►
From YouTube: EIP Editors Apprenticeship Meeting 23
Description
Agenda: https://github.com/ethereum-cat-herders/EIPIP/issues/166
A
B
Hey
okay,
so
what
do
we
got
going
on
here?
Okay,
so
this
is
going
to
file,
so
we
want
to
pay
extra
attention
to
it,
but
it
literally
looks
like
there
are
no
changes,
so
this
should
be
pretty
quick.
B
Yeah
yeah,
I
think
so
too,
I'm
just
making
sure
everything
looks
good
here.
Let
me
do
this
and
this
just
pulling
up
vip
one
here,
so
I
have
the
reference.
Okay.
B
A
B
We
can
take
a
look.
I
don't.
B
A
B
B
A
B
B
God,
that's
a
long
description
all
right
so
again,
because
this
one's
changing
state,
it's
probably
worth
giving
it
a
bit
more
of
a
thorough
review
there:
okay,
good
enough
so
compound
tokens.
That
seems
fine.
A
B
Okay,
specification
must
implement.
B
Now
so
I
don't
know
if
we
have
a
formal
rule
about
this,
but
this
isn't
code,
so
it
shouldn't
be
in
a
like
backticks
like
that
and
they're
just
putting
it
in
backticks
to
get
eipw
to
shut
up
about
it
yeah.
So
I
guess
that's
probably
a
comment
I
should
make.
B
That
is
a
densely
packed
blob
of
solidity.
Eep
712
types.
B
A
C
Hi
everyone
yeah
it's
kind
of
lots
of
comments
and
go
back
and
through
because
of
some
changes
that
are
needed
by
the
ci
pipeline
to
be
completed
so
yeah.
C
I
agree
that
there
are
lots
of
comments,
but
we
have
done
most
of
the
restructuring
on
the
part
of
grammatical
errors
on
the
part
of
also
the
eip1
compatibility
and
things
like
that.
Okay,
so
yeah
I
mean,
if
so,.
C
C
So
there
were
issues
in
the
ci
pipeline
that
needed
us
to
create
another
pr
where
I,
because
we
deleted
the
reference
implementation,
our
reference
implementation
changed
significantly,
so
I
think
it
was
mika
who
said
that
it's
better
to
not
reference
it.
If
it's
unstable,
like
there
are
lots
of
changes
in
the
implementation,
it
will
be
difficult
for
any
other
reader
to
implement
it
on
their
site,
so
we
removed
that
and
as
we
removed
that
and
accordingly,
all
the
assets
that
were
referenced.
C
I
think
ci
pipelines
mentioned
this
error
that
you
are
doing
change
to
final
and
at
the
same
time
you
are
deleting
some
information,
so
there
were
one
there
was
one
another
pr
that
we
did
to
just
do
this
change
of
deleting
the
assets
okay
and
then
once
that
is
merged.
I
think
it's
5399,
which
is
referred
within
this.
A
Just
a
suggestion
for
now,
like
whatever
pr
we
are
looking
at
right
now,
and
you
don't
have
permission
so
just
we
do
not
forget
about
it.
You
can
just
leave
a
comment
for
matt
to
may
be
able
to
merge
and
I
will
follow
up
with
the
team
to
get
to
you.
The
access
so
you'll
be
able
to
do
it
in
future.
B
Okay,
yeah
I'll
leave
this
open
and
then
I'll
come
back
to
that.
Okay,
so
we'll
skip
this
one
for
now,
we'll
come
back
to
that.
Once
this
other
one
gets
merged.
B
A
So
the
funny
thing
is
this
proposal
is
also
final
yep
on
repository
and
the
pull
request
that
they
are
saying.
That's
somehow
suggest
that
it
is
not
in
final.
B
And
1271
p
1271
yeah.
So
it's
that's
so
weird,
okay,
so
this
this
one's
still
in
some
weird
state.
So
I
guess
I'll
just
leave
a
comment
on
it.
A
B
B
B
A
B
Oh
yeah,
it's
because
of
these,
so
it's
missing
security
considerations.
It's
missing
the
description.
It's
like
these
little
eipw
errors
here.
B
So
that's
why
it
has
that
little
comment.
B
A
Yeah,
I
believe,
because
this
new
bot,
I
have
seen
this
comment,
often
on
the
on
pull
request,
that
they
have
to
fix
the
part
error,
especially
related
to
I
guess,
eipw,
so
who's
trying
to
understand
yeah.
B
Yeah,
just
anytime
the
the
checks
fail.
