Ethereum Cat Herders Community, 8 Dec 2021

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: EIP apprenticeship meeting

Description

Agenda: https://github.com/ethereum-cat-herders/EIPIP/issues/94

Join ECH Discord - https://discord.io/EthCatHerders

A

All right uh welcome to the eip editor apprenticeship meeting. I am going to share agenda in chat here. It was also shared on the discord channel, so I'm assuming that most of you may already have it, but anyway, I've shared here in the chat.

A

So the idea for today's meeting is to go over some of the eips issues and pull requests and uh matt would walk us through how to look into the issues and pull requests, but before that, if you have any question that you came across while uh looking into proposals in any way, please feel free to share it with us.

B

I do have one question: um I was reviewing some of the proposals this morning because in lieu of trying to write a standardized kind of github action to kind of parse the mark down, it seems like some of the proposals and I think in the last meeting, the last apprenticeship meeting you guys mentioned that eip1 was kind of the standard and then uh also eip1559 might be a good proposal to look at. uh I dropped it in the discord as well. So you might have seen me mention it there too.

B

Some of the sections were missing. um I guess my question would be like: where should we start with a standardization for the eib proposals.

C

Sections were missing in 1559 or one.

B

um Let's see the reference implementation sections were mentioned, but not there security considerations. Let me see if that's there.

C

I would say eap: one generally is not really a conforming eve, so I wouldn't pay too much attention to the structure of that specific. But I feel like 1559 is neat but should be conforming.

C

And I'll also say that I I think, like generally, that you haven't done a great job of making sure that you conform exactly to what one is specified.

C

So it's very possible that a lot of them do not perform.

B

Yeah, I just I I wonder if eip1 maybe needs to be updated, or um maybe some of the uh some of the sections should be optional. Oh sorry, I I you know what it actually says. uh An optional section reference implementation is an optional section. Yeah um motivation is also an optional section, but people don't seem to dispute that.

C

The reference implementation is, I think, it's more stringently required for ercs than it is for core specs.

B

Yeah, I missed the fact that it said it was optional in the description.

A

One point I would like to mention here: uh alfa key, uh that if you find something that is like uh not consistent, and it is something that actually can be updated to eip1, please feel free to create an issue in the issues section. So at least you can propose your proposal and that would eventually will be discussed in eipip meetings with the rest of the eip editors, based on their consensus or general agreement of the group.

A

We will make the improvement changes and, of course, if that is accepted, feel free to create a full request to make that update on eip1.

A

A

One more question.

D

uh Like on 44.94, uh I'm pushing.

C

So will you cutting out for other people or is it just me.

D

I pretty much at the beginning, zoom had this update, which kind of wrecks my mic for a few minutes. Then it gets normal afterwards, but I have to talk first.

E

D

Okay, I think I might be stable now. Oh there.

C

D

C

Think I'm staple.

D

Now we'll see: okay, I at.

C

Least, saw your comments.

A

D

44.94 now I just pushed, I should have a new version which should fix everything.

F

A

I see a couple of new faces here joining today. um I don't know if you would like to let us know the motivation for joining this meeting. I see sam wilson greg.

A

Sorry, I see you unmuted, but we can't hear you.

G

Sam, let's try that. Can you hear me now: yeah, okay, cool um yeah, so I'm I'm here, because I want to eventually start contributing some time to uh editing eips and helping the process run smoothly.

A

Awesome best place to start.

A

um Well, generally, in these meetings, what we have been doing in the past is like matt walks us through the proposals like looked into uh proposals which are already added to the eap github repository and kind of do review. So it can give a like hands-on experience to the learning editors like what are the things that we should pay attention towards and uh like how we can actually do the reviewing in an efficient manner.

A

So if there is no further question um um lifeline, if you think we can go ahead and start looking into the proposals and at the end, we will have like 5-10 minutes again for any further questions.

F

C

I'll share my screen.

C

um I did a really long call on sunday actually, because I oh that just exit out firefox.

C

I did a long call on sunday, because I was sort of afk most of last week, so there was a lot of stuff that was piling up. So this could be a bit of a shorter session, we'll see.

C

uh Yeah but that'll, let us spend more time.

