EIPIP Meeting 73

Transcript

welcome to eipip meeting 73 have shared agenda and chat we have a few items added here for discussion today and not a ton of them but yet some of them are important to be discussed and probably we can make some decisions to move forward with the first item here is a moderation and governance around Community interaction so we all are familiar with this farming issue that was happening on GitHub like people show up to write whatever they want but with moderation support from EF personnels we are able to keep it in control and like delete spam comments and want user

Etc and we are also familiar with like Twitter trolling and people screaming on Twitter for work and not done as per their wishes but recently uh it was brought to our attention that similar behavior is observed on Fellowship of ethereum magician a place where we think that every developer can share their thoughts about their proposal and probably share some ideas for governance so um it was related to the contributors who are trying to help us with EIP peer reviewing process obviously people have shared their thoughts on this card and we think it is important to discuss moderation and governance around Community interaction for providing a healthy ecosystem to

ethereum users so anyone here if you would like to share any thoughts on the issue or suggestion on moderating fem or EIP GitHub in general so so what's been going on just like spam or is it more serious than just Spam I'm referring to more of the conversation which was shared here in the echs card saying the author is suggesting that Reviewer is not capable of doing the reviewing um oh you're talking about the guy who called me a schizophrenic yeah yeah okay um I don't know what to do with that he hasn't messaged me since or they haven't I don't know who they are um if they're rude to me again I'll give

them a warning and um I'll just stop interacting with them but uh for the time being um I don't know if we need to do anything like systemic changes just this one person so far yeah it seems like that one individual was not only uh showed this kind of behavior on fbm but he was also doing the similar actions on EIP GitHub repository I suppose there was a link shared by Panda view for his earlier action so I wonder like if we have any plans uh to maybe take help of fem team or yeah I don't know Greg is here Greg if you may have any suggestion for adding warning to these kind of users or maybe

having it like band or something like that for some time it just hasn't been an issue in the past so we've had no real no real policy about it but if it's I hate getting into policies if it's just one bad actor you give them a warning and you block them yeah that's kind of what I'm thinking too is there a way to report these uh people like in when we get any spamming issue and get away uh have a forum where we report it to AP readers and those are banned and like deleted comment and everything else can we do similar actions on fem as well

uh there's a flag button so I uh I flagged the messages I don't know what the mods of uh the three magicians do but yeah foreign flagging is definitely the first step and first good step in the direction of letting mods know about someone not behaving properly very well um I just wanted to share this uh so people are aware uh I just want to also communicate that we want to keep all the discussion forum clean by clean I mean that everybody is here to contribute so let's try to help each other rather than let go live

so if we come across any such issues further and future probably will seek out to moderator of Fem all right uh moving ahead um we have few uh discussion continued from the earlier meeting I think some of them were proposed by Sam but unfortunately he wasn't there so the first one is um uh I'm gonna share a link here it is related to EIP 5 000. if I have not much taken the pull request number is yeah renaming five thousand I don't

think we can talk about this today I don't think we have Matt here and he's feels pretty strongly about this one okay yeah I get it yeah last time we could not do it in your essence I hope Matt joins later today so we can continue the discussion otherwise I will I think he's in Austria right now so I don't think he'll be joining oh interrupt session yeah okay got it very well I'll add it to the next five thousand again sorry I never want to talk about 5 000 again if if that's the stupid numbering argument that causally yeah I think that's definitely one of

those straws I thought we'd agreed to just have the bot assigned numbers and forget about it in the future yeah but we had like we haven't decided what to do with e5000 specifically I absolutely do not give a what we do with it so I guess I prefer we just leave it alone and move on whatever has it been mushed I'm just trying to check it yeah yeah 5000 has been merged well that's that man okay

no really it's been merged it has a number some of us don't like the number that it has but uh it's not the only EIP with the number that was chosen because someone liked it and it was available okay so maybe we can drop the discussion for now of course and if people would request then we can bring it back in the next meeting well though it is open I'm just bringing it up because I'm always likely to miss meetings so

once again register my long-standing opinion that we should drop this uh because I feel like a parent who wants to send their children to the room say go to your room don't come out until you're ready to stop arguing so it goes right no really I don't have enough years left in my life for for this kind of stuff um I hope we don't get into this for for a very long time and we get it resolved

