EIPIP Meeting 12

Transcript

welcome everyone this is e IP I am eating 12 we have shared the agenda in the chat and it's available on eating ham cat herder VIP IP repo so the first item on the agenda is onboarding VIP editors new e IP validated and suggestions future can you make it so I can record or give me permissions for that or someone who cast permission is able to record I think it is automatically recorded and going into the cloud it doesn't so it is saying it's recording ok good so once it is done I will download and upload it to

the cat owners YouTube channel where it is all the time shared the double comedy okay continue sorry for interrupting fun right so we can start discussing about onboarding VIP editors if people have thought about it like what should be the criterias and if we can define some outline like if we have to like invite participation from community or from the people who are actively involved with with submitting any IPS or creating a IPs and if they would be interested to join as an EIP editor what

are the guidelines for them or maybe what would be the criteria that we can be as a group can think over it and invite their participation - it'd be I think a serum involvement will be a good criteria yeah actively involved in material things so I was thinking it if we can you know kind of give some kind of numbers to that like you say for example we are looking for a IP editor so the primary criteria in my mind is like they should be more about a IPS they might have submitted a few e IDs if we can just give it a number or you know if they

have shared their review on any certain EAP so it's at a number of number that we can quantify that might be helpful for people to you know share their interest and a current here I guess just understanding exactly what would be looked for are there just specifications that you'd want someone to have if they were going to be trying to you know at a TI piece like is it a job that anyone could do that wants to take part or is it a job that you know someone would have to have certain requirements to be able to even get started the so talking about elite well two parts we can talk about what

historically what they do what they've done and then we can talk about what they should do or what they could do and the big one historic the merging a IPS merging drafts which requires having the formatting done correctly in and in an understanding of github so that they can do they get Hubby things something else that they do is are trying let's see I'm just gonna be typing these into into the notes I into the chat so the other thing

they do is so they merge drafts the other one is that they determine if a PR change is errata and what I mean by that is let's say someone like Mike finds something that's not really clearly articulated in a currently existing standard for any IP he makes a PR saying this better describes what the real what the EIP is the same the EIP editor will need to be able to tell if that is a substantial change enough to warrant either changing the draft status changing the status of it or if it's really just a change in wording then it doesn't need to go through any other process that can just be merged merge the change without changing status okay that makes sense I guess for me it

seems like there's probably a lot of different things for people to understand or learn like you were saying some parts that might be learning on github how to merge things understanding me through community and what's needed so I guess maybe it would be helpful if there was some sort of just generalized like I don't want to call it a course but some sort of learning platform or people that think that being a editor might be something they're interested in just a kind of a location to know okay what about could help would you need to know what about you know the theory community would you need to know just to even get started and maybe there could be a a way to onboard new editors where they can just be like okay this is where

you get started this is what you'd have to know this is really like so you talk to kind of thing potential sometimes that we talked about this mentorship program like kind of providing education community education from community I mean people who are interested in participating for protocol improvement and you know kind of providing checks to it reviews to it and on so mentorship program is a very good idea if we can invite our present EAP editors and kind of have a session with

them and document the highlights from those session as a you know general guideline for people to understand what is actually required with this position so the problem that we faced sometimes back was like peers were piling up stacked up and it were it were not able to be reviewed and it won't be mush so the reason why we are discussing to onboard more of the EIP editors because they they are very few in numbers we would want to increase that so yes of course I agree to the point that we should have some kind of someplace where a person can reach and see where they

stand I think we should start with people that are already involved in the process they would need the least amount of education and I think each current editor has either made me IP or commented on pprs we could do a nomination system where people are already existing editors could nominate people so that would kind of you kinda need to be involved in etherium for that most difficult part is how do we nominate or how do we determine who

could possibly be an editor because there's not a clear path of because there's already people in the repository who are contributing but it's not clear how they can go from that contributor role to editor role and I don't think we need to be spending time to onboard those sorts of people because they're already involved it just needs to be a clear communication of your contributor this is what you do to become an editor or applied to become a 10-degree and then make it clear what the expectations for being an editor is sure so then so people know what they're signing up for so as a group can be come up with certain points like the expectation that we are trying to set for these people

who wants to get involved and maybe if somebody is nominating somebody other people should be able to you know kind of III understand validation is not trying too hard here but maybe you know kind of relate that okay find this person is fitting all the checklist so yeah is a good fit for the new EIP member what do people think about you know kind of defining those rules I mean like if we can come up with certain points like I suggested in the beginning like if we can have a criteria like one suppose a person who has been submitting a PRS for adding new AI peas again and again so say for example if they have 5

