EIPIP Meeting 43

Transcript

so welcome to eipip meeting 43 i'm going to share agenda in the chat here the first item on the agenda listed here is um rename review period end to last call end or last call deadline so this has been reported by um asic i have added the issue uh for reference um generally it makes sense like now that we have review as a status not as just the last call review period so um we try to add the end review period for the last call not for the status review but yeah looking for general opinion so

that it can be used as a standard field from here on kind of me we are fine with the change so there are two options which one is here so i would have it be like last call review period or he had a better name for that but basically just change the name to better signify what we actually mean by it right so the two options are [Music] yeah please go ahead i have a very very weak preference for last call and but i don't actually care between two options

yeah i will all right so uh maybe closer to the earlier nomenclature like it was review period and so maybe we can take it for last call end or the yeah all right uh so this might need to be added in like template eip template and eip1 and obviously we will add the general consensus here to that issue so that issue can be closed cool quick so the next one is uh discuss qualification for being on

active editors list so there are multiple agenda items suggested by micah to be added on the call today and this is the first one so we have listed some of the qualification i suppose back in february when we were trying to document what it takes to become an eap editor that was just for inviting more participation from the community um but it looks like it's time to revisit and maybe to update that easy one so over to you micah for your suggestions or comment for this topic so the reason this came up was um the editors list up until very recently included a large number of people that didn't actually do any editing i think

some of them were there just included just because when the ap process was created they happen to be around um and those people aren't even around anymore some of them were active editors for a while but are no longer active editors some of them are people that helped put the vip process eap process together but haven't done active editing and so the idea is is that if we have a list of editors it feels like the primary purpose should be to serve users and when users go looking for editors they should find a list of people that are actually editors like people who are actually actively involved in the process and they can talk to and get feedback from and and also importantly names they should look out for on their pr's so like

here's the people who you know have some some i give you if you get a pr review from random person which we actually get quite a few spam pr reviews um you can ignore but if you get an ap a pr review from an editor that kind of holds a little bit more weight so the idea is is to have that list be include all the people who are actively editing but at the same time not be and at the same time not be too long because if it gets too long then it turns into a list of you know 100 people and that's not a useful list and so we wanted to be concise and accurate and also by keeping the list short it makes it more obvious that we are understaffed like when there's 10 editors in a list

it looks like we've got plenty of people we don't need help and there's three editors in the list it's more obvious that we very much need help so um the question then is is what is the process for removing people from that list and i'm going to try to provide since greg's not here i'm going to try to provide his arguments we've been discussing this a little bit i'm probably not the best person because i'm against him on this but i'll do my best to represent him i think what he his belief is is that anyone who is interested in being an editor um continuing to be an editor and continuing to be on the list should be allowed to remain on that list and i think the idea is is that

these are people that have expressed an interest and even if they don't have time right now they they have good intentions and maybe they do help out here and there like maybe someone sends them a dm or something or mentions them they will show up and help but they're not actively editing um and so the question just comes down to you know do people get once you're an editor always an editor or once you're an editor you can lose that status or more importantly lose like that slot on the list at some point yeah [Music] it's almost like you want to part-time that you have like full-time part-time than like

you know crazy yeah like i said that yeah my goal was to list is primary for users and yeah i feel like the more complicated list is the harder it is for users to make actual use of it yeah yeah yeah i'm not sure it's actually good because all the editors are kind of part-time by definition right like yeah i don't think anyone works 40 hours a week so i not sure how to phrase this better it's not going to be well phrased but like is this like a process problem or like a people problem um because i i suspect i know i've talked with uh vitalik and i like explained to him and he was kind of fine being taken off the list um

the active editor list right now would be basically mica like client and maybe exec is that right yeah um like if we sort of those that would be this right order as well i think in terms of yeah yeah yeah right right yeah okay um and then so it's like if we're sorting it's like micah like client axic and then greg kind of who's like been worked on some of his vips but i don't think uh he's like worked on like he's he's helped edit any eips that were not his is that correct like in the say like last year or whatever like recent past i do not remember his name coming up on

as an editor like helping people um he has indicated uh to me that he has helped people out with eap authoring in the past i don't have much more context than that um he has not had an active role in like right reviewing eips and approving them and pushing through the process that that piece at least nothing invisible i could just say yeah yeah i attempt so i tend to agree with you that like there's a lot of value in signaling who are the actual editors and maybe like a very new threshold for that is like you know they've like commented on like at least one eip in the past two months or something like