up unless that uh pull request is closed um I mean someone has to do it either close it or have the discussion continued uh last time we didn't have like Sam so we could not get through it now we don't have math so I hope in the next meeting both are there and we resolve it in time box five minutes only kind of thing so we did not spend too much of time on it but definitely uh we noted your opinion Greg thank you so much for that and obviously people who are here for a longer time their experience and advisor always helpful moving on to the next item that is about updating the permitted links for eip1

the number is 6306 uh just we want to have General opinion thoughts from the present editors if they have any objection and having it approved so I'm somewhat hesitant to allow links to eels um just because we might be changing the process a little bit but I don't really care that strongly about it if we want links to eels we can do that and I think um the yellow paper is the other one and I I don't really see a problem linking to the yellow paper okay uh so from the last meeting and as

you can see it listed here on the comment section as well uh looks like uh Matt had the exactly opposite um view on that like he was plus one on execution specs but uh minus one on yellow paper stuff so either we have to like break this PR into two and then see if we can go ahead with one is this on the agenda I'm not finding it oh there it is

I need new glasses could we add a comment like have it like do not try to have two changes in one PR and then we can take it separately in the interest of not driving this person crazy I think if we want to do that I can split it into two PRS okay Greg do you have any thoughts on this

one like any particular suggestion on yellow paper or execution layer um I'm still using my bad eyes to find and this this the browser keeps popping up a dialogue with no way to close the dialogue okay files changed one triple Dot View file wait a minute this is like from 2015.

to provide some additional context like earlier we are trying to avoid adding links um in any of the eips and with 5757 I think we have certain links accepted but here this is about uh getting permission to add the link for execution specs as well as the ethereum yellow paper whenever and wherever needed okay so we don't have an EIP for this discussion no we we decided not to have

eips for these discussions okay is there anything else to read on this or did I just sort of Miss out uh is it it's somebody wants to link to the yellow paper and the execution specs in their EIP and so they're made a PR to allow them thank you we need a PR to allow them to do that well yeah the yellow paper isn't a source we allow right now oh that would you want it to be a source or no yes it's the elf paper and execution specs are you okay with that or no I can't use those specs other people can though good I think they're good specs for writing a client from

you can basically port a client from those specs they're hard to reference for a particular point because that point gets spread across the implementation yes absolutely but are are there a valid place to link to from an EIP yes the question okay so you're you're plus one on both of these things yeah okay it might be that that linking into the Els exactly the right thing to do to make your point um and it might not be the yellow paper might be yes here's this here's this piece of math which is going to unload into 10 pages of code and other times it's here's these you

know five lines of code that unrolled from that math I don't care about the math I care about these five lines um that's why I've always said we we're going to wind up needing more than once back and just keeping them together and the El is is likely to stay current because we can you know basically keep it on the cycle with the other clients and the yellow paper is just going to run behind we sort of need to beg the foundation to get resources on it to keep it up to date or else decide that it's trash and just end of life it I think that would be very unfortunate because the the

academics especially the formalists and mathematicians uh find that they can work with that paper pretty well um and a lot of them would not be able to use the El at all because they're mathematicians they're not computer brokers suppose so one reason that has been prominent enough um the reason why people do not want links to be added is the chances of getting it changed execution specs my understanding is it may change over the period of time if I'm wrong then probably it could be allowed uh same goes with yellow paper like if there are

no changes expected after a certain point of time then there shouldn't be any problem in having it but as per my uh knowledge yellow paper is being updated time to time we had updated few eids to them yet yeah I mean I'm okay linking to it I'll I'll poke Matt and make sure he's not like like violently against uh allowing links to it and as long as he's not like horribly against it um I'll merge the pr there's just nowhere to go otherwise yeah no I I know and that's kind of why I'm okay linking to it too I think the yellow paper itself

