EIPIP Meeting 57

Transcript

all right welcome to eipip meeting 57 i have shared agenda in chat for people who joined just now may have missed it so i'm gonna re-share it uh the first item listed here is a core eips and executables back world we have been discussing this item for past few weeks and i remember in last meeting there was a comment by greg that we should postpone the final decision on this item sam did mention about uh some async discussion in ethereum channel i'm not sure if there are further updates that you would like to share sam uh nope nothing really there hasn't been much discussion since the last meeting

right so i wonder like we still have some few open questions like where are we on this uh like a new executable spec world and is there any action item for anyone or if and when we would like to have this item on the agenda for the api discussion uh so we're starting on uh the berlin hard fork i think that's the where that's where we're at in the uh specs and um i'm not sure when it should come up on the agenda for eipip it really needs greg to be here to talk about it so i guess whenever he can be here um

yeah all right so i think there was one point that uh i know tim is not present in the meeting today and he mentioned that he would be talking to rest of the client team members to maybe seek um thoughts on if they are comfortable going ahead with the python specs i'm okay keeping it on the agenda and i will bring it back in the next meeting and i'll also try to get greg tim view all of us together in this call so we can probably make a decision on this item sounds good

thank you moving on to the next item eips github so this item is uh selected from eips github we have requested the users to leave issues if they would like to be brought into eapap meeting discussion i have picked up two items from there one is a list of for close a few more issues uh panda pap1 created this list and he thinks that it can probably be closed i wanted to bring it to eap editor's attention is it a fair approach of closing issues yeah

so as for my comment in in there i already addressed the first four that big list afterwards though we need to discuss and decide how we want to handle so currently we are recommending all new eips get their discussions to link sent over to ethereum magicians however any existing eips can who already have their discussions to pointing at pw issues we allow that to continue we don't have a plan for migrating data and so um the question is do we just want to leave those issues open forever do we want to close them but allow discussion to continue on the closed issue that's probably fine

or do we want to develop some sort of plan for getting people to getting this information somehow migrated to three magicians that's a very good question yeah i came across a proposal i think 1202 which seems to be an old one and they are still having their discussion and discussion tool link so yeah this is a valid question do we have any proposal on migrating maybe none that i've seen we've briefly talked about it and we just decided to leave them there for now at one point we talked about maybe closing them when the eip becomes final and so that way at least the only

ones would be open more eips that are not final and i think we also discussed possibly closing when they become withdrawn or stagnant as well the idea being that just so they're not in the list anymore you can still comment on they wouldn't be locked it would just not be listed in the issues another potential option is just to close them all and just close with a comment saying continue discussions here we're closing it so it stops showing up on our list of issues um i'm i don't feel strongly about any of these i may have a slightly weekly opinion on the first one maybe to close on the final withdrawn and closed issues

close them all could be like you know we can get strong and resistant from others that why are you closing it but i i definitely like the idea of proposals which are closed like final withdrawn or stagnant because bot is continuously working on making stagnant to the proposal which are over six months and not into active discussion that can be a slow but steady approach to uh get this number of issues lower i don't know sam if you have any preferences here sorry i lost my mute button there no i i

don't think so so could we try the first approach closing the final withdrawn and stagnant or any closed eips i'm okay with it i would like to get feedback from matt greg and alex if possible if any of them just have thoughts yeah maybe i can create that as an issue like whatever proposal we are discussing here we can add that as an issue and try to collect feedback from them if they are fine i mean no major objections are there then we can probably start moving in that direction this sounds like a

plan because we definitely would like to decrease the number of open issues at the same time we respect the sentiments of author that if there is a discussion to link it cannot be closed like forever if we do not have any proposal on migrating them to fm page then probably this is a good approach to begin with but we'll try to collect more feedbacks on it thank you for bringing it up other than that do you think rest of the list that he has added here are good to be closed i've already addressed the other four i think

one was deleted two are closed one's left open i gave them a comment as to why thank you maybe we can see see more eap editors here if they would like to provide any feedback that would be nice thank you the next sub item is here from the same eip github repository it is one time nft sale for unused eip numbers i know there are a lot of comments already and i just have added it to see if there is any appetite for sync discussion on this i'm not sure if there is any plan or plan in place to put this into action what is proposed here or is it just like that

i did not have any concrete plans at this time yeah it's still really early in the planning stage i think but do we want to pursue it like if so then we can probably start engaging more people to add more feedback thoughts there how to implement this run this um i am weakly in favor of it but i would definitely like to solicit more feedback um and scar for example had um some feelings on it i'd like to hear more on that i'm i'm not opposed to it so yeah all right i'm not sure if we sounds