PR smudged on my Merrifield yetiz existing AIP and they have active participation in EAP i p-chan and they say that they are available maybe certain hours a week or something like that I think - there's there's here the two routes to do this that could be done what the both should be done but I don't know the order Wow some dog is very angry outside expectations of an EIP editor or read requirements something that should be written I don't know if it goes in the EIP one or into

some some draft VIP it just talks about what an editor things like what an editor does the expectations for an editor it could even be good to say this many hours a week is kind of a good good like a target of we want editors to be able to spend this amount of time a week on on doing it on doing things and still be able to participate like is the role of an editor a 5 hour week job or do we think of it as a 2 hour a week they should be able to spend 2 hours a week and be able to get all that needs to be done between them I think oh wait see that as task resisting editors I don't

think any of them were called but oxic it's been here like minutes from here James are are you an editor or just coordinator I'm not an editor I I was asked to be earlier and I felt in the position of hard work coordinator it was a little bit weird to be doing both of those things but it's been a while since I thought about it yeah so we could ask maybe oxic or greg or any of the other editors for input on what they do and what they with what from their opinion as good as

requirements also who would be qualified to do what they're currently doing yeah I think it's a good start could you do a survey like that you did yeah yeah you can make a survey the hard part I think here is this rule is a volunteer rule so people who are actively involved and do care about how this network to run safely and you know getting improvement or time to time they mostly have to be you know volunteered and so yeah I mean like I mean today I

brought up this topic because we received some interest from the apipa gated channel somebody has expressed interest and I have smoker yeah all right so having him active quite a few time he had come a bit a lot of beers for Eid then and I was wondering how I mean who and how can answer his question if he is or he can be and what would be the process if he selected like these are the basic questions that we might want to find answer and then we can document these things making it available for people because it's the information is very limited at this point of time previously there hasn't been a new one for a long time and I

know this somewhat anecdotally but I feel I can represent it well enough for what Hudson had told me that they that after doing some work in the EIP repositories in PR someone asked to be an editor and then the editors the current editors sat down and thought about it and approved the quest through the requests and just made the person in editor yeah Gregan admitted or posted that he supports micah being a new editor yeah the lasas in 2018 which is a little bit of a different world with you so the big ones is actively participate in comment

on PRS in the EIP repository because if you're actively doing that that's an helping helping process or review PRS even if you're not an editor you can still review a PR and show what needs to be done for it to be merged and things like that and the other thing I Matt we we put on the agenda the last time the idea of having a smaller like a group of less permissions that can do certain things yeah which is just for triaging issues and I think that that would be

really helpful there's people who are interested in getting started going down that path of maybe becoming a VIP editor in the future but it kind of gets annoyance just ping to get our channel constantly if you've reviewed something and you think it's good and you think that it's time for it to be merged by an IP editor I think that if we let people how this triage permissions they can just add labels on to pull requests so an editor can come in and pretty quickly see what's ready what should be ready to be merged may be something that's been abandoned that they could close or something like that something that requires like write permissions to the repository I don't really see a harm of adding some people there and then just

having a little bit tighter feedback loop so if they're adding labels that don't make any sense then they can be removed very quickly and they're not doing really any harm to the repository itself yeah how do we turn something on I think it's pretty straightforward if you go to the github organization settings and then you either someone or maybe their repository settings and you add someone as a contributor or as a triage contributor if someone has permissions to do that I can probably walk them

through it okay I know Hudson would have it so we can talked with him later I like I like I would propose that we anyone who wants to become a trio sir can just say hey I want to be a trio huh sure and then we just make them it and if there's an issue with how they triage then we figure out how to address or remove like a process for removing ones that aren't being active or things like that it'd be easy to just say hey yeah you can do this to anyone who asks and then think of ways to weed that out if they're not being helpful I think that makes them a pretty good definitely because you'll see that

