason why they're not and what I was trying to say is that the there there we like today some sort of what do I need to from like the process perspective to show that I'm serious when I'm working

on the AP and I have an example that I of in the IP and I may not once you make it public right now because we're there when there is a group of people who've worked themselves and no one else can review that what's going on and we end up keeping pushing it although it's not pretty not good enough at the stage and my clear if I was clear yeah and and my experience has been along that as well is the reducing frictions for the individuals that already want to participate will solve a lot of these like what should bubble up to the top or not I we'd i don't i

pretty strongly feel that we don't need to put what is or isn't considered from substantiation state or from ideological state or whatever because there isn't really many people willing to get in there in the first place and though and making the individuals who want to participate have less friction to beat to participate and then give them clear clear guidance on what to do when you want to my will kind of tease out a lot of these things on its own yeah another good example of someone that struggled with the process who was actively trying

to contribute was thing is you know handle was made of ten and he was proposing security considerations to be added to I believe it was the IP one but there was no defined process there to make any process type of changes to the IP process so they end up getting dragged on for a thing like nine months and I'm not sure if it's been included yet or formally but yeah he's he voices a p.m. during dev Khanna the IP governance session and Nick Johnson just agreed that there needs to be more defined process for the IP one process changes etc yeah I think security considerations were added to a IP one in the last four months all right something

which is is a little unclear to me as well in general is what kind of process you have for revising any IP you know the the I saw recently that there was a proposal to do with a mechanism for richer sort of metadata about sort of the EIP updates and another update and it's a discussion that we had on e to see as well is if you update a IP one should that should the beard should there be any IP for the update because really if you look at what a IP czar it's kind of like their deltas they're kind of like change lists right in that

they're all piling up on top of each other but if you revised an existing one and I guess it's only really processed ones that that would be really sensible for I don't I don't know if they've been updates to to others like I guess you could do it for an e rc like ER C 20 but but just this general question of like well what's the model you know what are you see me IPS and what are specs because if you spec so just this bunch of divs that itself makes it very hard to understand like what the overall protocol is you know so if you make changes to V I P one should that itself be another a IP and also

just the thought of well could we actually use a canonical document that's like all of the discs together if you see what I mean because you know yellow paper kind of is that for at least part of the spec but the broader spec you know there isn't like here's the etherium book you know there isn't like a canonical thing that we're building up you know the IP czar or just like the change lists really so how does that work so for how it currently works for e IP one is e IP one is consistently an active status and because it's an active status it is able to be updated and then an and then any significant changes are documented through the you know the pull

request or you can look through the pull request history a VIP one the changes to the file or you can look at the bottom of e IP one and there's a list of significant changes in the date they were performed on and that was that has been how it's been since 2017 roughly and there hasn't been a major problem with that as far as the problem of updating like ERC 20 if there's a major security concern the general answer has been make a whole new a IP and just you can call it er C 20 version two if you want but it will have a different a IP number and yeah basically just make a whole new IP if you want a change in

there that's not something that's like spelling grammar or of gross overlooked like part of it like you misspelled the word aetherium you kind of like that I agree that this the discussion honest should be part of this project how did you know how to Octavia piece I've actually updated a whole bunch of VIPs for various reasons but like Hudson say Norman Norman if changes require a new IP non-normative changes I've been feeling around this and apparently they're getting merged also the IP one is not an EIP at all the fact that we call DP 1 and call it active as just a particularity of this project other projects like swift

evolution don't they wouldn't call it they wouldn't call it a standard it's not a standard it's a it's a governance document and yeah I think in the case of Bitcoin they updated and changed a bit when they updated the the process so do you mean that they did that just for bit one or well they may be they may point to change in that they actually made a big - the first one was by I mean a minute a key and then then Luke jr. made it made a replacement that sounds like Luke okay yeah so okay we'll have to