i'm like we probably want like to be somewhat relaxed with like what the threshold is but like yeah i i do think there's value in having like a clear delineation of like these are eip edited like these are people that you can ping and expect a response on your eip pr within a week right like maybe that should actually be kind of the you kind of flip it and say what should the user reasonably expect right like and it's not going it's not necessarily a guarantee that it happens every time but like if i were submitting an eep and i'd look at that list i kind of hope that if i pay

you know somebody on that list they would get back to me sometime during that route um right i feel like a reason very reasonable qualification is to attend the eipip meeting meeting every couple months just so that there's like a synchronous moment to just talk to each other right right like i'm not saying come to every meeting but at like least one every eight weeks or you know 12 weeks or something that way there's some sort of cadence of talking to that person in a secret manner yeah i think that's fair it's like you know can they be pinged on github but can they be expected to show up once a quarter to one of these meetings that seems like a very low bar

um yeah and that's also something we can ask greg right like do you want basically do you want to be paying by random people on their eips and to have like a soft expectation that like you'll deal with these pains um and do you want to apparently currently all the editors are pinged by the bot every time uh eip is put up right to for review yeah so so we we are getting paid we know we're getting ping he's getting pinged and he's not showing up neither was any of the other people who removed from list right yeah same thing i think alex also rarely shows up to the pings i think he has them ignored

um yeah so he just commented on mine wolf though because it's like everything is a pain yeah and i do feel i don't know my perspective of like somebody who's like loosely involved to this from the outside is like alex is he's not like as involved as the two of you obviously but like he is somewhat involved he just commented on my pr and i think like he does show up when like there's important discussions so i think he would fit this news you know and i suspect if we ask them to come to one of these meetings per quarter or something he like he would sure um especially if there was a reason for him to be here like

rather than just like checking that he actually showed up but yeah um yeah i think uh having like uh this kind of synchronous meetings definitely add value to whatever is being done asynchronously and uh meeting once a quarter is like the lowest minimum bar that we can say um but yeah i mean if not visiting here regularly not bi-weekly at least getting some comments on other pull requests makes sense and that's not been observed in case of greg i mean i i didn't remember anything um definitely in the past one year i can

see i was looking into that and then exit he showed up and he responds to that so yeah so what's the next step um so greg is already removed from the list no he is still okay yeah he doesn't have like merge access to the there was something he was he was complaining about being removed from something yeah so there's yeah there's there's two two separate issues one is who are who's classified as editors and two is who has right access to the repo um i believe the ops team was doing i i don't know but i'm guessing the ops team was just doing general cleanup and removing people who that's what you're supposed to do you

know as good security practice you clean up people who don't need access anymore and i think they just cleaned up a bunch of people and that included uh greg again i'm guessing speculating here but if i was a security ops team that's exactly what i would do um so yeah so two separate issues one can be an editor and not be have right access three but you don't need right access to be an editor at all yeah like like that for the longest time oh well i mean i don't think i have right access anymore i think i realized this yesterday while we were doing this like eap editing session and i was like wow i'm just out here larping as an editor i don't even i can't even write this repo

yeah i'm working on that i mean i think again uh to um jamie for this uh for getting the access uh i don't know i may not write or whatever is needed but i'm waiting for his response maybe tim if you can give him a little nudge and get this thing through would be helpful sure request yeah that's stuck because we do not have it's requested by micah and now we need another editor to merge it because it cannot be like okay uh let me see if i can do something about this yeah so like clients you basically need to be uh have right access to the ei piece repo that would fix that right

it would be great to have admin access so i can override the bot in this oh okay scenarios you need admin access for that i think so i don't know if it's right or admin but i thought just right access okay i've never been able to override the bots and i just assumed i had right access so maybe i've been confused um well let me let me look does your github handle have an s at the end uh no just like client no you're you're you're right sorry you you do have right access you do not have admin access i thought right actually i do have writers right yeah apparently i can make a new admin

excellent then just do it i mean i mean i have i i have tried to avoid this because it's not like i don't want to overstep my bounds like if maybe there's a reason that the operations team has not given matt in the devops ef team's backlog that says add like client as an admin they'll probably ping me and ask me why do you think my client should be an admin i'll tell them that i think he's a very you know active contributor to each rico and it's blocking things out he's not an admin and they'll tell you well we did a background check on my client and uh i would really rather not give him i'm not doing a background check on on