you'll they'll see that and be actively coming to NPR's and between that I think you just the current AIP editors would be able to make a decision if one they need more yet the editors and then it's if the person who's interested if it's then it can be a mixture of if they want to nominate if the EIP header is not a nominee if people want to apply I think we should allow both to be happening and maximize them the number of people healthy any more thought on the topic number one

my understanding is that we would be conducting a survey to collect some feedback from the EIP editors to kind of collect a criteria that we would be documenting as an expectation for people who are interested or is being nominated to be an EIP editor and they the triage thing for sorting out the issues is also very helpful but I am NOT very clear about the you know deformations that who can get that or how it can be done so and tirion foundation has over the EIP

repository has the whole organization is aetherium foundation and an EIP is is pretty much the editors got it so in that case anyone who is you know currently associated by the Tyrian foundation directly they can if they would want to opt for that they can do that and it would be good to have a list kept somewhere for reference for other people sort sort of I wouldn't say any one idea that the Aaron Foundation can do it was probably a small group of people that would be able to add things

to the EIP the pot I had owners to the EIP repository including the EIP editors are able to do that i its add a task to me to follow up on how to add to give people permissions for being a triage or yeah and that would be great yeah so I can follow up on that and possibly I could get the permissions to be allowed to do that and we can start that as a good first step right we've even noted down 40

action items mmm and then it's and if you could work on a on a a quick survey that we can send to the editors that includes things like how how much time would you do you spend being in doing editor work how much time do you think the role should take and things what it's experience or or we can brainstorm questions for a little bit if I'd be helpful yeah what might be some good criteria to indicate someone is qualified for that yeah that's a good

question for the editors all right so do we have any more question comments on this topic then move on to the next about building some criteria for what it means to be an editor and then what kind of work we expect theater to do but if they're not meeting those expectations would it become an editor we haven't really talked about what happens to them is editor listen append only list or is it something that with enough feedback people can be removed from the is awfully still another does it say that

on the ap1 did he remove himself offeree was was an editor I believe he's not anymore so he but I think he removed himself because of like unity fiasco that happened earlier but there I do think we need to think of something up like that and the best suggestion I've thought of would be to make it based on activity so if you're not active for a certain amount of time merging PRS basically that you just

automatically get removed or you're at least can be removed or you're here like flag for removal if you haven't done anything for say six months right we can add that as a criteria you know than expectations we are setting up expectations we can mention that ideas as well I have seen like the history of it like Luigi was also one of the key idea writers when he was the etherium he was very active but after he left he is also removed from the Richard's list so it can be he kept up to date depending upon like who are still present and active yeah I'd say a mechanism for one two that just passively removes editors

that aren't contributing so there's so there's an easy way to save someone's moved on to another project or a fav they were really not doing it theorem things or actively in the etherium developer space that probably doesn't make sense for them to be an editor but going through the politics of having or and the drama of having to figure out how to remove that person is kind of a lot so it and so one having a problem some kind of activity threshold of if you're this active do and it could be very low and then you're and then have a second process for if EIP editors feel like someone is misbehaving this hasn't

really happened for us but it definitely happened for the for the a theorem classic community which is a really interesting case study about what to do have a IP editors have a process for removing someone who's inappropriately using their editor capabilities I think say someone's doing something unethical I think it could be moved to a majority vote of the current editors if we just assume the majority will behave altruistically may even supermajority might be fine but some process like some

what the two processes are those kind of things that with two mechanisms for doing that I think the list will be will be maintaining pretty high quality so right like we have a good first step here conducting a survey from the IP editors trying to get some requirement and expectations set for future AIP editors including the process of onboarding them as well as at times when it is required that they should be removed from the list how we should be investing all those criteria so we are almost halfway finished meeting so I think we should time outs this and move