I'm gonna have to bring it up um yellow paper itself has a has a version uh says what version it's caught up to [Music] um there we go I'm quite surprised it doesn't have a DOI number um that'd be a good idea it I think it costs money to get yourself into the deal [Music] um yeah right at the top of the yellow

paper um I think the current one is uh b-e-a-f's I don't know what the beac f b d means but it says 2022 1024. so there is a they are time stamped so mainly when you when you reference it you should reference the entire the entire title including the timestamp the proposed format is to link to the um specific git hash that the yellow paper is published under so we can get like a cryptographically secure version for it that would also work that would also

work [Music] um it's a little bit less useful what the readme includes the readme includes a link to the PDF very few people are going to download the download the repo and build the PDF and Source yeah exactly I don't think I've ever succeeded at doing that and I've I've tried foreign okay very well so it seems like um Sam will check with the mat um Greg is already in agreement and if there is no strong disagreement this

would be merged and the next one number is 6269 I think that is also related to the same issue that was blocked because there was no acceptance of yellow paper and execution specs when we get a resolution to that hopefully we can take care of this pull request as well yeah this is a hard one there was some discussion of it I participated in gas costs was was one of the sticky ones um but I mean it's sort of a marketing term

so it's it's kind of hard to go in and tell marketers what to say that's why I'm kind of against allowing this one because like what is even the point of making an EIP that defines this it's not like we're like the source of Truth or anything people can completely ignore an EIP mm-hmm so I I just don't see a point in putting it in yeah it's not it isn't telling anybody how to build ethereum it's trying to tell marketing people um you know yeah yeah exactly um I'm just shaking my head you know I've read marketing blurbs of

things that I've done I'm just going like that's not even close but you know they say what they need to say to sell their product if you could leave a comment on that PR just like a short one or something that'd be great if not like I can write a note yeah I think I did probably not to that effect there were sticky semantic issues you know gas is one you know there's there's contracts that depend on it and and some [Music] in some sense yes it's part of the semantics because it affects the behavior of the code um but in the other sense it really

wasn't intended to be a permanent a permanent feature of any op code um um we're hoping to just get rid of the gas op code so you can't know how much gas you're spending um and then then you're down to the definition of semantics um I think in most language design it's you know it's pretty much down to what's what is the output um and gas doesn't change the output except that it changes when your program will terminate um but that's true in other languages if

you blow a stack uh your program will will usually crash um and you can't really know when you're going to blow a stack um and the term of Art in I know the term of Art and the C plus plus and I think the C standard is that it will follow these rules within its resource constraints and so running out of resources isn't part of the semantics of the standard um so I think we're in that sort of place but it's hard to explain that to people um but we we had we don't have a document

that precisely defines all of the terms that we're using the um we refer over to the IEEE but it it's I don't think it's clear on this I think we'd have to dig in to what does it say about the ways the ways that an internet client can fail that aren't considered you know part of the definition of the client's behavior um they have no idea how big a can of worms they've opened up here yeah yeah given the like type and category like in

it being an informational EIP like it would be nice to hear thoughts on like should this kind of proposal be getting a place in EIP report as informational though it is not providing any aspects for design it would obviously be more reasonable as an informational EIP um but even then I would I'd want to see more discussion of these hard choices um probably since you can't just lay down the law on these things but you know be more into a discussion of yeah these are the things that are quite

clear I've seen some discussion of it that just goes into you know do we just mean the core computational part of the of the evm but what about that last stretch of call op codes that relates to the environment that it's in um which is a whole other layer of complication um sounds good so if that's uh if that's okay could we just drop this from the agenda uh for the next meeting and let the discussion be continued on Fellowship of ethereum magician as we can see that uh it's already getting

some traction and people are sharing thoughts over there yeah they may want some feedback you know beyond that discussion more feedback from the editors that this should be informational um and as such should probably incorporate more of the discussion in order to be informative um but they're there's just nobody in a position to lay down the law on this yeah I think the proposed proposal is an informational type it's okay yeah this is a hard one

it's okay so I know it was requested in the comment of this PR to have it discussed in eipip meeting and well I'll make a comment there if I have time I'm I'm look I'm looking for a job so I'm pretty busy with that and I'm trying to get a startup going so that I don't have to look for a job exciting it is we have some really cool Tech but monetizing Tech is always hard very well so uh Greg if you can drop a

comment uh to this peer that would be nice to have and we will add in the like discussion section the decisions is like is to continue getting more feedback on this particular proposal moving on to the next one is um 5703 uh it was brought to eipip meeting a couple of more times earlier um we mentioned the last time that we should bring it back after a few weeks to see where EIP editors are on this proposal so this proposal is to add Victor as an EIP editor Victor is here with us in the meeting today and yeah