think about that one more well we won't solve it today anyway but basically we need some the summary would be we need more understanding of how to update an EIP in general regardless of if it's the IP one in this case or if it's an EIP that needs small changes or big changes making that on putting that on paper I guess is the best way to describe the problem we need we have I mean something is something I've thought about a lot when we were starting the EA was you know what what does good look like force better you know so really like the thought that you've got you've got

something in the form of the yellow paper that covering really the EBM but you haven't really got great canonical specs around everything else and my thought really was that the VIPs are like kind of like deltas you know they aren't they are like change lists and really like looking at something like Java you know so in Java you've got the java programming language book right and as new changes are made you know that that book is updated so so kind of like thinking that really AIE IPS are a process for change management but they're not necessarily the best final form of documentation yeah so there needs to be a delineation what up from

what I'm hearing from you bothers there needs to be a delineation between if an EIP is a specification versus if an EIP is a guide like I guess what's the other what would be the other word a guideline maybe or hmm maybe abstract yeah like a like more of an idea or something that people can implement and I don't know if we wanted to find that or not that might be something we think about and just having our list of things that would be priorities or not so yeah anybody have the last last couple of things that and again pooja posted a link to a Google Doc and that Google Doc has a list of stuff

already so we can address that or if you want to add more detail to any of those points as well I'm listening to the whole conversation over here one thing that I find myself sort of asking myself is maybe perhaps in terms of defining the scope of what we're trying to do here are we looking at it at maybe to clarify an existing process or maybe to define process or is this maybe a question that even needs to address the possibility of creating a specific platform as in it sounds like there's a number of things along the way so to speak of an EIP process whether it's the amount of stalee IPS or the IPS can even go scale whether it's the difficulty in

understanding exactly how to get the support whether it's low levels of participation I mean if we're gonna try and lower friction along all of these different sort of points of pressure I'll be looking at the possibility of creating an entirely new platform for the IP process in general are we just looking to augment the the currently extant process can I react to this I have a question in the whole group of people are we talking right now how many people actually pushed in the IP through the process or try to push one I'm asking I'm asking the nuts as like being snarky I just want to know because I feel like why I have a very different I think there's three of us

now there's counting at least that's true okay I'm asking just in case the one from my perspective the the the IP process is not broken it actually could work so much works the only issue I was facing is there are two things the first one is it's something clear when you come from the outside out who you need to reach to choose you know start get together feeling of you know sort of get validation like what if you're what you're proposing is something that makes sense and you don't because you don't want to some stupid on the on the core on the core dev chat and in that's pretty hard when you're called newcomer to arrive and say you know here is my

thing in what should I do and the second thing is there is a lot of thing that in my feeling wasn't just not said out loud like people were faking things and because of the scare of the of the fear - to you - to be perceived as you know against someone or against the project they just don't speak out and that is more what I will try to fix by being by providing clear guidelines then trying to reform process that someone works I have a quick note here yes I think this phone call is the EIP IP not the EIP replacement see and - I've heard a current a couple things here and I've

heard some dissent on should we have we want to encourage new people one of the ways to solve this problem which I implemented in the KDE project which is a Linux competitor indanone we had a mentor program where yeah there's a lot of rules and honestly I got involved in this in 2018 and none of the things that were specified in the IP one were my experience so I had to go find how it actually works that's why I'm here to document some of that stuff but with KDE it is much harder to get involved and what we did is we just said here's a few people you can call that can help you from idea to what you want to do and all

that and you know I'll volunteer to do that and I know other people will as well but maybe the solution here doesn't that we don't have to figure out all this stuff out write it down and agree on it we can just put a couple names there are people that have done this stuff and what help yeah that's a good simple solution oh I agree hundred percent so William Schwab did that answer your question about if we're gonna kind of redo a lot of the stuff yeah I think so I mean if I if I'm understanding you Lewis and also you William it sounds like the process seems to be at least a process that can work there's a certain level or a certain lack of

communication about what needs to be done a certain lack of documentation maybe does that address your second point the Lewis you were saying before that there's also sort of this bizarre process a certain certain IP seem to have some level of Brownian motion they get sent into motion and then even if they completely zombie out they somehow get included would this help with it don't get included it's not getting included more than with a is it keep being referred to although everyone involved sort of to know that there is a big problem with it so my second comment was more like there is some the court they've claimed to be and that's something of big mistake my opinion claims to be not political article not has having ideology particle as being a