on to the next item I'd like to just ask Matt one more question on was there things you were thinking about specifically in that for a process for removing or having this shrinking editor list I mean by general thoughts right now is that we're trying to scale the IP header list of like eight to maybe teens or 20 tops so I don't think that too much processes needed is maybe a majority or supermajority would be fine depending on I don't know how often the IPA doesn't make me maybe that might be something to add as the responsibility

to get the editors to have a quarterly meeting and discuss things like that are people pulling their weight or not I don't know oh yeah that's a good idea should we should add that that'll be something I'd be happy to host yeah so attendance to the meetings is actually a good requirement a rank one one last thing on this if you guys

have any thoughts on things that need to be added as requirements the IPS or things that the validator should check if you could just that's just that to me directly to or add that as an issue on the EIP validator I'm trying to create a list of things that need to be implemented I have a document that I wrote out a few of them you know where that is pooja I think it's in Toulouse maybe it's linked there notes for previous meeting oh no and I'm they joined up today's agenda item number three oh yeah I'm just I'm sorry you can go ahead I just put in the notes man but

let's make me let's schedule something to go over that because I think it'd be a good call to have okay one last comment so I was thinking about this when I wrote the article for the roadmap say cuz we're currently still editing the process in the aps itself if we were to onboard people now they would be learning the old process and we're not to learn the new process very quickly so they'd be doing one thing and then during another it might be better to wait and so the new process is flushed out and matured before we have people learn how to become an editor and be on

board it was my first thought yeah that's a good point I think this will take some time to shape up properly so by the time we are into the new process this thing should be ready parallely I am hoping that it would be ready family and would not be a problem for a apiary just moreover the people that we are trying to consider here as an editor are actively involved so it would be a good transition for them also to learn about the processes I mean that's just my top my cap for example would be totally fine being able

to handle that Matt would be totally fine being able to handle that the the the there's new statuses I think are getting pretty solid and those are the I think the biggest ones but it yeah it would be good to have some of that be settled before we're really pushing this that's a good point so thanks for bringing that up that's it so moving on the next item is the separation of EAP process and the heart for coordination we did some progress in previous

meetings about separating it like we are now having clarity on the EIP process as I add these statuses that we should be referring in the new process James would you like to take it over and let us know about how we would like to take care of heartful coordination and how would we want to set it as a separate process so the first step of separating it would be making the new officially accepting into e IP one the new statuses and the transitions between them and then a lot of work on the IP repository changing those changing the statuses for the EIP

so i currently exist for updates on the heart for coordination prog process we on the awkward outside there's we've taken a hiatus from talking about Berlin or from working on Berlin and it's focused on working on client diversity and handling some of the pressures on client developers and what our strategies can do to help prevent avoid burnout and just put client developers in the better mind space especially ones that have majority client share and so the process that we've gotten to so far is to have

things get into the eligible for inclusion and that gets applied that is done on the record I have calls and people apply very ip's and then they're discussed and then through rough consensus that you moved into that bucket and then the next stage we've talked about as having them be implemented into some kind of Yolo test net which means that all the clients have to build a some implementation of it doesn't mean that it's finalized it doesn't mean it's in the state that will go into main net but it's at least in the state where they want to see what it's like to run the EIP in some in a

real world sort of saying and on the test net and then that we're I'm kind of waiting to see what happens next because I don't want to prescribe the process I want to let the process evolve and to a murder have a lot of emergent properties that showed up and so progress on what happens next after that I think will resume when we restart talking about Berlin but then recording those steps and then defining them a little bit better is the process for like the first couple steps that I've

been more fleshed out need to be documented well and decided if they go into EIP one or if they go into a separate VIP and that's the update for the status of those two the next steps both of them I was there any questions or things about then I read all off a lot a lot of information there I have one question on may be concerned so duplicity IP one it talks about EAP process that includes both both the EAP process as well as the heartful process because it's one it's mush together so if if say for example in future we would like to you know kind of update the EAP

one with the separation of this process what do you think about documenting it in the way of like two separate process we define it clearly and then do it the way we have seen it for AIP process like I found it quite effective and very easy for people to grasp that like in a pictorial representation so how do you feel about having this thing laid out for heart for coordination as well and when we are ready with those plus the status the term for the status and then we go ahead and update it to 81 are you are you saying to update the IP one with the hard work for the new part for coordination rules and at the same time that you do that the status updates yes