my client just for reference i'm sharing a pull request number four three nine zero here so this has been stuck because i mean we were looking into uh proposals uh yesterday uh proposals and pulled requests yesterday in the eip uh editor's meeting and we they found that because this is done by micah it needs to be merged by light client and he cannot do that with the access yeah if someone needs a reference this could be a reference why he needs access it's fine condition of the repository yeah i i'm fine uh taking any backlash that comes from adding matt

as an eip admin i think i'd rather wait for the ops team because i'm seeing some ruby in his code history and that just makes me really uncomfortable wow wow you've run a scout on his wallet address right yeah yeah he said some things on social media [Laughter] that's right i just i think we should make sure we let the security team do their job before i add anybody okay but yeah

okay so let's add let's add that and yeah yeah and coming back to just just to have a summary of it so the note taker can actually document this and we can refer it whenever it is required for what it takes to be an active uh to be in the list of activities list if someone can summarize it for that's b micah matt or alex so i guess what i understood is you you expect the person to respond to respond to pings from the bot at a reasonable you know with a reasonable delay um and to show up to these meetings say once a quarter

um yeah and i think it's not good no that's it i think to clarify a little more while also remaining vague i'm not a huge fan of like really strict like rules because then you send up with people rules lawyering like oh i i post my one comment i get to keep my access um i would say that um you are actively responding to random like uh people people looking for editor editorial support on the aps repo at some regular interval that is you know on the order of months um so so not just like oh i review my

friends pr's like we have had editors in the past who have you know they show up but they only show up and edit you know pr's by their friends or by them um and we really want editors to be people that are helping everybody i i'm this is part of my soap box that i'll get to later on the agenda um but i don't like the idea of giving special treatment to prominent figures within the community so like when vitalik opens a pr he's got like four editors jumping on to review it because the problem there is it means every time metallic doesn't think there's a problem like the dog thinks that the iep process is working fine because for him it always works fine and you see this in really corrupt governments where like

some government official will go through a process and they're like everything's fine but like regular people it sucks like it's horrible the reason it's fine for those people other people is because they have special treatment and so i really want to avoid giving special treatment and so that's why i want to specify that if you're an editor that means you're editing for everybody you're helping all the people who want to participate in this eip process you're not just helping you know a couple of friends that will you know vote for you when it comes time to vote for who the editors are or whatever it is i think that's reasonable uh yeah yeah yeah all right do we think that this is something that needs to be maybe added somewhere even in eap one i mean i already maintained something uh

separate in a hackmd file where we are trying to add all the coin cases or special instructions that cannot be added to eip1 but is it worth adding to eip1 that would be helpful for people i don't think i don't i don't think so the reason i say that is because i think that it's best if we try to keep ei eip1 focused on what users need to do to create eips and not distracted by like the behind the scenes bureaucracy of the editorial process yeah that makes sense at least we have it somewhere documented wherever needed we can point it to the right place sounds good so i think we can now move on to the

next item unless anyone has any final comment on this particular okay so while we are discussing this um i would like to skip the number three and come to number four because both are relevant agree on who gets mentioned in the eips um so my guy has created this pull request to uh like who should get mentioned and that i mean at least that should be based on the present eip editors list i don't know why this has stopped and anyone has any it says uh i just wanted to bring it up with people um before we merge that currently it's late client and alex get

mentioned for everything and micah gets mentioned for core let's say everyone okay with that no one's got opposition or wants something different yeah it sounds fair because uh uh uh you have been um vocal about it that you want to review only core proposals so it sounds fair and rest of the two editors who are there maybe get paid for every sort of proposal yeah and i don't care that people removing themselves like matt decides he doesn't want to get pinged for core i'm totally fine with that okay uh so this needs to be merged i see

that this has been uh approved by all the editors so so bot can do that or any of you can do that one i was just waiting for uh agreement that's all all right sounds fair moving on to the next item let's discuss registry eips to what and what to call them uh this issue is created by nate johnson i see some discussion between micah and nick so i'll let maka explain to this so the tl dr is it'd be nice if there's a way to

have lists of things in standard repo so like when you create a standard for thing you could then have a a list a great example is transaction types right we've got three transaction types now going on four or five in the pipe and we just it'd be nice if there's a place that we can record all these numbers in one place so a list the problem with the the traditional erps is that they are immutable which means you cannot change them once they are final and so following the normal process you would not be able to actually maintain this list the after some discussion and thinking with nick my recommendation and it sounds like his as well is to have some new type of