A

C

Okay, we'll just I usually start from the bottom and work towards the latest ones, just to be a little bit more fair, so that people who are coming in later don't get the reviews before before. I do okay, optional here, c721 consumable extension.

C

This one was pretty funny because this guy.

C

This guy put like eip4454, even though he had a great number four four zero zero. I don't know why he was picking that number out of thin air.

D

I thought he wrote this one pretty. Well, though I know the other.

C

This is funny where, where did you get four four four, five from.

D

But yeah yeah, I don't know if people realize where the numbers come. If you think this is funny, you can go through issues like a lot of times. People assign themselves numbers and issues also without even making a pr.

C

D

C

Yeah this this was a reasonably well written one. uh Do you remember if there was any outstanding critique you had of it.

D

um The only the only major comment, yeah, the only major comment I had is. I thought there should be a design change in it, but it was more of a magician's things like magician's conversation, I personally wouldn't have a problem staying at merge to draft yeah and there's some conversation around it. If things like this should even be a standard. I think this is the one that william entrekin actually commented on, saying like there shouldn't even be a standard.

D

I don't know how you feel about that. Like I know from my point of view for whatever it's worth, I don't really feel like it's our job to keep that.

C

Yeah I I tend to agree, I mean I was. I just pulled up this the other day. Just look at the ercs and the like number of like freaking token eips.

D

Well, I guess I shouldn't laugh because you're gonna get up to mine in a minute.

G

So when you say we shouldn't get keep this, are you saying that we shouldn't stop people from merging standards or we shouldn't let people merge standards? Oh.

D

G

Oh sorry, yeah you go for it.

D

I okay, I mean like clients, actually yeah, I'm just like you know a guy who sits in an armchair and makes comments, but my personal.

G

E

D

When he does so, his comments are better than mine, though, and plus he has pull rights on his comments. uh That's right! Sorry, I meant it uh I I would say that, in terms of what's considered a useful extension on erc 721 in this case, I don't feel like that should be a decision that comes down to the editor to say, like I have deemed this unnecessary and therefore it shall not be a standard.

D

The worst thing that happens is it gets merged in and no one ever uses it, and maybe the guy pumps himself on linkedin. You know like yay,.

C

Yeah I'd also say: generally, I have a lower bar for ercs than for core eeps tend to try and pull the core apes a little bit harder. There's also tends to be a lot less core that we have to deal with, but you know if somebody has an e erc that seems like it might make sense, and it's reasonably well written then they're, interacting with the process. I tend to just try and make sure that it is syntactically, correct and then sort of, let it go from there.

C

I think. If we had unlimited resources, we would try and spend more time and work with authors to try and figure out a good unified direction for standards, but don't we don't have that yet. So this is probably something I would just go ahead and merge we'll make sure that there's no other there's no other issues but syntactically. It looks to be fine.

F

Good feedback, william.

C

That he added those things: yep security, consideration, test cases, reference implementation, yeah. I think this gets merged.

C

All right now, hopefully the ball will merge it for us. Okay, seventh, ball. To last call our friend.

G

Oh this is, this is a thing. That's happening, that's wow. This is something that william is.

C

A

Thanks to william.

H

G

I definitely feel like 712 is, is like a process. Failure on the eip repositories part because, like four versions of an implemented metamask, so.

D

Yeah, I I do not know if there's a r3 that has actually required more than 712 I'd have to sit there and actually crunch the numbers because it could be like 20 or 721 beats it out. But, like I mean it is one of the highest traction. Eips said it was in draft like in march.

C

Yeah, I think this looks good to me. I looked over this on sunday pretty thoroughly and I think we're just waiting for the author to approve it.

D

Oh, if that's the case, I can so what do we need from him? I can.

E

C

D

C

D

Okay, cool so I'll I'll, dm okay, I'm in touch.

C

So this is something that's been frustrating me. What is lgtm supposed to mean.

G

Isn't that looks good.

C

To me, but I also read as let's get this merged.

G

It's it looks good to me.

A

That's a mind of editor here.

G

That's just something danny got you hooked on like two years ago.

B

Let's get this merged or it looks good to me. I I've heard it looks good to me.