I was wondering like if we do all these if we bring all these three three things together and then go ahead and update here p1 it would add you know clarity to people to understand to relate you know otherwise I'm worried that people may go blank okay fine this is the AP process I get that part and these are the terms that is specified for EIT statuses but what about hard phone because it is missing it is it was earlier but now it is missing so just suggesting that if we can get all these three things together and then push it but I don't yet know if the preference is for it to be in the IP one or to have its own IP

I mean the hard for coordination side or the network upgrade path pipeline and the way of tracking it i1 is it's not totally finished so waiting I wouldn't want to wait to add the statuses to update the standardization process and statuses I wouldn't want to wait for the network upgrade process to be fully specified because that will take an unknown unknown amount of time okay so if you're not very sure about like it

both have to be because I was thinking of a document to be documented and at this time we can see EAP 1 as the place of documentation of every processes related to e IP but if we are considering de heartful process to be a network network a great process into some other separate documents I think I clearly understand what you mean by going ahead with their statuses I think there's nothing wrong in opening a new ap for those I saying as you can link to it in the IP one he doesn't have to be included directly I mean it doesn't have to be excluded entirely yeah that's a good point

and we do have a project board that uh 4e IP IPs so it's a good thing to also link to in the IP so yeah that makes sense any ones have thoughts about if it should go in EAP one or start as an as its own the IP and then figure out what happens that for that so we're talking about the Hartford coordination process right yes well my initial thought is like we should have

both of them at EAP one but if people have like strong recommendation of keeping it separate or they network upgrade process separately and I think that can be referred any IP when I'm on finite level so no reservations I kind of find it a little strange that Yankee one has this special status that allows it's it's pretty at least helpful for

the EIP IP process and the VAP one has that status for the for the EIP not the IP IP the EFI list having that be something that's updatable without needing to make changes to the numbering makes a lot of sense like because it's being as a registry I guess like why a list of the IPS that are eligible for inclusion why can we not generate this base on their statuses look why do we need to haven't yet Pete it's updated as a tracker I feel like this is something that could be built on top of the list

of the Yankees mm-hmm so if it was through statuses than where we're connecting again the network upgrade process and an EIP standardization process so the have you seen the new list of VIP statuses so I find this suggestion quite useful like we would be looking for some kind of connected between these two processes since we decided to separate it so efi is maybe a good one yeah and

so from just the way we've done it so far it's been helpful because it comes someone comes to meeting it says I want to see IP to be EFI and then we change then we add it to the list of current EF ie IPS and that process has been has worked pretty smoothly making the stair if the statuses include information about its inclusion on in a hard fork or unto maintenance and we start connecting the worlds again that we're trying to separate so what's the status and e IP that's that's been considered as I know

EFI isn't any IP status it's a status for Harper carnation which isn't a process for eg IP so EFI is only operable to Cori IPS who are into consideration for hard work but these traps usually is you my understanding but it could be any a could really be any stage if something was in a final standard stage and then they wanted to

bring it to EFI they totally good so there isn't a one status that is a requirement to be a so what we're trying to do is externalize the decision-making so it's not part of like drafting GIPS itself what a piece are included so the EAP proposed to have options for inclusion in so hard fork that's separate from any political or controversial just any any political position just to have it exist and be formalized and then the Harper

creation process can deal with the decision making on whether in the IP should be implemented not really like what or how it is so what is the argument against having whatever name but a status that says EFI which basically just a noting that it's in a pretty stable place if people think it could be including a hard board at some point but it's not yeah so one thing was if I was only applicable to a few hippies it wouldn't be applicable to ERC's for example so we'd be creating a status so like the new statuses right now applied to every single a pea if we were to

create a unique status it would it would basically it wouldn't apply to every single hippie it would create confusion and increased complexity of the current statuses and they another example of where it would show where it would have shown up historically is prog pal could have been put into a final stage as and this is what the proposal is but not so it could be final as far as the standard but it doesn't need to be marked as being in eligible for inclusion so that's why knowing the new statuses does

