►
From YouTube: EIP editor's apprenticeship meeting 14
Description
Agenda: https://github.com/ethereum-cat-herders/EIPIP/issues/114
A
Oh
yeah,
I
mean
I
was
planning
to
just
start
going
through
prs
and
walking
through
them
as
usual,
unless
sam
has
a
strong
urge
to
do
the
same.
D
B
You
can
like
each
individual
person
can
pin
like
clients
webcam
if
they
want
to
see
it
all
right,
but
no
like
recent
versions
of
linux,
don't
let
you
screen
share
effectively
with
zoom
anymore,
so.
D
B
What
what
eip
was
you
gonna
be
going
over.
D
No,
we
were
just
about
to
start,
and
I
did
mention
that
I
have
shared
agenda
in
the
chat.
I
don't
know
if
it
was
before
you
joined,
so
I'm
gonna
reshare
it.
D
So
you
got
the
link
and
I
had
listed
some
of
the
pulled
requests
here,
but
this
list
is
from
the
last
time
because
we
could
not
have
the
call,
so
it
is
possible
that
some
of
these
pull
requests
have
already
been
marched,
but
after
whatever
new
has
been
since
the
last
week,
will
we
will
pick
up
these
ish
pull
requests
if
we
have
time
and
check
what
they
are?
Looking
for.
E
Yeah,
I'm
just
listening
in
I'm
a
researcher,
academic,
who's,
researching
ethereum
and
ethereum
governance,
and
so
I
just
by
chance
saw
this
so
I
thought
I'd
drop
in
and
just
see
what
you
guys
get
up
to.
D
Yeah
yeah
you're
more
than
welcome
just
fyi.
This
is
not
for
the
governance
call.
This
is
just
for
the
learning
purposes.
However,
we
do
plan
a
call
which
is
called
eipip
in
which
we
try
to
take
questions
that
is
around
the
process
and
anything
related
to
governance.
So
you
are
also
welcome
to
join
the
call
tomorrow
that
is
1500
utc
and
you
will
find
the
invite
on
the
cat
riders
general
channel.
D
C
A
B
It's
a
name
that
vitalik
came
up
with.
It
comes
from
world
of
warcraft,
where
a
soul
bound
item
is
attached
to
your
character
and
can't
be
traded
or
sent
to
other
people.
A
C
C
C
A
A
C
C
A
C
A
C
A
This
feels
like
something
that
would
benefit
from
one
of
those
standards
around
like
giving
and
like
nfts
that
have
a
function
that
gives
certain
people
access
to
things
because,
like
how
do
you
transfer
out
like
it's
gonna,
have
basically
the
same
function
here,
probably
where
it
says
is
active
or
some
sort.
Okay,
balance
of.
A
A
A
D
I
don't
know
what
would
be
the
best
way
of
kind
of
publicizing
these
proposal
other
than
like
first
being
merged
as
draft,
and
then
people
can
start
talking
on
the
fem
forum,
because
sometimes
it
happens
like
people
are
waiting
for
them
to
be
merged,
and
then
they
start
working
on
implementation
or
apparently
they
are
working,
but
they
just
want
that.
This
thing
should
be
added
in
the
repo.
B
Isn't
there
some
like
light
requirement
for
reaching
some
form
of
consensus,
but
before
it
becomes
an
eip
like.
A
A
It
just
feels
like
these
things
like
on
their
own,
won't
achieve
very
much
success,
whereas
it
makes
more
sense
to
bundle
these
types
of
extensions
into
a
just,
a
new
token
standard.
That's
backwards
compatible
like
they're,
effectively
the
same
thing,
but
I
think
that
that
approach
just
is
like
a
lot
more
consumable
to
developers.
C
D
D
Yeah,
actually
there
is
the
thing
like
micah
one
of
the
editor.
He
is
not
in
favor
of
getting
this
moved.
Exec
had
some
concerns
he
did
mention
about
it,
and
matt
has
already
approved
it.
So
we
were
hoping
that
if
we
can
get
one
more
approval,
one
more
editor's
approval
there.
That
would
be
nice
to
have,
but
because
this
proposal,
particularly
is
like,
I
see,
is
good
to
have
in
the
repository.
B
D
A
A
D
Can
we
just
request
to
update
that
link.
A
C
A
C
B
A
That
was
this
one.
I
think.
A
A
C
C
D
Sorry
I'm
talking
about
the
earlier
proposal.
Pr4910.
B
A
C
C
A
A
B
Is
it?
Is
it
sorry,
I
can't
read
your
screen?
Is
it
rmrfing
like
sub
modules,
or
is
it
just
not
checking
them
out?
Oh
making
it
bigger,
doesn't
help.
It
just
gets
blurrier.
Okay,.
B
D
B
But
github
actions.
B
Like
there's
got
to
be
just
like
a
boolean
option,
you
can
provide
to
check
out.
That's
like
don't
get
me
sub
modules.
A
A
Oh,
he
wants
to
allow
eat
authors
to
simply
add
the
target
repository
in
the
assets
directory
rather
than
linked
to
it.
D
A
B
D
I
mean
I
am,
I
don't
understand
these
pull
requests.
The
reason
behind
it
is
this
minute.
Warranty
is
an
informational
eip
and
informational
eip
does
not
provide
any
mandate
that
everyone
has
to
follow
it.
It's
just
for
the
purpose
of
information.
So
it's
totally
depending
on
the
author.
If
they
want
to
change
the
wording
or
not
it's
nice
to
have
all
like
everywhere,
written
minute
in
the
same
format,
but
it's
not
a
mandate.
A
Anyways
yeah,
I
won't
be
able
to
finish
the
rest
of
it.
Got
three
minutes
left.
What
were
the
things
that
you
wanted
to
go
over.
D
A
D
Another
was
in
which
the
author
have
requested
review
by
you:
4858
pull
request,
number
is
4858
and
there
is
another
pull
request.
4779
both
are
open
and
both
are
for
the
same
proposal.
D
I
I
was
a
little
confused
here
like
how
do
we
deal
this
kind
of
things,
because
these
two
pull
requests
are
at
different
time
changes
into
same
file?
Do
we
actually
have
to
request
author
to
have
at
least
have
only
one
pr
at
time
right?
Because
we
don't
know
if,
like
it
is
continued
from
that
from
the
same
branch.
A
A
A
A
D
Yeah,
I
think
we
should
do
good
for
today,
because
I
see
there
are
more
proposals
here
listed
here.
So
maybe
we.
A
D
So
what
do
you
guys
think
like?
Should
we
have
it
for
like
this
time,
only
make
it
to
1500
instead
of
16?
Will
that
work
for
everyone.
D
And
yeah,
okay,
I
think
let's
keep
it
unless
we
hear
someone
coming
back
saying
that
no
1600
was
the
best.