C

That's fair, okay, I'm glad that's the consensus.

B

A small consensus.

C

I'm not going to approve this because it might auto emerge. I don't think it would, but I'm just going to comment on it and then let the author approve it and then I can go ahead and approve yeah. I think if I approved it wouldn't auto merge, but it's okay.

C

All right now we get to go. Look at william.

F

D

I think I might have missed more of the conversations that I can just fix them now. If then,.

C

I thought I commented on this.

D

Yeah you did I've been knocking. I pushed in the meantime, though, fixing a bunch of.

C

D

Might have missed one or two.

C

I just don't see my review on here at all, which is strange.

C

Is this person one of you guys.

A

Yes, yes, uh he is uh one of our uh you are talking about mr yala manchi.

F

A

He is one of the new um cathedrals who has joined to contribute on maybe editing.

C

But he's not they're not in this chat right now,.

A

Oh, he just messaged me that he has some power cut off at his house.

D

Oh, this is you're looking at this one first, so this one isn't the one you commented on. I actually have two in the queue right now.

C

Okay, we'll just go through we'll live comment on williams heap.

D

Oh, it's going to be the same thing though hyphenating all the erc references yeah. Whenever.

C

I wrote erc.

D

I just did it straight.

C

I kind of like go back and forth, but eap1 says that we should hyphenate them. So, of course they must be hyphenated.

D

If you want to save yourself going through like each one of them and just leave a general comment saying like put in put in hyphens like I mean I feel bad making you go through the whole thing. That's all good.

C

Okay, the standard extends the erc20 standard adds familiar functions from 721.

F

C

Sharing receiving contracts have proper implemented, proper functionality, uh 165 ads, among other things, the ability to tell if a target recipient explicitly signals compatibility.

C

Since we have corey's, maybe that's slightly confusing.

C

D

How do you, how do you figure out when do you pee in erc.

C

um I mean if it's an erc standard, I usually try to use erc so, like the token, is an erc, but I.

D

Also think 165.

C

Is an erc and I don't think people really use it as.

D

C

Of them isn't one.

D

Of them is in like a really weird place. You're right 165 is an erc. I think one of them isn't like interface or something. Okay, oh wait! No, my bad.

C

Yeah, usually, if it's in the erc track, I try and ucrc, but sometimes.

A

For some of these newer.

C

Eeps that haven't really gotten a lot of socialization, yet I use vip mistakenly.

A

um Matt, if I can request you to come back here yeah, I have a point that I want to like bring it here generally, we are using erc instead of eid, say, for example, here in the line number 22, it is erc 721 how about we stop using erc 721, because if we go to the eip now we have removed the prefix of erc7 to 1 before the title of the eip. It will actually encourage people to kind of start using eips, instead of erc all the time.

G

So you want to you, want to like get rid of the difference between erc and eip in the naming convention. Correct.

A

But that that con, that creates a lot of confusion, people say it's erc20, but actually it's eip 20 right and if we start making it a practice that e it is eip. 20, probably we will come to a point where we'll we have like one standard that is eip. Erc is not a different standard, but is a part of a standard eip.

C

Yeah, I I feel, like you know, for things like erc, slash, eap, 20 and 721, that it's gonna be pretty difficult to claw back to the use of erc on those, since it's so ubiquitous.

A

Right, uh the good point is like we already have started. I remember one of us making a pull request to remove all the erc from the title. So yeah.

C

um I don't know, I guess like in my mind, I've kind of been okay with people referring to erc's as either eap or an erc.

C

So someone said eia, p20 or eip721. I wouldn't say that's wrong, but if somebody said erc 1559 to me, that would be invalid, since it's just a core heap, that's kind of the way that I've I viewed it.

A

Yeah, my only uh thing here was like a standard track, has four different categories right, so why erc will be getting a separate recognition? Why don't we call networking uh proposal whatever the number is like interface number, whatever it is. So why do we have to call it as yes, even for korea it is, we don't call it like core number uh 1559, we just say eip1559 right, yeah,.