Greg and Sam if you guys have any thoughts on that and yeah we do have Victor so if you have any questions for him I have nothing new to add um I think this would be something that needs Matt again Matt is on unavailable on a very good day Victor if you would like to add anything from the last conversation yeah I left some

um my some of my thoughts in read writing and love to uh hear what people think and get some feedback and I do see the the this capacity of uh EIP editors are not catching up enough with the uh big development in the activities of ERC proposals so we want to kind of provide my capacity to help foreign yeah I think we're definitely short editors for erc's and I and you know I I think I've gotten to know you reasonably well so I don't think I'd have a problem adding you as an editor um but that's the same I think as last

time I think the big Matt I think is the biggest objector so I I don't know if we can do anything until Matt's here I've talked with Annette about this a little bit and mentioned it many times I haven't been in a position to do any work on it or at least I haven't done any but um we really I think intended for The Magicians and working groups um to to help here a lot more and I the working group concept I don't think is really panned out that well partly

because we just don't do enough in person and partly I don't know why but anyway if you have more of a peer review process then the editors more have the right to you know finally merge the thing but um we shouldn't need tons of actual editors to to do the the review of these um you know it it seems that for any given ERC there you know it should be one or two people in the community who can take a look at that uh and review it with some amount of of subject expertise

um because there's just so many of them and they spawn a they span a a wide range of of a wide range of topics and I don't I'm not sure what a good way is to to pull in peer review um some journals I know will ask the the author to recommend reviewers um yeah I am yeah I love to kind of help out and if needed to design the review process but I guess the question now is for you to see what you're feeling about adding the editor

um so that I can kind of help out or do you confirm that I stayed out of um I'm not stay out of editing and kind of help out in either way oh I would like to add you as an editor this is a more General point that we need a way to get people reviewing particular ercs without a commitment to review lots of them um most people don't care about most erc's yeah I I would say the the big list of peer reviewers that I compiled has 90 been completely useless so

um you need to go back to the drawing board on that one what what if we ask an ERC ask the ERC uh author to find a reviewer I think we try to do that um I mean I do when I like talk to people but yeah I don't know we'll yeah we can do that um I think that's a good idea just make it a general policy to make a comment saying that they should nominate a reviewer nominate ask for volunteers I I don't know um the magician serves as a good forum for discussing things but it's been a hard

way to to get anyone organized to do anything um thanks um Greg um so can can I um also I I appreciate your encouragement and for Sam can I get a sense of uh do you prefer me to stay out of editing or do you prefer me to kind of continue contributing on the editing side I when I get rejected from the um from that being added as editor I've I saw the signal being puzzled like I I'm not sure what what it means like

uh am I not editing in the right way if so then what is the area to improve or kind of uh what is the signal that uh that you uh look in my mind I don't think I'm opposed to you being an editor like I I think you've demonstrated like you give good feedback you participate in the process like I think you've met all of the like technical like you've met all of the bars that I would set for your contributions to be an editor I think like that's great I think you've you've definitely uh at least you've said that you're willing to put like the principles of the EIP thing up like above your own um for like this part for the process like

you know you're okay with you know not allowing uh like allowing Origins that charge for links well like I'm not and I think those kind of discussions are good but you're okay enforcing the rules as we decided as editors and I think that's you know the the most we can ask for new members um so I I don't think I have a problem with you being an editor um I think you just need to talk to Matt he's the the only the only person who is like very much against it yeah let's talk about Matt um so I saw the different behaviors in Matt's uh or different standards and maths activity what happens is that on the items of numbering 5000 despite that all the API

editors were agreed to put and hold you go ahead and issue a number and decline other people's requests to revert his um his editing and then in the same situation where three editors shows at least I think Panda and Greg shows support in my being editor and you at the time was supporting but now even if you're neutral uh was executing adding me as an editor and then so he come up and respond no so um how does governance work in this situation I mean in in Matt's own standards should uh in a general consensus be adopted or should generous

consensus be able to block by one editor if it's okay to be blocked by one editor then the cow that is back in the time wasn't editor and he blocked it and Matt go on and and executed so I'm curious what our governance approach uh is to this type of disagreement it used to be very informal but we never used to run into this store of stuff we disagree and we keep talking and until we reach consensus um that usually means that a person that speaks loud enough is able to base basically block anyone