not mean it's been implemented in a hard board no it means it's the standard it is that the state of the art this is the proposal and any changes to it that aren't that are beyond fixing typos and making things clear should be done as an UI yekke so like for example like in just like political systems in the process for drafting bills and then you have a separate process for including them into law that make sense let me share let me share my screen and I can

oh can you make it so I can share my screen forget or whoever's host actually I'm not sure today is any host because I love in the future oh that's okay I'll just link this here again I have the in the in here in the hack MD I meant to send this earlier to in the hack in the link that's in the chat there if you scroll down the EIP status definition three two person to the top you'll see two diagrams the top one is the one

we've settled on and at any any point in the draft review last call final stage something could new something could apply to be included for a hard work and then that would be considered in some other kind of flow but this this flow works for all therefore the IP types and that's that's nice and it it's it's clearer or at least separated as standard the EIP standardization process

and not a what's gonna go into maintenance or not like another example of where this has come up is great VIP on static jumps I believe it's called because it's in EFI but the current standard is not likely the one that will go into maintenance and so either but but the proposal that Greg had could very easily go into a final stage and say this is this is the proposal that Greg does then it can be determined separately if that's the standard that

that wants to be implemented because there's a few other restrictions that the that the core developers are considering adding up like above and beyond Greg's EIP but I mean I noticed that stuff gets kind of gets stuck on the what it will look like when it's connected to what it's going to go on to maintenance and then it bogs a lot of these things down I mean it's not a lot about this so I'll just think about it on my own a little

bit yeah well guy and I I appreciate the questions than their and the critical thinking on it so please keep keep them coming if we can't adequately defend why we've made decisions that we need to re really think enough I'm sorry about that screen sharing issue maybe because nobody is hosts here it's not allowing any of us to do that but next time I'll be sure to check into it before the meeting one final comment about that I think so

right now currently the hard work meta VIP visits an LM EAP service for me everyone and if I track your is its own EAP so verse 21 so it looks like all our for coordination II IPS aren't there an EAP so that's more another reason why I'm inclined to keep it in Sony ap the Harper creation process are you saying that we should merge all those different standards so the new hard for creation process I think we should create its own EAP and then when we update it we can

supersede it but for the statuses the new statuses I think we should make a PR for EAP one yeah I think it would make sense I remember this conversation in one of the previous meetings that we requested that everyone should not be updated so frequently and this heartful process historically the process has changed so it makes sense that we just add a link to the AIP in which this upgrade process network upgrade process is explained and added to EAP one instead of half having it added directly to VIP one any more

question comments on this topic we are almost at the another meeting I do Edd's in your comment on I think it would be good to have the the EIP written about our and maybe it was you Pooja but have it the EIP written for the network coordination the network upgrade process before we do the EIP one merged for statuses that actually makes more sense so the next step is actually making any IP for documenting then the network upgrade status as it stands right yeah that's actually better I'm glad we didn't do it the other way now

thinking about it okay so we can add it as an action item for now and let's see in the next meeting if we are done with that then even and then people can go ahead and create the PL for operating a p1 yep okay we have very few minutes left switch topic they would like to pick up clearly I mean like quickly there is one emergency communication documenter I am not sure William are you on the call yeah I'm here if you can quickly walk us through what is it about I mean this was discussed in the previous meeting and if you have any

update on it okay I know I'm up against time so I'll try and keep this as brief as possible I also was not by the last meeting so I don't know it was discussed there but the idea of trying to raise an image and emergency comms team was raised in the cat herders so I responded to that in the meantime what pooja's arranged are a little bit of a team what I've been working on is trying to basically assemble a document that both defines what a state of emergency is for the etherium protocol platform not even exactly sure what terminology to use and what would be done in such a case I've

also been giving a bit of thought about to how a comms team would work this is like really really the early stages I tried doing a bit of Twitter polling also about what people think an emergency is as of right now have come up with really - I think sort of sort of overarching definitions that it's either that there's something that renders the network inaccessible the easiest example of that would be a DDoS attack or something that compromises the integrity of transactions being recorded on the network past present or future those are both very general but there's a lot of things that you can sort of get into both of those or eat either or both of those so I guess the question is basically first of all I'm not sure that

