►
From YouTube: EIP editor's apprenticeship meeting 12
A
B
D
Is
there
a
like
a
quick
way
to
see
what
eips
need
review.
D
B
Just
like
really
frustrating
because-
and
I'm
like
open
to
hearing
other
ways
of
doing
this,
but
like
what
we
could
do
is
we
could
put
a
label
on
something
like
say
we
review
this,
and
we
say
you
know,
put
a
label
on
here
and
are
like
waiting
for
author,
then
once
they
respond,
there's
no
way
to
room
that
they
can
remove
that.
So
I
don't
really
know
a
good
way
other
than
just
manually.
Looking
at
things,
yeah.
D
So
you
like
a
bot,
can
do
that.
That's
kind
of
what
bores
does
right.
B
D
D
D
Okay,
okay,
but
yeah
so
like
there's
no
way
to
atomically
replace
the
code
at
a
an
address
right
like
even
if
we
had
like
a
create
three
op
code,
you
can't
create
you
can't
create
at
an
address
until
after
the
transaction's
finished.
So
that
is
a
big
problem.
D
So
let's
say
you
have
a
eoa
right
and
then
you
you
get
code
in
it
somehow
and
then
that
code
self-destructs
and
you
want
to
replace
it
with
new
code
right,
like
you're,
doing
an
upgrade
or
whatever
yeah,
there's
no
way
to
replace
the
like
the
contract
at
that
address
until
the
next
transaction.
B
D
B
C
B
D
B
I
mean
I
just
don't
think
that
that
is,
I
don't
think
that's
a
reasonable
criticism
like
it
completely
requires
a
change
of
like
fundamentally
of
that
eep
like
that
eep
is
us
trying
to
be
a
soft
fork,
eep,
something
that
can
be
applied
from
genesis
and
there's
nothing
that
can
be
done
to
address
that
without
modifying
the
consensus,
client.
D
B
A
My
bad,
I
have
requested
these
authors
because
their
last
call
ended
in
february
sorry
january,
mid
and.
A
D
A
So,
as
per
my
last
discussion
with
nick,
he
mentioned
that
after
we
moved
the
proposal
to
the
last
call
and
with
the
like
publishing
of
the
people
episode
on
this
proposal,
he
received
certain
improvement,
features,
request
and
based
on
the
consideration.
He
edited
some
part
of
the
proposal
and
then
he
is
now
planning
to
move
it
to
the
final
status.
B
A
A
A
So
I
have
added
this
in
questions
list
for
today.
What
marks
some
of
the
proposal
as
ambiguous?
You
just
mentioned,
like
highlighted
one
of
the
reason
why
it
is
ambiguous,
but.
A
B
It
could
be
something
else
like
sometimes
it's
hard
for
me
to
know.
If
one
of
these
is
slightly
off
like
standard
track,
I
think
it
is.
I
think
these
are
all
right,
though
it
feels
like
the
one
thing.
That's
missing
is
the
eip
number,
but
that
really
shouldn't
be
affecting
the
the
rest
of
the
execution
of
the
bot.
F
F
B
A
A
B
B
B
Can
you
still
hear
me
yeah,
yes,
okay,
I
guess
travis
is
just
not
showing
up.
I'm
just
going
to
comment
to
this
change
and
then
mention
that.
D
E
C
D
D
C
That
metallic
article
about
being
soulbound
and
a
lot
of
that
will
depend
how
you
define
token
and
that
was
kind
of
like
a
sentence
of
semantics.
I
didn't
haven't
given
such
a
look
to
this.
Yet
actually
this
says
4671.
D
C
That's
what
you
mean
by
verifiable
identities,
but
I
do
think
that
one
of
the
big
considerations
whenever
you
look
at
something
like
this
is
the
fact
that,
if
you're
using
it
to
identify
someone,
the
connection
between
a
human
being
and
an
address
is
obviously
something
that
can
change
over
time.
People
need
to
either
lose
their
keys
or
get
them
compromised,
or
things
like
that.
So,
even
if
something
is
like
theoretically
not
meant
to
be
transferred,
there
should
be
a
situation
in
which
it
should
be
able
to
be
revoked
or
moved.