C

I think this is just the artifact of how eips emerged and ercs emerged, and I don't even know why they decided to use erc to me that doesn't make sense, ethereum or craft request for comment to me. That's just just like really strange and confusing, but it feels like it's like been now used colloquially as smart contract interfaces, whereas if eips refer to everything, oh there's like is the overarching standard and the erc's are this special sub-category that don't have to do with clients that maybe the community cares about.

C

I

C

Great, I mean it's like most things in this repository. It's confusing and frustrating.

A

Well, that's what we are trying to make it here like make.

C

It we're trying to make it confusing.

A

No, we are trying to do good.

I

A

We are trying to improve it here, my bad. We are trying to improve it here. I try to make it.

H

uh That that's just like white and trolling you're, not you're bad. Oh.

A

No, I did that. I mean that's the idea like when we are when we are inviting people to contribute, it's important, that we should make it understandable for them, and we should try to bring consistency in order to let them not get confused right. So now that we are understanding the process, there are two few things that we can initiate.

A

I think that way, maybe I can create an issue and start talking about what do people think about referring erc to as an eip and if the general, like most of the people, want to keep it that way, it's fair enough. If not at least we give it a try.

C

That sounds good to me. I think, like my stance is that I would rather us add some more information to eip1 and then go in and actually replace the generation logic for these titles and check. If it's an erc and then put your c there, I think that would be. That would be my preference, but we can discuss. I think.

A

It was, I think it was that way. I.

C

Thought that it was, I thought so. These are generated by the web generation software, and this is the title and I think before it was like the ap 721 erc, 721 non-fungible token standard, and we removed that at the beginning of those titles. But we could modify how this is created.

C

F

A

Yeah, I'm not sure I'm fully on board with that, because I would be like in a boat where we should not be giving special preference to anyone unless it is actually so special. Well because we have networking core and interface eips as well. But it's like governance, we'll have to get back to community.

C

Yeah that sounds good. Let's, let's talk about those some more on an eap meeting.

F

What is what is happening.

F

C

It's like a little mini browser to github. There.

D

Yeah, I actually just had the same bug on my end. It's really weird.

C

That is strange: um let's get merged.

F

Oh, my god, it's crashing.

F

D

D

If I refresh a couple of times, I usually get it.

C

Okay, it's running this should pass and that should merge. Let's go back to the crc slushy app.

E

Is mr elementary right about the um keywords being one? That's what I'm looking at right now. No, it says at least if this is copied directly from 219.

E

I copied from a different one, which is probably copied directly from 211. I mean yeah. This is copy. It's keywords.

C

Yeah, that's correct. Yes,.

C

Okay, so I generally don't go through the solidity too much, because I I don't really write a lot of solidity, so I just hope that the authors are doing the correct thing. I'm sorry.

C

Backwards compatibility test cases, reference implementation, a lot of external links, but I don't enforce that rules. This micah does for ercs.

C

Yeah, I would say overall, this looks good. Just want to get the hyphenations correct throughout is the main thing it looks like.

E

Yeah working on it right now. Actually, thanks about.

F

D

Do I realize now, when I did it in the other one, um it's going to mess up some of the solidity code, so I'll need to repatch that caught it in this one, though.

C

Okay, I think this one we've reviewed a bit and we're mainly waiting on them to remove that link from there, because I don't think that the description allows you to render a link like that.

C

Let's see what other stuff did they change actually I'll go, look and see what I lost comments on this.

C

C

All right looks like they have a grammar mistake here. That's the only thing stopping it. I might just push that to their branch and then merge this.

C

I'd recommend, if you, if you can, whenever, if you're gonna, give some sort of comment like that just go ahead and and um uh hit this button, so it pulls up a suggestion. Okay, I don't know why this suggestion is empty. I think it might be grabbing line 2.99. Let me go to the actual thing.

C

I would just go ahead and hit the suggestion thing.

F

And give an actual change suggestion.

C

Oh wait: they are updated.

C

Okay, use cases is not a valid.

C

C

I should just copy the the image that sam posted for me yesterday, but that was an eip that was specific to that. Wouldn't really apply here as well.

G

We definitely need some general means.

C

That's not valid.

C

This is not valid.

G

I think rationale needs an e.

F

H

Yeah, it's rational on that one.