good comment all right maybe i can share this issue with him if he has to document any of his though cool cool just wanted to have a temperature check what do people want to do with this all right i'll i'll try to collect some more information and bring it up in the next meeting moving on the next item is eips bot related discussion updates so um lately i have not seen any updates on eipv site i will definitely

go back and check with the contributor uh but we do see some action on the eip bot side i see there are a few open pull requests and micah has already given a lot of comment jose yeah jose is on the call so jose if you would like to provide update hello yeah that's basically what you say you have three pull requests uh ready for testing i gonna be able to do that testing this week um well as soon as we test these three pull requests and they pass the test i guess that with the

they are the foundation for at least five or six more issues that we're going to be able to pull and i would say easily easily merge after it so i think that yeah we're we're making progress i don't know mika is here nika has been supporting and i'm helping a lot so maybe mikka can add something if he likes but from my point of view i think that we are moving slowly but getting there that's that's what i have yeah the as i said we just need to get them tested make sure there's no bugs and everything works and then i think all of them are fine

i i see a few more issues are open but it's good that we are making some progress over there yeah yeah we will try to keep this item on the agenda and we'll try to have more updates in upcoming weeks moving on item number four is eips inside um so for the month of may the ap inside report is ready i have added link here in the agenda we have got two final proposals and the repository has received 17 new eips as draft we have potential uh nine proposals

which are yet to be merged as draft and um three eips are moved to review one is moved to the last call the details are available in the report that i have added to the agenda i'm yet to publish this on other forums we'll do it right after this call so i mean eip's insight at least gives us one information very clearly is that like the number of eips we are able to move to the final status is really low in comparison to number of eips that we are getting

every month in the repository i don't know if people have any thought on how to manage it like so is that is that actually a bad thing like i feel like we shouldn't be trying to get everything to final um and maybe the metric we should be looking at is getting eips just into draft and that would be probably an indication that editors are doing their jobs well i don't know i think that i i weakly agree with samir there are many eips that in my personal opinion shouldn't go to

final because i think they're bad ideas um or they shouldn't be standards sometimes they're good ideas but they shouldn't be standardized and so a lot of vips that fall into that category i think the fact they're not making a final is a good thing one thing we may want to look at is like are we being aggressive enough with moving things to stagnant maybe we should turn that up if we're finding that like everything that makes it that doesn't get merged as a draft or doesn't get make progress in two months always ends up going to stagnant then we should just bump that stagnant threshold to two months instead of six months or whatever it is right now um but i'm

i don't feel strongly about that like i'm okay with the current numbers as well so in my experience a normal tenure for any proposal from deaf to go to the final status the shortest one is three months so i'm not sure that i'm like very confident about moving stagnant to in inactivity for two months though in activity yeah keep in mind that the stagnant is only if it's inactive not if like if it's making progress um then it's fine like uh i think nick munch for example is constantly updating standard and it's been going on for like years but he's always touching it like he's always doing things with it so it

doesn't move the segment the ones that get most stagnant are ones where no one has done anything on it for a substantial amount of time and so i i want to make sure that we are distinguishing between eips that are making progress but going slowly which is totally acceptable as eips that are not making progress at all yeah i totally understand that yes i was coming to the same point that if a proposal is making progress if they have to be like uh if we are expecting them to see in finance status in next three months they would definitely be making progress at some point but sometimes what happens like others get confused and they are not clear about what to do and that

may be one of the reason of not moving the proposal with the um eip editors internship meeting we have started inviting more authors to come and talk and share their questions and they are doing that we are trying to share information around it uh so we are hoping that the proposal will be moving faster you can see that quite a few proposal in this particular month itself which was in drought that moved to review and which was in last call that is final now i mean it's not delaying anymore definitely editors are doing a great job here um it's just that we might want to give some room for new authors to maybe understand the process properly and

start working in that direction yeah i mean it may be my request that making stagnant a little more aggressive we can probably give some more time or if not three months or two months maybe we can give a little bit more time i don't know the other thing to keep in mind is that the the bot will first uh write a note on the ap saying this has been stagnant for a while and then i think two weeks later it will actually move to segment if ever correctly and so often just having that bot write the note kind of reminds the author hey we're

waiting for you to do something or if they didn't know they're they're waiting they'll often reply saying oh what am i supposed to do i thought i thought i was waiting on someone else and so i think bumping the stagnant pot to be more aggressive i i don't it may just result in people moving their eips faster because they will the bot reminds them basically um when it drops a note and they gave me yeah i think i'm coming yeah we should verify that the bot actually does that i might be thinking no no you are right it gives a two weeks notice period over there yeah it does give two weeks notice period because there's two different bosses one