else right like right because the veganized is not about personally but in general in any Community if that is the approach than the person who stands down uh still would get the best of the most weight of it and then it basically paralyze the system um if someone's trying to block uh well personally I think we're just we're imposing too high a standard to get things into draft um lots of things I think we could handle in the review process um we're we're trying to impose on draft and that's it's making it harder it's making it harder on us anyway

um yeah there used to be a draft was just a draft and pretty much if it um you know if it was readable English and met the formal standards um in the formal standards weren't that hard um it got in as a draft and then when it went to review status there was plenty of time to to deal with these things but anyway we didn't used to have a lot of trouble reaching consensus um and it wasn't a matter of who talked loudest it was the uh finally yeah getting consensus on the arguments um

but things have changed we have more people uh and stronger opinions apparently but in general in such situations Matt has to decide is am I blocking you know it's really so important to me that I won't let this person be an editor or I don't want him to be an editor but if everyone else is for it I'll I'll Stand aside and that just express my opinion and move on and so it's it's kind of Matt's call there and then it becomes the group's call to say either okay this is a legitimate block and we'll move on or

okay we've heard you we've heard you out Matt but we don't feel that you've got legitimate reasons to block this and we need this editor we want this editor and we're we're going to move on despite despite your objections um and if your objections are so strong that you want to quit be an editor well we're sorry and as I said I have not wanted to pay attention to this so I don't know at what state we're at but I think it's kind of up to Matt to make it really clear this is so important to him that he'd rather stop being an editor um than to to go with the consensus

thanks Greg and that's very clear to me yeah there's three there's three states either you agree with the consensus you disagree but you're not going to block it or you block it and then if you block it the whole group has to decide to do what has to decide what to do with that block um and really consider the arguments for the block and the arguments then matter not the opinion the arguments thank you Greg that's really helpful thank you Greg so while Mac is not here I don't see a

point of having a continued discussion on on the topic uh like maybe uh he may have a different uh opinion by this time by looking into your contribution or by looking into the arguments uh or the comment that you have added on the pull request we should wait for his thoughts as Greg mentioned that we would come back to his points why it was blocked in the first place and if that holds true even uh now then the blocking could be continued but if that does not hold correct at this point and it has been addressed so probably we

can go ahead with that but in his absence I don't think it would be good to come to a conclusion agreed so we table this until Matt's here I guess yeah I hope he joins the next meeting so we can come to a decision on onboarding sooner rather than later agreed thank you let's move on to the next item which we kind of partially discussed in this prior discussion of adding one more

editor so it was from the last meeting uh Sam it may be referred to you we were trying to understand the prerequisite for someone to be considered as a viable reviewer so we can help you like get more reviewers and if there is any documentation or any resource that we can point it to New EIP authors or others who are experienced um yeah they can follow and help with the peer reviewing process there are no requirements to be a peer reviewer you can just let me know I'll put you on the list and then you can I'll ping you sometimes that's it so is that list available with all EIP

editors uh maybe placed somewhere or how it is yeah yeah there's a hack MD that I've sent to all the editors and I can do it again if if anybody needs it anybody can show up and yeah exactly it's just these this is a list of people that have volunteered to be messaged and like directly like named to do a review so that's great I I have also being kind of test out as a new another approach in comply uh in complement to that and when I hear editor's idea uh feedback on this approach whenever a new ERC or EIP was fired I would jump in and ask hey have you seen

this other EIP uh if so like can you elaborate your difference or how your dependency work out and maybe reach out to collaborate and if not then um or if they reject it or you'd intend not to just mention that in a marriage so I kind of use that as a way to both force them to do some more research elaborate and also kind of find an opportunity for them to Ping and discover the Discover and pain relevant editors and relevant authors so they can have a chance to talk or using that as a one way to trigger ad hoc reviews yep sounds good

are you talking about um proposals that are closely related but the authors may not know that yeah I would generally try to kind of um put down what I think is throughout looks relevant or sounds relevant either relevant in in that based off the same problem and they're competing or Irrelevant in that it might be useful to be dependency of one another and then I'll ask them what they think about foreign would make a decision to compete would you mind maybe documenting that