It
post
that
comment.
B
Yeah,
so
I
think
panda
has
done
a
good
job
covering
this
not
much
else
to
say.
A
Yeah
so
because
they
are
saying,
I
don't
know
what
to
do.
Like
you
know,
that's
not
my
error.
B
B
A
Is
any
change
in
text
or
any
description
that
makes
sense
to
make
pushes
to
final
proposal?
If
not.
A
Yeah
sam.
There
is
a
question
in
chat
by
the
author,
so
the
question
is
for
eip3475.
There
are
two
open:
pull
requests:
five:
three:
eight
five
and
five:
three:
nine
nine!
Will
there
be
notes
of
the
issues
so
that
authors
and
reviewers
are
on
the
same
page.
B
Oh
yeah,
so
I
guess
once
we
get
the
deletion
one
sorted
out,
then
we
can
go
back
to
the
five
three
eight
five,
so
yeah
once
I
could.
Actually
you
know
force
the
pr
to
go
through
and
remove
the
reference
implementation.
Then
I
can
go
back
and
review
the
other
one.
C
Yeah,
that's
it's
fine.
We,
we
will
be
replying.
You
know
rapidly,
so
no
ways.
Okay,
so
just
take
case
yeah.
The
next
steps,
if
needed
from
our
site.
B
Yeah,
I
think
it's
all
just
ci
stuff
on
our
side
right
now,
yeah.
C
A
B
B
Yeah
yeah,
it
is
final
they're,
just
cleaning
up
some
formatting
errors
and
then
adding
this
note
here.
B
B
B
All
right,
so
I
think
this
is
more
of
an
eipip
meeting
topic
yeah,
just
because
this,
like
it's
not
really
about
the
content
of
eips.
A
I
found
this
also
more
of
eipip
meeting,
but
I
thought,
let's
take
it
here.
First.
A
B
Yeah,
I
I
guess
I'm
rather
neutral
on
this.
We
can.
We
can
talk
about
it
during
the
eipip
one.
Okay.
So
now
we've
got
11
55.,
wait,
11
55.!
Oh
it's
an
extension!
Okay.
B
B
Okay,
so
we
have
11
55
in
the
title.
It's
in
the
requires
that's
good
yeah
that
all
looks
fine.
This
is
just
really
155.
B
Yeah
yeah
they
are
yeah
and
so
epw
will
also
catch
links
like
these.
If
they
go
to
a
non-final
eip,
it
doesn't
have
to
be
in
the
requires
header.
A
B
B
B
Yeah
yeah,
it's
it's.
I
think
panda
pip
just
put
up
a
replacement
eip
that
fixes
a
typo.
C
A
Yeah
I
mean
like,
I
think
it
was
initiated
by
some
other
user.
He
was
sharing
concern
that
this
proposal
is
in
march.
I
mean
it's
in
final
status,
but
it
is
not
compatible
with
some
section,
so
panda
paper
and
micah
suggested.
We
can
probably
have
a
new
proposal
which
would
be
like
replacing
this
one
I
mean.
Obviously
it
will
not
be
replaced,
but
the
way
they
want
things
to
be
working
with
respect
to
seven
to
one.
It
should
be
there.
B
Okay,
so
what
do
they
have?
The
that's
really.
B
A
B
Oh
okay,
what
was
the
the
number.
A
Yeah,
that's
what
I
I
thought
it
is
it's
the
same
proposal,
but
it
was
not.
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
What's
the
difference,
oh
just
adding
a
blank
space,
does
it
render
nicely.
B
A
B
Yeah,
I
can't
I
can't
override
the
required
status
check
still,
so
I
might
not
be
in
the
right
mode
like
I
might
not
be
an
admin
or
or
something
like
that,
but
yeah.
We
can
figure
that
out
after
okay.
B
So
it's
just
having
a
blank
space.
I
don't
really
care.
I
also
don't
really
care
about
that
or
that
or
that.
B
B
Is
wallet
connect
I
think
both
are
capitalized
right,
like
wallet
and
connect.
A
B
A
B
B
Yeah,
I
think
that's
a
good
point.
I
guess.
A
B
Yeah,
I
think
they
just
want
to
be
able
to
say,
like
just
sign
anything
for
a
period
of
time,
without
having
to
ask
for
confirmations.
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
Now
I'm
actually
going
to
have
to
end
this
here.
I
have
to
get
ready
for
my
next
meeting,
but
yeah
thanks
for
coming
to
watch
me
edit
eips.