for the stack for moving a draft ap to stagger there's another one for closing open pull requests and another one that closes open pull requests give us two week notice i actually don't know how the stacking bot works does it create the pr and then wait two weeks to merge it if i remember correctly that's the process but i would like to revisit that thing yeah when i saw it last when i i had this notification on for bought making uh an announcement that this pull request or this proposal is has no activity for past six months it gives a two weeks period time okay all right uh so if i uh i have to sum up

this proposal here if the process is still that bart gets two weeks notice to author of a proposal stating inactivity we can probably pump the bot to three months instead of six months for making it stagnant that would be fine with me if it got too much trouble we can always move back jose i did not understand the comment here eip bot does not do it now but can may do it well yes i don't see the bob

can do now the warning to the outers but it can be done i don't know you just need to define the time that you want to as make a mention that you want to let everybody know and yeah we can send the messages we can add a comment whatever whatever we would like to do the bot can do it but that's right now as it is that's not that's what i was commenting in the chat okay i mean be missing here i just have shared a full request in the chat uh that is one of the last stagnant

activity i noticed i do not see a mention of two weeks time period here but i it definitely gives a warning i have to uh maybe check so it looks like for that one the bots um showed up on april 10th and then merged it on may 8th so i'm guessing it's certainly set to four weeks so it opens the pull request waits four weeks then merges if i had any guess it'd be good to find like maybe two others and see if they all had the same behavior i think i can share

a couple of more probably would help to probably be good to also adjust the text to let authors know if you're still working on this please reply saying as much so we can close the pr or something just letting the author know this is automated and it's okay if they're still working on they just need to say something all right so i'm taking action items here improve that text for a warning message and be sure it gives some time for authors to respond back before it is closing yeah like i said like i said that one looks like it's about four weeks and we should verify them

correct okay okay so um as an action item may be first we will create an issue in eips bot to update the parts checking from six month to three months and then uh see if this can be done with the updated text updated warning text for authors cool so yeah that's basically all on the eips inside side uh i have started adding charts and in addition to this i'm also trying to get this thing updated on

maybe some form of website so we can move it from hack md file i may be looking for one information here what is the back end used here for these numbers to be displayed for uh eips.ethereum.org oh uh jekyll which is ruby jackal okay yeah i thought so i found it over there but someone i mean like one of my developers said that please check if it is php or not so i was just trying to be sure of it well thank you the tooling is jekyll um depending on what the person is

interested in helping with it doesn't might not actually need jekyll or ruby knowledge um it might be like handlebars or something okay okay maybe i'll bring you offline i may have a few more questions on this okay so yeah i'll thank you offline all right that's all about eip's insight moving on to the next item eip editor apprenticeship meeting we had this meeting yesterday i have added agenda and recording unfortunately the recording is really bad zoom recording there um but we have the agenda in which we have listed all the proposals which were

uh discussed and shared on the screen sharing uh done by matt so if anyone has any question please reach out to us on cat herders discord we'll try to help you out there most likely answers are already there because matt left some comment uh we had some discussion that can obviously be caught on the video some had some good suggestions for how to improve and how to make sure that your proposals are viewed by project implementers so please follow those things that way you'll be able to increase awareness of about your eip and it can be implemented in projects when you are trying to push your

proposal towards final the next meeting is uh two weeks from yesterday so if you are interested to join um meeting is generally available on events section of ethereum catalog justice card the last item listed here is review action from the previous meeting and from previous meeting it suggests that splitting out eip depot from eips and ercs will be put on hold obviously there were no decision in the last meeting and with the education specs coming up we'll see how it turns out if needed

then we will bring back discussion on agenda no changes will be made to that repository that's fine one other thing that was brought up in the last meeting was a contributor's promotion to eip's github repo for sam some i put this thing uh based on the discussion from the previous meeting of eip editors internship you mentioned that you were not able to open and summon the boss yeah yeah uh yeah so i i'm okay with not being a contributor i just think like being able to paste it or put a comment in or something that that re-triggers the bot would be nice um well just to add some context here in

the last meeting we were discussing that we should have like two to three contributors uh micah is there uh lifeline is there but there was another girl which may not be there anymore because she is not an active contributor right now so if at all you would be interested we can probably make a room there all right okay [Music] um for this uh item only do i need to reach out to a devops team micah would you recommend me doing that or is it something that can be vanished

uh i think the devops needed to do it i couldn't figure out how to add real people to teams okay another problem then i'll try to reach out to him and see if this can be done well that concludes the meeting for today it's short within 30 minutes anything else anyone would like to bring up no looks like it's been a quiet week and we didn't have much action on eip site though where there are a lot of actions on merge site

so yeah thank you everyone for joining us today hope to see you in two weeks i will share the recording very soon thanks pucha thank you have a good one everyone