standard or file or whatever that's maybe in this repository maybe in another um i think he he's lobbies for another and i'm fine with that where it is only and the author of the registry it's up to them to include very clear instructions as to what is necessary to get included in the list and the idea behind this is we want to maintain censorship resistance within our process as much as possible and so we don't want to just be like oh bob runs this list and then when bob disappears the list doesn't doesn't get maintained or we have you know fights over who gets rights to access ideas is someone can draft a new registry and as part of that process they would

say anyone can get added to this as long as they meet these requirements like if you achieve you know this this this and this then you can get added and then the eap editors or registry editors would do the job just making sure that when someone submits a pr to add themselves to a list they'd include an argument for why they meet the requirements and then they would say yep you check all those boxes so we will add your line to the list like yep you you check all the boxes for having a new transaction type so we'll add you to the new transaction type list any thoughts and comments like lantern no

stronger opinions i see light length uh unmuted but unfortunately we are not able to hear anything from his and at least i'm not able to go i'm just on my phone so i'm just not muting it sounds like a good idea though okay i'll take that to mean that matt would like to head up this project and be i mean goddammit so anything from like

the editor's sides need to be done or is it something that that can be suggested to nick johnson and he can pursue the thing is we need someone who wants to actually like shepherd this process i think until we have that we can't really move forward at all like we need someone who's interested enough and willing to put in the time to be like the first editor or equivalent um i don't know if that's nick nick might we might have created the issue because he specifically is hoping someone else will take it take up the torch that is not me do not have the time okay in that case maybe we can uh spread the news and we'll see if we can find someone to actually champion

this idea or convert it into a proposal and then come back to submit a proposal formal proposal for that all right so i mean if if this sounds reasonable we can probably move on to the next issue and let's let's keep that issue open for some time and so we can refer people to uh to a particular issue and see if they are willing to champion this idea moving on to the

next item listed today is uh eap file name error problem for new submission so this issue is created by uh submitted by an author an eip author who probably is documenting the proposal for the first time and is looking for some help um i'm not sure this is for alita maybe to um i believe that was just a bug report and so it's filed away elita we'll hopefully handle it at some point all right yeah thank you then we can skip this item the next item is eap inside so we have shared this uh report for october 122

eips have been moved to stagnant five new proposals were added as draft and two eips are moved to review one eip resurrected from stagnant that's for the octopus and in november so far there is only one proposal which has been added as a uh draft that is eip 4396 time aware base the calculation so that's on the eip status reporting i have one question for alita um i wanted to check what happens to um move to statement pull request that is created by bond and if someone respond to that full request when is the next

time that is reviewed or considered will it be open for next six months so the only way to like get yeah i mean the only way to like prevent the bot from reopening a pull request against it is to actually push a change to a file um either that or you have a pull request open against that file um that's yeah if you just leave a comment on the on the pull request nothing will happen yeah so my question here is like suppose bot created a pull request to move uh an eip2 stagnant and someone

responded to that so just as a response to that response part may not move it to stagnant the question here is when it will be reviewed next after the six months well no the i guess what i'm trying to say is uh if a person just are you saying like like they leave a comment on the pull request right i mean it is nothing related to changing any status or something just a simple comment okay so yeah in that case then it would it would just be merged so like it wouldn't it wouldn't prevent the vip from being marcus stagnant we can i can add that feature but no that's

not how it currently works all right so there was this one specific case that i identified it was for eip200 which was marked for stagnant and it was my simple comment that it should be like move to withdrawn i i found that that hasn't been merged as a stagnant so i was wondering like what would be the next review period or would it simply be merged because there is nothing from the author's side um if that's i think i saw your comment it's going to be merged uh it says the the pull requests are open for two weeks and then they're merged unless uh a change is made to the file

and or um the pull requests a pull request is opened notably right now actually that feature doesn't really work because um it checked to merge uh open pr's for two weeks let's actually just go back i i don't over complicate this um so the answer to your question it's going to be immersion week to move into stagnant unless the pr is opened or um unless a change is made of that file all right so i i see here this uh i mean this pull request was opened about 18 days ago and there was just this one comment so if i understand that

correctly uh if there is any comment but no new pull request the bot will merge it as a stagnant so i think maybe this is a bit of a false positive i would suspect that um first off i think maybe create an issue in the ethbot repo uh about this specific pull request that you're talking about and then i can investigate what's going on with it uh the the behavior that you're describing is not something intended i believe the issue is um somehow it added the wrong label i should have had the stale label and it