place of public space for people describe what they want to do in the lobby for it and and because it's they don't recognize this aspect of might make my then it's very hard to to from here outside when you don't understand what the dynamics of it you it's very hard to push efficiently a process so that's more with a second point and maybe standardized away for instead okay for instance when in the IP can be implemented by the client then the people who should have say about the specs should be the client when the IP is not implemented by the bio-clock the client himself he should be like a bit like fine whatever there should be

multiple condition that could be referred to by by the by the client there is things there that aren't lost for today and and and it could be to standardizing and more like many expenses which I think would be more the solution to the problem we're facing so you're saying that you think that also could be handled by better documentation and communication it would be probably in there better I thought of a mentorship program that he has Express I forgot who said it we kind of said it yeah well and and also sort of an agreement on what are the best practice we should have okay for instance and I'm

going to quote what we did because we were so in our case erep was could have been very litigious could there's been a good lot of conflict about it because it's someone involved like core like ideology about the blog site stuff like that induction and what we did is we survey that problem by providing mmm like objective data that no one else everyone could check and when we finished and we released it like yesterday we publish the posts the IP analysis saying what we said was correct their mythology worked so like sort of things that we believe the reason why we

pushed it is for mostly for because we believe that so right but look that should be in place when we try to push different kind of improvement so maybe when someone is a new EAP so agree time what is what what would people feel comfortable with like what the core they would be comfortable with when they went to get included and say it out loud like I think objectives it would be like easy to understand and enter into and to get through four four four AP a-- the AP extended sorry okay and i think something to take note

of though is your VIP process you went through was for corey ip's and part of the challenge we're gonna have is addressing the fact that a core that there are a there are four types of VIPs there's a core IP networking e IP an ER c and a meta a I P I think I got those right but um anyways they are very H one of them have a seem to have a very different process which doesn't mean we should break out the EIP repo into different other repos necessarily but that we should better define and like to cement some of the processes behind getting those through and the core dev meetings have already started doing that

with things like eligible for inclusion e ip's and other rules like that that aren't written we need to write those down this year pretty much and then real quick Alex Berg's Aussie axis if you want to do a quick intro we gave intros earlier so just feel free to give a quick intro for yourself oh and you're on mute there you go you know I just joined like five minutes ago I need to leave shortly I hope there's a recording or something so I can listen we're doing recording in notes oh great but briefly about me I've been involved with the IP process for

quite a bit and I guess well since probably 2016 and I be in volunteering to review stuff for quite a bit and SF the past couple of months I've been doing reviews as an editor and I said a lot of different proposals to improve the process and a lot of those are still in impending State okay well thanks for joining the telegram and the call and I'll be pushing out the recording of this on the telegram and on Twitter and stuff after I get it uploaded when I get my new laptop in because I was stupid and spilled an entire drink on my other

laptop so it's dead I'm using an old backup computer right now anyways that was a lot of good good sentiment Louis and I agree with that I think it's gonna be something that will need to work with the core developers as we overhaul a lot of the EIP wording and processes that we'll need to get them involved for they're part of the quarry ip's because that only touches like less than 200 people a year the quarry ip's track and maybe not even that many cuz there's not that many core developers and there's not like the average person writing a quarry IP it's like the same 30 people with the exception of people like like

stark ware who wanted to get involved and then they had to go down that bumpy path to start doing an EIP other other than you know some people who want to do the low-level stuff it's very rare that we get the average person going through that process just a quick thought on the scale where in those different threads the list of editors that there are at the moment is effectively the same list that there's been since 2016 oh that's an accurate that list but I think is inaccurate but my thought was just that for those different threads you could have different groups of editors you know that the core developers don't necessarily have to be gating or