C

This is one of the reasons it would be great to just have a bot that parses the markdown and determines if it's valid or not, because there's just so many times that people would toss in one of these, and it's just not.

G

So you'd want a bot that, like parses it and then comments on that request or.

C

Yeah, it says you have these imbalance sections, that's all it does. I mean we do have we have bot, we could extend the e plot.

A

C

Would probably be the smartest thing to do.

G

What's eatbot written in typescript.

C

C

Yet another language.

G

Oh, I have um the domain name eaps.fyi. If anybody has any clever use for that, let me know.

B

I'm working on a um github action right now for checking all the should. It only check the added files.

E

B

Because I assume, if, if somebody updates or like reviews a proposal, we probably don't want to scan it again.

C

Well, I mean if they update and add a balanced section. We should know okay, I feel like if it's a modified file in the eeps directory.

G

Yeah, you see so skin the diff right, so if they remove a required section, if they add a section that doesn't exist, um yeah and I guess on a completely new file, you want to make sure that it has all the required sections as well.

F

C

All right, three, four, four: eight: they added the solidity contract to it with the edit. With the test case, I.

F

C

That was the main issue that was still outstanding with the scheme. I think that we're going to be okay to move this to review now, just double check reference implementation check.

C

Check check security considerations.

C

He added the test cases there, but he should really have a.

C

You should really add a section. Oh no.

F

C

A section right here.

F

Yep, okay, he's got the testy section.

C

I think that's probably good. Sometimes it's hard to see all the sections and everything when you're moving something to review you kind of want to review the entire heap again as you move it through review. So I'm just going to sort of look at it quickly from the rendered version and make sure there's all the sections that looks. Okay.

C

Yeah, this looks good to me.

F

Okay, I'll go ahead and print this one as well.

C

Man, github is trippy. Today somebody pushed something bad.

C

First, commit of nft is standard.

E

I think we've looked at them.

C

Yeah looks like you left. I think you left a bunch of comments on this one and I did not do anything. I bumped a couple things, but let's see if they have just written.

F

Description: author discussions too: it's just not.

C

All right they they have these sections out of order.

B

So that's another thing to check right.

C

I wish we just had like eap1.com.

C

That would be nice.

G

Like I said, I can make one.eeps.fyi linked directly to uh vip.

C

I don't know if it's worth the time, but it would be neat and fun.

C

Yeah, oh you already said all literally. All of this all right just again upset it. Oh no! These are the missing sections.

E

Okay, I'll request those changes.

E

Oh the test cases.

D

Aren't, theoretically obligatory made that mistake a couple of times mike had caught me on.

F

Yeah, that's fair.

C

Okay, smart non-fungible token, honestly, I don't even know what that means.

D

So this is actually a really interesting one. They uh they have like an entire academic paper on this. uh It's a bit hard to like uh for me. It's like a little bit hard for me to wrap my head around entirely. What they're trying to do with that, but it's pretty professionally done I'll, say that much for it, nice.

D

Oh, I thought email was good enough. Whoops.

C

Yeah we just require that one person uses a github that way the ball could tag them and it can tell that they're approving it, etc.

C

Is this supposed to be hyphenated.

D

Which one oh, no, it's interesting because nft like is the acronym and everything but you're right. It technically probably should be.

C

Yeah, so I I tend to just like google things and look and see how wikipedia has them and that's usually what I try to force unless we've made a previous decision about how it should be so I'm just gonna recommend that they do that. I actually haven't read this at all. When.

F

Did they open this.

C

Four days ago, I.

F

Missed it on sundays,.

F

These all have to be capitalized. The bot is probably failing because of this.

C

They want a nft to represent a physical, smart off a smart asset physically, I don't know how you can physically bound and nft anything. This doesn't exist in the physical world.

D

Oh yeah I'll admit that I have something about this myself, but again, like they have an entire academic paper on it and everything like I'm tempted to try and dig into it more. I think I may have even posted the magicians asking for a bit of an explanation on some of the things that I understand. Let me just double check that I'm not absolutely making up that. I did that.

D

Oh man, I don't see, there's a new magician's thread for something called an stdnft. Do we tell them what that stands for.