Victor and share it uh yeah I think that's what I put down at EIP author handbook just to say that you should do research and you should reach out to people who have relevant erps and then I'm and I was waiting for this group to approve that into a informational um EIP so that I can point people to from a more uh canonical links okay okay I think that is coming from the last meeting if I have not mistaken The strawman Proposal are we talking about that oh the straw strongman proposal is a

different related but uh slightly different it's about what qualification do you need to have to advance as a of to the next status because people come up asking yeah so that needs to be addressed I don't know if we will have enough time today yeah yeah I think I have made a mention uh to an earlier document that was published by cathodes stating like for which a status what we need to have if there is anything more to it I'm happy to update that but yeah I'm not sure I do not have the link handy for the

um editor's handbook that you are talking about if you would like to share for rest of the editors to maybe take a look okay so that's mostly related to issues and pull requests those were added for today's discussion and we had quite a few discussion on the peer reviewing process as well

as some mentioned that we would be looking for more reviewers because the present list is not good enough to continue with the peer reviewing process so if anyone interested listening to this call please reach out to EIP editors Sam or anyone and have yourself listed it would be helpful if you have already authored any earlier proposal you know the process and you are like in a position to actually review The Proposal which is coming up next to become an ethereum standard so yeah help us out with that moving on uh the next sub item I have listed here is open issues

um I'm not sure if we can take all the issues today but if people can quickly take a look and let us know which can be closed because now this is like growing it's uh 18 yeah I can see 18 here um first two yeah anyone has any thought on any of the issues that can be closed by just taking a high level look here a quick scam um we should not hide stagnant with Tron even that's a maybe but not stagnant because stagnant they just get moved

automatically and so you don't know whether the author is intending to uh get back to work on it in the future or not um and on the page uh the page that I think the foundation maintains that pulls out pulls out all the eips together the stagnant ones will just disappear yeah um and I don't think that'll be at all a good thing I think I've got one or two that have gone stagnant um but they're still referenced by other people

um I'm likely to resurface one of them but all of eof has to get in first so sometime next year I'll resurface it but if it's fallen off the list and I can't reference it it gets harder so if something's withdrawn well it's withdrawn but even then it can be useful published information so it just seems yeah I'm kind of against getting rid of them too I think we can probably close that one so uh by closing here means that um I

mean we are allowing people to add withdrawn in required section oh sorry I thought we were still talking about just hiding them from the list oh no so the uh I think if I'm uh correct are we discussing uh the issue number six one three one Greg I'm just looking at the titles on the issues page um yeah so the second one 6027 it's really small I I'm sorry I really I really need new reading classes oh no no no you are correct I think I misread it as I was like

five and and Way Beyond that so fair enough so um yeah 6027 okay so we are good to close this that means we do not need to hide anything like stagnant or withdrawn from the list or is that the correct uh understanding of the decision okay very well I don't know who maintains that page if if they want to make it a two-page or and move them over to a second page something like that if they feel like the web page is just getting too long I don't know that's a that's sort of a web page design issue okay okay that's Panda that does most of that yes so we can go ahead and close this one

right I think I'll rename it um because we we agree we don't want to hide them but Greg you did say you might be okay with making them less visible yeah I can understand that it's a very long list but it the list it doesn't bother me that it's long but it is a web page design issue I just don't want them to be inaccessible you know the toggle button would help there right um button I think that is the proposal we can have a button toggle if people want to see it they can click on the option if not then it would not be

yeah or just page one page two what whatever I'm I don't care how it's done I just if we have a list of VIPs I want all of the IPS to be on that list somehow um okay that's good yeah so we have uh about six minutes left uh if we can look into anything else um the lotion your issue about linking to withdrawn eips in required um I think we can close that one there's

no real reason to do it except to say like we're using a little bit like a piece from a withdrawn EIP but I don't think there's any technical reason why we should disallow links to withdraw any IPS uh actually the one technical reason was that that we should allow only EAP which reaches to our final status and withdrawn does not complete the cycle cycle it gets terminated before getting to the final status but a withdrawn EIP can't be edited or changed or anything no so I think it's fine to put it in requires like it's like even though it doesn't go through the entire process it's done it can't change so I think it's fine to link to