involved for standards to do with higher level things right you know if it's the case that many many of the proposals are a higher level you know ERC standard see things built on top of the core protocol you know perhaps a completely different set of people could be you know could come on borders that as you know kind of with an understanding of right you know we're not going to focus on the core things I don't know about core things but you know but I know about I know about smart contract Devon you know and the you know can can help those forward yeah I think that's that's an interesting idea I think we need to define the scope of

what an EIP editor should be doing beyond what EIP one says and like figuring out if we need to add or delete anything and then we should figure out if there needs to be sub subgroups of VIP editors or like variant groups of the IP editors that's a good idea though I mean something that was proposed as well on the EDC side and we haven't done it yet but maybe would do it is kind of having another role as well as editor which is kind of like assistant or you know administrator who are basically like volunteers who are you know they're not they're not that they would have their having merge rights but essentially they're doing you know keeping things up to date fixing broken links you know helping things forward

you know I guess it's kind of a role a little bit like the cat herders to be honest it is sort of acknowledging that there's a lot of stuff that doesn't need that core protocol developer kind of skill set but it's it's helping things move along that's not a bad idea either I think that's all really good we have a few minutes left and I said this was gonna be social things yeah I've thought the the adder wasn't gonna say this the getting a group of people that can do a lot of the

things that the editors don't need to do like defining what editors do or don't do and then also having a group of people that can do stuff that they don't need to do is seem is something that has seemed very valuable for me and just kidding that would allow more people to be active in the process and just to kind of have have had a lot of a lot of thoughts about this for a long time about a year ago when I first started getting a year or more on whoever who knows started getting into the EIP at some point I like rewrote the entire thing like a proposal to rewrite the entire thing of how everything works and some big grand

vision and then since I realized I would strongly support or suggest that we look at small incremental changes that then are made over time rather than kind of zooming out and having this big overhaul and like assuming that things would work like we think they will and instead make a small change see how that works and then continue to iterate on those things I think that's really good and sorry we crushed your hopes and dreams of a giant overhaul last year no it was good I didn't actually even proposed it I just

wrote it all out okay yeah yeah they're just my way of thinking about it was like oh yeah let's do all this stuff and then I realized wait this is actually like a moving system we can just incrementally make it better you think globally act locally that's a good line I'm gonna steal that okay well it's we have just a few more minutes and so I don't want to get on any more tangents just do a couple of end announcements and then wrap up the call the first end amount after discussion with the etherium cat herders this VIP IP initiative is gonna fall under the etherium cat herders and that the note-taking will be funded the videos will be hosted on the etherium cat

herders YouTube page and they will help with other pieces of support as needed such as advertising it on Twitter and reddit and stuff like that so that's one thing so if people ask like who's doing this you can say it's the etherium cat herders and then I am taking a lead role and facilitating it technically but there's I mean most other people in this call can take over what I'm doing if I'm not able to make a meeting so it's really a group effort let's see was there any other final like things anyone wants to say as far as like announcements or ideas or things like that for the next call will we approve

these minutes does this become an official like is the outcome of this phone call we just had now we have a scope the outcome of this phone calls that we have items that are the the biggest outcome I believe is that we have a list that the note taking that pooja has been doing in the document that she created has a list of problems that we found with the EIP process between now and the next meeting what I want to do is try to order those maybe it might require a spoken-- meeting but I hopefully it will require that and we can just do it over telegram and a Google Doc and just like vote up and down on which issues are the like the issues that people think are the worst

issues that we need to address first does that make sense or do you think there's a better way to do it I think that's great unless it doesn't work and then it's not great and then related you as the technical leader here do we have authority the people in this call to do the things that we want to do myself and oxic are AIP editors I know other AIP editors want to get involved and if we basically take our ideas from this meeting and put them in an EIP it's kind of cheating because I'm an EIP editor but I can absolutely at a fair and you know honest way push this along given enough community support that's that's one of the fears of me ever wanting to