instead added a big number so it looks like just a bug and there's currently three issues in there with that weird label so i think we some bug needs to be fixed the large number is the bot um id id so i was supposed to tag them with that number well and that's like the idea is that the bot the pull request and then it labels it with that to make sure that you know it's easy and it's guaranteed that um any pull request with that label has um it's from the bot anyway i can look into it and try to figure out what's going on uh but so i think the best thing to do

here is just create a issue and eat spot and uh i can take it from there sounds good i'll create an issue there all right moving on the last item listed here is review actions from the previous meetings and first one is plan a peep any session with the sam wilson they did it yesterday uh i will probably release that recording next monday updating ap one to mark stagnant as another terminal state i'm not sure if this has been addressed i did not make any pull request on my end might have to check if anyone else

did if not then i will try to create the pull request this week for it run a bot for issues in eib github i have seen the bot activated that's correct it's correct all right thank you so uh uh the course of action is very much similar to the pull request right it will first mark it for sale and then eventually closed right yeah that's correct thank you the last action item listed here is update pr to update the list of eip authors in eip1 so we have made some changes we have added the emeritus

ep editors there but it looks like from today's discussion that this list might need to be updated further so maybe uh we can revisit the ap list after a couple of weeks and see if we need to make further changes to it well that's all from the agenda item i suppose so you you left off my last one i'm guessing because you assumed i wasn't being serious uh but i actually would like to uh to just tell share with everybody and the two people who actually watched the recordings of this call

why i am such a dick about eips because i know i am like i know what it what my actions look like from the outside and i've explained this to people many times in eips but the message doesn't seem to get out there so the gist of it is is that currently i give people a hard time and tell them hey this is the process follow the process you know we have these rules and they don't like the rules but we stick to i stick to the rules no matter who they are and i frequently get people frustrated i think because they are um people of notoriety within the ethereum community and they are obviously not bad actors they're not trolls like they're not the people who are supposed to be protecting

ethereum eip process from and so they feel like it would be reasonable and this is reasonable to just let them you know put their stuff in there whatever that is be it external links be it extra sections in the um eip be it skipping certain steps in the process like all these things are things people request of me as an editor and the reason i say no to all of them is twofold one it's because we are very understaffed right now and the processes we have in place are largely there because they're incredibly simple to implement

these processes are like no external links that's really easy to implement if i see an external link i just say no like it takes me two seconds however if the process is you know external links that are likely to 404 or extra links from people that haven't authored a bunch of vips before now all of a sudden the process becomes much harder to implement it's no longer simple for me to just say no i now have to look at who the author is look at where the link goes try to evaluate that link and then on top of that what this leads to is and i actually do get this a lot this is not just me making stuff up when i approve a pr that allows a link through and then i disapprove someone else that person i disapproved will say but you let so and

so through and now i need to have a very long discussion with the second person explaining why the why link a is okay but link b is not okay or why section from this guy's eap is okay but the section in their ap is not okay and so um that is one of the reasons why i'm a dick on the ips and why i just make everybody follow this silly bureaucratic process um because we are very understaffed and the bureaucratic pro the process is in place to make sure that the little staff we have can actually get things done if people want the rules to change the number one thing you can do is become an iep eip editor or recommend some ip editors if we had more staff we

could make more wishy-washy decisions we'd have fuzzier rules we wouldn't we could have time to explain to users why you know link a is good but link b is bad but at the moment we don't have that we have me and matt and sometimes alex and so um so yeah so that's that's one of the reasons the other reason is and this is kind of tangent sort of related there are people who are notorious within the ethereum ecosystem you know vitalik being the obvious one um though i don't actually get this problem from him but just as an example and then there are people who are not so who have never shown up maybe they created a new github account anonymously and so i i have no idea who they are and both these people are submitting eips and there is a desire for the people who

are notorious to get their eip pushed through a little quicker than everybody else like they want um they don't want to follow the process they don't want to go through the steps they're they're they're frustrated they're like why can't you let this through like you know who i am i'm not like this isn't spam obviously etc and for those people the reason specifically i do not push them through and in fact i put them at the like whatever place in line they show up at that's where they get they don't get special treatment and the reason for that is as i mentioned earlier i really want everybody who is in positions within the ethereum ecosystem to recognize how understaffed we are like as i said before if the people who are in positions that they can actually have a voice they can you know tweet to