D

And this is a recorded call man. I should be careful.

C

Would be the worst thing we ever said in a reported call.

C

D

C

This eep at all, so I'm sort of just reading it a little bit to gauge. What's going on. I think it's too.

D

Heavy to read the whole thing before I spend a while on something.

D

Oh here we are new proposal, smart. I know I didn't post it there I'm. I was thinking about it, but I actually did not respond to them with magicians.

D

If you have the time to go back for it, I have implemented all of your suggestions on the safer erc20. Oh sweet thanks.

C

I was going to say one thing: I ten. I think that maybe micah is a little bit. um He prefers that people generally are more specific when they're talking about ethereum things, like maybe ethereum whenever they're talking about ethereum. I think I take a different stance.

C

I generally just prefer that people assume- because this is an ethereum improvement proposal- that they are already specifically talking about ethereum, mainnet or they're, talking about a ethereum test net that they specify with their writing, and so something like you know, this person is saying that he requests the use of anything like blockchain address to ethereum address so hey. I would definitely agree with blockchain, because this is ethereum focused, but I would also even go as far to say that address is acceptable, because this is already in the context of an ethereum improvement proposal.

C

So that's generate my stance on that.

D

Oh, these guys are also active in the discord channel. I remember this they're, like pink vane, asked me a few questions there on the countdown yeah.

E

C

All right they've got, they did bring in their assets and they did it nicely.

G

F

This probably looks pretty nice.

D

Yeah, it will smell.

D

Oh sorry, it wasn't them. It was actually the mr yellowman.

C

I'm afraid that this is not going to come through on the east outer theorem before, but we'll see.

D

Usually it does come through on mark down I'd like I definitely don't want to make guarantees about the run like you know, whatever's rendering the mark done for this, though,.

D

I usually end up using br tags to make extra spaces or like line breaks like the truth, is different things parse mark down differently, I'm thinking back now. I've had problems on certain platforms. Doing that.

G

Now you can't nest a lot of things in markdown. That's probably why they're using html tags um yeah, and I think you can make a new line with leaving a blank space at the end of the line. But I don't remember: markdown is weird.

D

Yeah- and it's also weird because different platforms will implement their own parsers differently. Oh.

G

God I know yeah, I everything needs to be common mark and that's just what it needs to be.

G

You want to talk about a terrible language. Come take a look at restructured text. It's wonderful.

D

That's that great stack overflow answer. Sorry, did you.

J

D

Again, regex over html there's like this famous.

G

Oh yeah yeah with his outgoing text at the end yeah.

H

D

They had to lock it and put a warning on it. That was.

H

D

Supposed to look like that, which I thought was really funny.

A

D

You know there's that one guy who's looking to like you know, have his like stack overflow gdp growing at like a steady six percent per day. Who's like look. This is not formatted it like flags it. You know.

G

Simultaneously, one of the most toxic and useful communities in the entire world.

G

You know somebody needs to make a dow based off of their reputation system, because it does seem to work pretty well.

D

I'm really surprised it didn't happen with the ethereum stack exchange. Yet I think there were some attempts back in the day like I seem to recall that conversation being floated um but- and it seems like a really like I mean as much as people like gaming dows and things like that gaming by creating legit stacking content, doesn't sound too awful to me. There are like problems with that and like simple attacks and things like that, I'm not denying it but uh yeah, I'm kind of surprised hasn't happened with the ethereum stack exchange.

D

I actually just had a really wacky thought, which is using the ethereum stack exchange as a source for airdrop recipients, which is oh.

A

For like a horrible idea,.

D

Yeah and like that's not even that's like a non-horrid ideas for teardrop, so in my humble opinion,.

G

To bring this back into the current topic of the meeting, how about you write an erc.

D

The um lobsters actually did a telegram based airdrop and the code is public.

G

Yeah yeah, I loosely follow that.

C

E

Kind of an interesting one, this.

C

Is a quarry which we tend to not see that many core apes from like people that aren't already involved, but they had this uh cip, where they wanted to reserve a couple uh op codes so that they could allow multibyte op codes to be used, and I thought it was sort of interesting because they didn't specify a scenario like this, which would be something like push 4 and then 56, which is jump. And then this is their eb, which was their extension, op code and 5b so like.