be an editor is that I'm on the other side and I don't want to have super you know I don't have super user power yeah you know compartmentalize that I guess that is our goal here to come up with a proposal then we need you know what is the threshold here do we need unanimous consent from all you happy editors to change the IQ one or is that part of this discussion to like you know I don't tell any how many I want to know what is this step from these ideas to PR merged it would be ideas ordering the ideas coming up with solutions and different documents that we can apply slowly and then finding out the best way should this be a big a big PR that has like six different changes or should we do it

little by little once we decide that then we produce those PRS and after and I think it should I'm leaning it for it being a big one that then we just kind of scrape we kind of discuss within a github issue and just say this has the backing of a lot of people but we do want to discuss this over the next month or however long and then get a lot more opinions edited a little bit more and then eventually once there is consensus in a last call issued then it goes in that's that's my ID my dream ideal for it although it might not work that way got it cool and then the next meeting um would two weeks from now work good yeah

I can do two weeks ago as well yeah okay we'll do two weeks from now January 29th at 1500 UTC and let's see okay and then bob has a final comment on the group chat it looks like yeah so I might as well just say it for the record which is that in the doc there's the proposal to have a separate EC IPA this is cool rather than that being sort of bundled in with the Chordettes and I think that is a great idea because I think part of that you know political process how do we push things through kind of thing stems from that because of course decisions on changes in the core protocol you know they are deeply political and economically impactful you

know that whether things go in or not has real impact in the you know to the network participants and you know I know a number of the core developers you know they're like I don't want to be you know I don't I don't want to be public facing I don't want to be political you know this is just a technical specification process and I mean that is true of the war work of the core devs but it is not true of of you know whether ECI please go through not so I think dividing those two would be very useful also because the the the sets of work are different you know the core developers are developing clients the easting IP editors are doing a technical specification process and then having these political decisions on what

goes through or not and the two are kind of deeply intertwined and it's many of the same people doing those two roles but they are different so I think it's a good idea I tend to disagree with this one because there is no one except a client developer that actually really know the protocol at court and separate thing we went from the other is the recipe for technically the after in my opinion all I mean is the technical discussions on on an EIP are things which the core devs would be involved with but the actual process of deciding what goes through or not is the easting IP process and yes many of those same

individuals you know are filling both roles and you obviously aren't gonna do something if the core devs would would not support it but but ultimately these are two different things you know the EIP process what that process are different that's all I'm saying III agree there are two different things but at the same time my were separating into two sort of real delay like food does respirate II that the core dev today is taking and putting on someone else and it would be very easy for the client to say it's not my problem anymore and we end up with a situation where some decisions are made and they and they end up being Jane ting a headache and and and so that's what

I'm saying it's separating the two what technically theoretically seems like a reasonable thing could lead to two things where we end up I think decision that don't make sense in the context of the network but I want separation I think we somewhat agree yeah and I would I would agree also with flu Louie my and I we get a lot from having the awkward elves call existing a weak if having decisions being made on the awkward Eva's call and then being reflected through the EIP editors or through AIP administrators process I think gives us some really good separation and allows a lot of

things to work like this though you know the cat herders didn't used to exist and they do now and there's obviously value there the magicians didn't used to exist and they do win there's obviously value there you know and I see ECI P call in the same kind of context is is like that it's like a it would be like a wrapper around the core devs of saying how can we help the core devs move the thing forward and and you know some decisions you know are obviously like you know that going to drop back to that core devs group really to sort of make the call but but like you don't want to gum them up with all of the details I think it's I have that parallelism and you

have to sync sometimes the place where I would object in this party that you don't see the GAF developer is coming to Twitter and debate you don't see nevermind coming to Twitter and debate you don't see those guys and if you separate like what is today their protocol roles oh they don't match some things that it is a pretty broad in my opinion then you just sort of take this responsibility of their shoulder and it would be very happy to have this pretty of the shoulder but in terms of the security of the network and the network in general it would be an myopia disaster okay I went first yeah yeah yes so let's let's let's definitely pick it

up next time and we can bring this up again feel free to write down and send me the gist of what was being discussed and I can definitely bring it up again next time so thanks everyone for coming and we will talk to you on telegram thank you very much