EIPIP Meeting 72

Transcript

welcome to eipip meeting 72 I have shared agenda and chat uh so it is an extension from the last meeting we could not have the last meeting because that was holiday season so most of the items are carried over from the last meeting agenda we can probably start with the items listed here the first one is uh to discuss open issues and PR and also the other topics the number one topic is what are the prerequisite for someone to be considered a viable reviewer recently we heard about the concept of peer reviewing so I'm assuming that this is more related to that

I I'm not sure was that a Victor who made this question or we received this somewhere on the Discord chat which one uh the documentation for peer review process uh I think that comes from that comes from is that come from to Sam right um unfortunately Sam is not here today I'm not sure if anyone else has any information about the peer review process or if the if there is any documentation that could be shared with

community so yeah they be able to contribute okay uh maybe we can skip it for now and we'll try to add it next time when Sam is around okay next one is also uh which was proposed by Sam and the question is here should we make the markdown linter required he has added two open pull request I'm going to share the link here I wonder if anyone has any thoughts and suggestions in merging this one I think it's okay

yeah I also think that uh that is okay I reviewed the the linter rules and seems reasonable sounds good a day seems to be another pull request not necessarily or related with this but the number is 5270 any thoughts about that same thoughts is a pad uh should we wait for Sam and uh

assigned to to continue I think Sam needs to be in providing his idea I guess okay that sounds fair [Music] um because he isn't available today uh we can have it back on the next meeting unless we get it resolved on the pull request itself so there are a few items which are carried over from the last meeting discussion I'm gonna skip two five six five uh the pull request number is five to four zero because it seems to be changed to draft so um

there were other items which were for existing eips and there were changes I think their people were into um like we should not make more changes to eips which have been widely adopted there is this pull request 6038 I wonder if there is any change in thoughts and opinion on that um yeah yeah I still really don't think we need to be changing

eaps especially ones as prominent as the erc20 sounds good um I'm not sure do we want to have this pull request closed with adding these comments over there fine with it um away from my computer for another 15 minutes or so so I can't do it right at this moment another problem okay and the last one in this section is it will be three four seven five some

changes I think that is coming directly from the author and uh we probably discussed it in the EAP editing office hour um yeah hopefully there would be a few making a few more changes to it okay um there is one other pull request six two six nine so we were discussing this one in the last EAB editing hour and uh Sam wanted it to be discussed here in this call to maybe collect some thoughts from other participants

um yeah what do we think about this particular pull request I'm sharing the link here it is about full evm equivalence foreign mention a specific question I I guess eipip meeting was about Pro uh process uh is he trying to solicit feedback for how to review individual eips ouch

yeah and I mean I think this is kind of like a no obvious like he can write whatever he wants about it ethereum equivalent evm equivalence but there's nothing to enforce it and it does seem like I saw that on the East magicians seemed like some role of teams were engaging with the post and so maybe if it comes out and it's something that people can rally behind that's a good thing but uh yeah it doesn't have a lot of teeth on it so I think the question here was like should it be an independent EAP in in the first place like if people rally for

it and updates can be done on eip1 instead of having it as a proposal separately what do you mean eip1 um I have added the comment link here in the chat so uh Sam mentioned that if the author would prefer they can have a pull request to update eip1 with the sources and yeah I'm not sure if we should have it oh you're saying that the execution specs what sources I'm trying to read let's see all right Sam is saying he wants the guy to add the execution spec to eip1 which

is what 5757 says yeah right which like obviously I'm okay with like I think that execution spec is our canonical definition of the spec at this point but yeah I think this should just be an informational EAP assistant

okay maybe we can have it another meeting when Sam is around and see if author has made any progress in this particular pull request sounds good okay uh before moving ahead I see some comments by Victor uh Victor if you would like to have those thoughts discussed here I know it is uh from two weeks ago but unfortunately we could not get Chance to discuss it earlier oh no problem I think my comments was regarding uh Sam's proposal about uh peer review so I I just commented there and then if he's here to discuss then

that would be great otherwise I just love to hear anyone is our thoughts or postpone this to when we have more editors in the room to discuss the peer review process but thank you very well one last poll request that uh Sam shared to be discussed in this meeting is 6306 it is to update eip1 for permitted links if anyone can maybe take a look yeah I don't think we should add the

yellow paper but I think I'm okay with that in the execution specs foreign I'll make a note of that okay that concludes all the pull requesting issues those were listed here for today's discussion um I see Jose on the call today I have not added any specific agenda item to be discussed on EIP bot Wonder uh Jose if you have anything in particular to share

or update hello no I just was trying to catch on with you guys okay sounds good all right uh so um next one is eaps inside [Music] um I can see a few new eids getting on added in the month of January we have three core eids uh one is six one eight eight non-scap next one is 6189 Alias contract and 6190 functional self-destruct all three are proposed by Panda pip and now

have been merged as draft we have one standard track networking EIP which is back from stagnant um resurrected from stagnant the number is 1459 no Discovery via DNS three new erc's are added to the repository EAP 5805 voting with delegation 5982 role-based access control and a 6147 that is a guard of nft SBT and extension to EAP 721 other than that we had three eips and review status and uh two in the last call last call the proposals are eip2771 and the

deadline is a January 20th similarly there is another proposal um 4834 that is hierarchical domains and the deadline is January 28th so people if you are interested in adding any last minute feedback comment for authors please go ahead and make sure you have your comments added in discussion thread Linked In the EIP and we do have some other improvements on the readme CI updates on both sides that's on EAB is inside um