F
F
C
C
A
A
C
C
A
A
Probably
make
use
of
that
so
the
reviewers
would
know
that
these
are
the
proposals
that
needs
to
view.
C
If
there's
a
new
eip
file
and
its
editor
needs
to
review
yeah,
so
I
mean
you
can
see,
though,
that,
like
I
mean
light,
client
has
looked
at
it
and
it
still
has
that
label
there.
It
could
be
that
it
only
runs
every
kind
of
period
or
something
like
that.
So
I
don't
know
if
it's
like
going
to
be
100,
accurate
or
anything
but
yeah.
No.
A
I
think
the
we
can
probably
look
into
the
codes
when
this
is
activated,
because
if
a
proposal
is
a
new-
and
that
is
a
new
eip
in
draft
status,
obviously
reviewers
will
look
into
it,
but
if
this
label
can
be
used
with
other
pull
requests,
those
are
not
for
the
new
proposals
I
think,
is
going
to
be
very
helpful.
So
we
might
want
to
check
with
alita
or
someone
who
is
working
on
the
bot
and
creating
these
labels.
A
C
C
I
was
actually
just
looking
at
that
yeah
I
was.
I
was
just
looking
at
that,
so
that's
your
sea
land.
I
see
that
like
mine
and
axe,
have
both
made
comments.
The
changes
it
looks
like
gogo
has
implemented
light
clients
changes,
but
that
I'm
assuming
the
access
part.
C
A
C
I
seem
to
remember
it
getting
into
review
already.
I
could
be
wrong,
but
I'm
pretty
sure
that
it
was
already
in
review.
C
Yeah,
I
I
so
I
assume
that
he
meant,
I
wonder
what
he
did
mean.
A
I'll
do
a
quick
search
for
four
six,
two
six.
I
can
find
three
of
them
in
open
section.
The
pull
request
number.
Obviously,
four,
seven
five
one,
but
the
other
two
are
beyond
that:
four:
seven,
eight
one
and
four,
seven,
seven
seven.
A
So
these
are
not
like
earlier
I
mean
I'm
confused
by
execs
comment.
I
assume
that
there
are
other
pull
requests
which
were
made
before
this
particular
one
and
those
are
open.
Oh,
we
have
light
line
back.
A
B
C
E
C
Back
when
I
was
newer
to
coding
and
figuring
out
the
ethereum
stack,
so
I
got
myself
an
amd
gpu
because
I
was
like
I
know
I'm
gonna
mine
because,
like
all
the
tutorials
at
the
time
made
that
down
like
that
was
actually
a
rational
thing
to
think
I
could
do
with
an
amd
gpu
wow.
I
learned
so
much
about
linux.
A
C
A
So
matt,
I
have
a
few
things
for
this
particular
proposal
I
want
to
share,
or
the
author
wasn't
sure
like
which
category
should
it
fit
in
interface
or
the
informational?
I
suggested
going
ahead
with
the
interface,
but
we
are
not
sure,
like
I
said
that
it,
you
would
be
provided
guidance
on
the
particular
category,
so
that
is
one
thing
about
this
proposal
and
the
in
general.
My
my
question
was:
what
should
be
the
general
category
for
a
proposal?
A
A
B
A
Shared
it
with
dany
as
well
to
get
his
feedback,
maybe
tomorrow
thursday
meeting
or
somewhere
else.
Maybe
we
will
get
back.
I
mean
we'll
get
some
feedback
on
this
proposal,
but.
C
B
A
D
Yeah
like
participate
validators
that
support
the
cip
would
only
include
like
wouldn't
include
transactions
unless
they
were
also
approved
on
some
other
list,
but,
like
I,
I
haven't
actually
read
any
detail.
B
B
E
B
C
A
C
A
So
matt
at
present
we
can
see
text
editor.
I
don't
know.
B
A
I
know
we
have
like
very
few
minutes
left
for
this
call
by
the
way
we
can't
see
your
screen
so
far,
but
I
was
wondering
if
we
can
look
into
proposal
for
sorry
pull
request,
4751
and
especially
to
the
comment
that
exec
left.