it well no the it hasn't it hasn't been reviewed to a state that were agreed that it's you know even technically accurate so you're linking over to something that might be nonsense you're just go ahead and go ahead yes it is if you know incorporate it incorporate what you need directly into your own EIP at that point okay that's my thought it's it's withdrawn so it's it's as good as gone from that point of view um so maybe in inner yeah maybe is information it could be useful but

so it goes if it's if what's in that withdrawn EIP is required that is its normative than uh but the withdrawn EIP um no you can't do that yeah I think yeah please go ahead Sam oh I was to say I'm still I like I'm still weakly okay with allowing links to it but yeah if you guys want to change it I can change it I certainly in the specification section you just can't you can't refer to something that isn't

isn't a standard of some sort um you know motivation section you know you could maybe say that this IEP was withdrawn uh and this the current EIP is a replacement for it you know it could be of historical interest things like that but um I don't think we've really discussed my opinion that we should have different requirements and much tighter requirements for the specification section of an EIP uh and much looser requirements for motivation and rationale so that that's sort of a different

discussion that's closely related much easier to just disallow it right now um and take it up on a case-by-case basis because I don't think many people will want to do it right yeah this is not a frequent case uh we are just trying to clarify it for people who may come up with this in future like right now if I understand correct the current EIP bot has this check that it does not allow um any EIP in require section whose status is like prior to the current

status of the eib say for example EIP X has a status of review it cannot have any eipy in draft status mm-hmm that's a little harsh for me but I'm not going to argue about it but yeah IEEE has the same policy that once something becomes an internet standard everything everything that it refers to normative the IEEE has that rule it also makes a clear distinction between normative and non-normative links and once something goes to standard all normative links must be links to standards so

if we're following that model which was our original model the um certainly by the time you get to final everything that's required has to also be final um or the product the final product of some other standards organization that we've decided that we'll count on um so that's where I'm at with it um yeah um Sam um do you think uh this is the present model of our EIT and we can probably have it like if we agree to this model that we want to have eits in required section which reaches

to fun and Status we probably cannot have EIP which are in withdrawn right we will never have it in final status sure yeah in that case we may have to make uh changes at two places maybe in the part as well uh as uh having it uh added to the eip1 probably so people don't get confused and come up with this question again like what can be added in requires section okay okay so we are at time I don't think we have uh any more time to take up on any further issues we'll try to take a few

in the next meeting I quickly want to uh just talk about a few other things we have added uh eaps inside uh for the month of January we have 14 eaps and review status and three in last call status uh the last call status eits are I'm gonna quickly check here uh that is EIP 5267 which is retrieval of EAP 712 domain and the deadline is 23rd January which has already passed there is another one two one one three five consumable interface the deadline is February 1st and eip6150 hierarchical nft which is uh

25 January that is today so if people have any thoughts comments they would like to add last minute uh comment for authors please go ahead and do that otherwise these proposals can be moved towards the final status with the addition of a new pull request a couple of quick announcements um uh ethereum magician anat and uh Victor from uh ethereum Caterers have organized a session on each Denver I think it is on March 2nd I have added the link here in the agenda for people who are there in Denver please try to attend it it is a session for all EIP authors you can come and talk and meet other people meet other authors share your idea probably

we can get some implementation of these proposals during the eat Denver and there is another one interrupt Summit we have a governance session there um I and Matt would be there uh so people if you are around uh please try to join us share your thought with us and uh yeah I think that's pretty much it for today I have had a look on the action items from the last meeting I think we have covered almost all of them yeah anyone else has anything to do yeah yeah just really quick uh letter notes

here now generally it's the topic proposal job to client document meeting notes but for uh 5703 pull requests that adding me as added item I should probably recuse myself so who should be the best to kind of uh document this whether we discussed today I am perfectly fine with you documenting it oh can you Sam can you I wonder if you actually it would be better for you because because you are at least neutral foreign discussion today yeah I am going to leave a comment uh at the

end of the agenda uh with whatever we have decided with for today's discussion um I'll try to include it over there if that's helpful vector that would work yeah I mean like from the past meeting I have started this as a practice that whatever we conclude in the meeting should be added in the agenda so people gets an idea on a very high level what was discussed in the meeting if they missed attending the meeting sounds good yeah thanks yeah I I yeah I usually document but uh this one actually I should recuse for yeah cool thank you thank you everyone for joining us today

I hope to see you all in two weeks at 1600 UTC have a good one everyone thank you