EAB editing office hour we did have a meeting yesterday uh we tried to cover almost all of the pull requests those were listed there however there are a few which uh still needs to be looked into this week hopefully that will be covered before the next meeting are the video and agenda for the next meeting is now available there was this one discussion that came up in the Discord channel of ethereum catheters about the next meeting for eipip um people in earlier meeting also mentioned that because some of the editors do not get to join the um during weekdays meeting is it okay to

plan one meeting or the other like once in a while kind of meeting in in the weekend um if anyone has any strong opinion of having it or not having it I'm pretty strongly against I mean if people need to have a meeting on the weekend they can but I will most likely not be able to attend because of the foreseeable future I think we can have one off and then I'm I'm okay with uh both uh um on uh week weekend and weekdays um and also I'm in favor of uh

supporting more uh diverse of of time zones availability um like I know people here seems to be all in the American time zone but if we are um want to welcome more participations and authorship than in the future when more people join we can kind of start considering enough more other shifts but uh it totally understand some people want to make sure that they have time off so Meetup will work or some type of casual meeting can work and so yeah

um yeah we do not have rest of the editors here but what I have gathered is like a few people are interested definitely in having a meetings on weekend but uh talking about me I would rather have it on weekdays considering it to be you know um week off the time off but we can definitely make arrangements like meeting can be recorded and it can be uploaded later on however I am in favor of having um fixed time for any particular meeting so we can make community be aware of like what is the time earlier we used to have eipip meeting alternate Wednesday at 1500 UTC if you would like to continue doing that which I think would be a good

idea because now it's almost said that we do have a client desk meeting on Thursdays and this process Improvement meeting on Wednesdays uh so and so forth we can continue having that and we can have of the schedule meeting if needed but yeah that's totally on the participants who would like to do it and even in that case it would be good idea to have fixed time we recently changed the time from 1500 to 1600 because it was having a conflict with another implementers meeting the UF implementers meeting and um yeah whatever we decide either 1600 or 1400 just to avoid the conflict of these two

meetings that should be consistent as far as the time zones considerations are there if we do have participants like they are from Asian region and may not be able to join on the later time of the day we could prefer 1400 because that seems to be the most working time for the participants across the world um so for now uh because we do not have more participants um my thought is like let's have the meeting as scheduled for January 25th instead of having it earlier on January

21st and in the next meeting if they see that people are looking for having it and on a weekend where we can probably consider that does that sound reasonable to everyone at least we are present here today sure all right I'm good thank you um thank you Sam and Victor okay um yeah and that is all which are covered here I'm trying to quickly take a look on the last meeting notes um okay uh a few action items those are

listed here from the last meeting notes it's like uh PR 6104 Sam will merge it like there are three eight General consensus NPR should not be merged okay on strongman proposal continue collecting feedback um I think uh that is in progress anything in specific you would like to add a Victor for this romance proposal here oh let me let me check um did you put in the link oh no I'm just trying to read it from the option item from the last meeting yeah yeah it would be nice if you can

also post a link I can give a brief uh grief in introduction so basically the idea is that some questions uh there were uh feedback on the uh sometimes like Erp moves too fast or sometimes the IP moves too slow so voices are uh how can we make it more uh consistent or the give said the right expectation on how to move things uh therefore I um start put on a draft uh for what it could be for example we can set some requirements for waiting to get feedback or we can require some implementation for something to be considered final

so these are the is that what you're talking about yeah that's right um like this was the example which was shared here in the discussion previously it was related to ap6049 but yes I was mentioning about the proposal that you have already put on on the fellowship of ethereum magician for discussion yeah I I just like I put I want to put out there and then hear what uh other folks think oh all right um yeah that is not here listed for the discussion probably uh the suggestion was to continue uh

collecting more feedbacks and if there are any strong consensus around any of the processes that we would uh consider having it documented uh then we can bring it back into the discussion sounds good that's good right I think that concludes for the meeting today it's short meeting um but I hope that we add more discussion item uh and the items which you could not uh finish making decisions uh in lack of less editors um probably we'll do it in the next time uh thank you everyone for joining us today hope to see you in two weeks we

are keeping the regular Cadence of the meeting for now like the next meeting will be on 25th of January at 1600 UTC instead of 1500. thank you thank you thank you