this is an e IP IP thing I don't know how much this is actually related to the IP process if we would need to draft an e IP about it states of emergency or maybe what the right protocol is in the state of emergency I'd also be interested in hearing from the EIA p IP team what they would want out of an initiative like this even if that means sort of broadening the scope to something else and just general feedback so uh this this thing was discussed in the previous meeting saying that it makes sense that there should be a group

who would be proactive about the kind of emergency situation that may come up during the network upgrade or otherwise so they picked it up from there although I know that catheters have already been doing it unlisted in this and agenda this time if people would like to see it again we can bring it back as you mentioned that may be in the form of a IP or something else but if not and I'm happy to keep it off the agenda and continue the discussion with the cat hoodoos what a detox here I have to think more about it being a VIP or not it would fit as an informational yeah I'd be right yeah my concern here is

like this emergency context and this document and the checklist that we are talking about I am a little conservative about sharing it with too many people around right so I mean this document should be for the group of people who who are actively taking responsibility of it or maybe reaching out to the stakeholders at the time of emergency I'm not sure how public it should be because all the EIP is even in the informational format it is going to be quite public so I think that there should be an avenue for the public to initiate or get in contact with those who can do more so I would as well as we don't we're not listing out all of the

people in the information we IP like if you're if you document the process and maybe a few Shepards of people to contact if you want to know more about it who then but I mean in other words a IP should be processed a contact list wouldn't be part of an EIP especially because that's not something that's going to be set in stone and will mutate with time like the actual like what we'd be looking for internet in an EIP would be some sort of codification of process but not the actual specific contacts I mean would probably Feist use a word major stakeholder major mining groups or something like that instead of actually providing contact information yeah yeah it would make sense to act checklists

kind of think that people may refer at times when such situation emerges yeah it makes sense to keep it in the form of that information if we are not sharing more information and maybe adding some contact a way to contact people who are actually involved with this group so it sounds like this probably should be pulled off the EIP IEP agenda and then maybe it's such a time that we're ready to - what's it called any IP to submit an EIP or an informational EIP so then maybe then it would come back again as an item does that sound about right sounds good to me yeah I'd also ask some editors about what they think absolutely

I'd recommend that everything else sounds good you're almost time but I want to just quickly share a couple of things here we have created the CIP IP project food the link is available in the agenda and if we can go ahead and look and check it out how does it look I would love to have feedback and I'm sorry it's so good I love it oh thank you so yeah we would like to keep it up to date the tasks that we are completing we would keep it completed and would try to

link it up there so people can go back and see what all we have achieve that that's true I think that would be a good informational say a sharing platform to attract more people to be a part of this meeting who cares about the network security and improvement protocol and aetherium there was funny last thing I just quickly wanted to share about the in the previous call way we shared the mutation a great post-mortem but the thing that we did not share was the generic template I'm sharing the link in the chat and people can give and look to it and if they have any feedback comment for the Beatles and listen all about it and I'm not sure if

we have more time to discuss anything else but if people want to come about something easy yeah looks good to me okay yeah please it looks good to me but I'm biased yeah yeah we would like to have more feedback

on it from people and maybe again we were stuck at this point and we discussed in the cat hood or that it should be you know some kind of discussion forum for kind of a IPS or maybe you know report if you would want to say it as like as a cement report for any upgrade I'm planning to open admission post about it I haven't done it I said nokju on my part I'll do that you might be might be good to open a PR and then change the EAP number right yeah that's a good suggestion then change the file name to the EAP and then

the EAP number yes but yes we can do that and I'm also sure I avoid shared the link of the previous post-mortem update that we shared in the previous meeting about the nucleation so I have added a missing post Foundation and yes we are ready to share it with the alcohol deaths in any of the meeting station meetings when Berlin is back up or when we are talking about afraid so yeah that's all from from the agenda that we can cover today anything else

anybody would want to share or okay I think that movie are good to go today thank you everyone for joining this meeting today see you guys in two week the next meeting is on July 30th think okay thanks everyone have a great day