people and people actually hear it they can solicit for assistance i want those people to understand how painful it is for everybody else like when you're that random dude off the internet who doesn't have you know friends in the right places and it takes you three weeks or a month or in my case several years ago like i had an eip that was that sat for over a year waiting for an editor to review them when you're those people like you don't know who to reach out to you you don't you don't have a better system and so i want the people who have have a voice to recognize how painful this process is and hopefully they can then use that voice they have to solicit additional assistance and additional help and get more people like working on this so everybody cannot suffer i don't want to

just be like okay i'm going to help so and so because they're important or they're special and i'm going to ignore all these other people so that is why mike is a dick the short version i just want to everybody to know that it's not just because i derive pleasure from being a dick though i do but that is not the reason in this case here here i don't know that certain statement that's great that's right i mean i would agree here but you have been a hero here because um many things that have that we have changed in the past it's because you like climbed uh hudson for some time and people like you they

showed up and tried to make a decision and then we the catholics tried to document them formally and share it with the rest of the community that this is the process there was always uh like a flow but there was no defined line what to follow what not to follow home to reach and now that cat headers are there we have seen people reaching out to us on the catholic discord where we send it to again to the eip editors and we try to help and suggest them what is the right process so this would not be uh i mean we would we would not be at the place where we are right now if that's not because of you light line and hudson and other people who actually

became richard and helped us define this process so thank you for all the work you have done here on that note do we have any uh potential people interested in being editors i mean i don't have enough time but i'm happy to help out at some point yeah i wonder if yeah the one we need many people with time i wonder how we can like advertise this better it seems maybe we did like a pin post on these magicians or something you know same like vip editors needed um because it seems like it's hard because if you make it like

too open of like a uh too open of like a process you might you probably get people who like um don't add a lot of value and actually stuck time away from like mike and math which is not great um so i'm not sure like what's the right place and it feels like the people who are aware that there's uh editors lacking or basically the people in the ether indeed discord and and most of those people um most most of them have most of their people yeah they have jobs and they're also kind of yeah they've they've considered doing this and they've chosen basically um so i i i'm not sure like what's the what's the sweet spot um

and yeah there's a question about funding i think we've had a bit of funding and like if that was the main if that's the main blocker i'm sure we can get the funding um the the part that's hard is it's kind of a very part-time thing so it's not sure like what's the best model to fund this but maybe we can tailor that to whoever the person is um yeah so just to provide uh some update here this um eap editors internship meeting that we do by weekly we have one uh resources from cat hardest of course and he's under trading and uh he seems to be like um i have seen

william and likeline kind of matching him and training him and maybe we can have him on formal editing but right now he's in like very early stages of it so it's trying to understand how the process work and what would be uh you know the right place or the right context to add comments which can add value in at least drafting the proposal so yeah i think uh adding it as a pen message to fellowship of a magician would definitely be helpful but if you would like to send people please do send it to like this small group who is

trying to treat uh train people i mean like we have couple of resources we are trying to train that would be helpful and matt is there he shares all the valuable information yeah um does i guess does anyone want to write a draft for the eip editor i can do it if if you all are too busy but can maybe try and draft something that we can post for the requirement yep all right i don't know i have shared this um

post that was shared on the character this medium um a while ago so we just had a few lists here let me reshare it i don't know so it it was general guideline when we first shared yeah how if someone is interested to become an eip editor reach out to us and we did get a couple of responses and we have picked up one user from there so if this is helpful or if you would like to add something more yeah it's it's really helpful um yeah i'll have a look at it and i'll i guess i'll take some time tomorrow to try and figure out what's the best place to post this like how do we go about getting this

visibility um and yeah maybe just like um modifying this a bit yeah that would be helpful thank you so i think yeah that's all from the items and comments listed today anyone wants to bring up anything new so to the question of at the possibility of funding uh yes cat heard us uh working or with uh different grants last time it was supported by esp and uh this time we are trying to reach out to monarch and some other fundings if we have people we would be definitely working on [Music]

did poo just go quiet for everybody else yep i thought uh i saw timon meeting so i thought he was trying to add something because last time he was helping out with this process yeah okay yeah so funny should not be an issue as to mention that if if someone is interested and he is willing to be a part-time editor please reach out to us i'll be happy to talk to them and lead through the process what we have currently we are trying to help out with um whatever works to get more people on board features on ethereum cat heard us and my dm is also open on catalyst discord so that's all from the items listed here and yep

if nothing else we are almost on time thank you everyone for joining us hope to see you all in next two weeks thanks have a good one everyone all right thank you