C

Currently, I specified this would allow me to jump into an op. That's like not really, because it's not really an executing op like if I was parsing this. I wouldn't consider this to be an extension of eb. Didn't paul. Have a write-up on this. I couldn't find like. I was actually trying to find this for a week and I couldn't find a full write-up from paul. I just found some things on the discord: server. No.

G

There was, there was definitely a like hack, md or uh ethereum magicians, or each research post, probably not magicians, but on um the three different ways that you could do extended: byte op codes and then the one he proposed was like. You wrap it in a push.

C

C

Yeah, that's okay! I won't do anything bad here.

G

Yeah, like I see the one on the side here right like that yeah.

C

This is just a poster yeah! No, I know.

G

But I remember.

C

You remember me for sure.

G

No, I don't remember for sure I mean it's very likely that it was just a discord pose, but anyways it's been thought about.

F

Yeah, it's been.

C

Thought about um yeah, maybe I'll, go back and share some information on that. We're sort of running out of time, I'll review this last one and then I'll come back and get williams.

C

Qr code data transmission protocol, I'm pretty sure that this is from the.

F

E

I forget the name: oh, but status. Did you say leggy yeah.

C

Not status, I forget the name of the wallet keystone.

E

Oh keystone, keystone, yeah.

C

F

C

On this, a while back actually.

C

Does anybody have any questions we like close this out I'll just try and leave some comments on this.

D

If you don't mind just giving another look at mine, I'd be interested in getting my two pushed in. Did you actually did you get a chance to look at 44.94 today? I don't even remember.

F

D

The other one I did the pretty.

E

Sure that was the one that I looked at on sunday.

D

Yeah, you looked at it on sunday, so I I pushed changes to uh yeah and to the other one. So if you, if you'd, be able to get it yeah later and see, if you can merge it.

C

And appreciate it I'll take a look at both of those I I have to hop off in five minutes, but, okay, anybody has any questions in the meantime, otherwise I'll just try and take a look at continue. Looking at this.

J

A

So we are getting close to an hour. I would encourage anyone. If you have any question, please feel free to ask, and always you can come back on the discord channel.

B

Yeah, I have um a quick question for the github bot, so my notes are check. Sections are in order, get modded and attified the modified and added files. um It looks like you're already checking the metadata somehow like the little header at the top.

E

C

There's a bot ep and that this thing basically just validates the preamble.

C

And then there is this thing, which should do everything else.

C

So that this does the other checks, more of the semantic checks is like can't just be approved: they're not auto merged.

B

Which one should I submit a pull request to, or do you think it should be a separate spot? This.

F

Should be to eat, bought eve.

B

Okay, yeah: I got that one.

B

And then I saw also you made a comment. One of the authors must have a github name associated with the proposal, something like that.

C

That should probably be part of ev. I generally do anything that has to do with the metadata in the e through the eav validator and then everything else through e-bot. I guess that e-bot could also validate.

A

C

Metadata if we wanted to add that functionality, so it's all in one place, that would be fine too. I just don't. Nobody has gotten around to doing.

F

A

uh Matt, I will get uh in touch with you offline about what to do with e ipv like if you have.

G

A

Appropriate uh yeah, folder or directory in mind. We can move it too, so people can start making pull requests if there is enemies.

C

Sorry I forgot.

A

F

C

Move it over there right now.

A

All right that sounds good.

A

I am hoping that it is an useful session for everyone who is even watching the recording, as usual I'll recommend, showing up on uh canada's discord with your questions or comments or anything you would like to discuss with regards to eip or governance in general. And yes, uh any other final question comment part from anyone.

D

Thanks a bunch ben.

C

D

For coming guys,.

C

Hang me on the couch. Just have any questions in the meantime.

D

And they will break up the whole debate with that external link. So it'll be awesome.

A

Yeah, of course, I can add it as an agenda item to be discussed with a broader group in the eipap meeting. If you are up for it, maybe.

D

Maybe we could discuss that like client study is to run so, uh let's bounce for now we'll talk about that picture.

A

F

Thank you. Everyone thank.

B