►
From YouTube: EIPIP Meeting 68
Description
Agenda: https://github.com/ethereum-cat-herders/EIPIP/issues/187
A
Welcome
to
eipip
meeting
68
I
have
shared
agenda
and
chat.
Today
we
have
small
agenda
items,
a
small
number
of
agenda
items,
but
I
think
the
discussion
is
going
to
be
relatively
bigger.
So
the
biggest
point
of
discussion
today
here
is
external
link
policy,
so
I
have
tried
collecting
all
the
related
documents,
proposals,
issues
and
pull
requests
here
in
agenda.
A
A
There
are
two
hack
MD
from
one
by
Victor,
one
by
Sam
for
some
general
solution
and
also
issues
and
pull
requests
here
so
I
know
Sam.
You
have
tried
to
summarize
that
and
put
it
into
a
question
format.
If
you
would
like
to
give
a
high
level
overview
of
the
dispute
like
people,
we
are
not
having
consensus
on
what
kind
of
external
link
policy
should
be
there,
and
then
we
can
start
probably
discussing
from
there.
B
Sure
so
I
guess
I
put
up
EIP
5757,
which
I'm
just
now
realizing
is
a
pretty
nice
number.
Sorry
about
that
but
yeah.
So
it
kind
of
contains
a
a
framework
for
doing
external
sources
and
some
of
the
requirements
in
that
EIP
are
a
little
contentious.
B
The
first
one
being
like
no
paid
research
like
no
no
linking
to
things
behind
a
paywall
and
Greg
is
of
a
mind
that
if
the
EIP
depends
on
a
paid
resource,
then
we
have
no
choice
but
to
link
to
it
and
myself,
Matt
and
Panda
I
think
are
all
an
agreement
that
we
do
not
want
any
paid
resources
to
be
linkable.
B
That's
probably
the
most
contentious
item,
I
think,
there's
a
few
other
questions
around
like
wording
and
particularly
like,
like
particular
details,
but
I,
haven't
heard
any
criticisms
of
like
the
overall
process,
so
yeah.
B
The
the
questions
you
were
talking
about
are
I
asked
in
the
awkward
as
Discord
were
specifically
about
whether
all
core
devs
would
pay
to
access
resources
and
and
a
few
questions
about
like
the
durability
and
immutability
of
linked
sources.
So
like
whether
or
not
you
can
link
to
a
blog
post
or
a
Twitter
post
or
a
Reddit
post,
and
whether
an
archive.org
link
of
the
same
is
also
acceptable,
so
we're
just
trying
to
figure
some
stuff
out
like
that,
but
I
think
I
think
the
details
are
all
in
5757.
A
A
Okay,
so
if
I
get
this
correct,
most
of
the
people
are
against
the
paid
content
accepted
correct.
So
oh
good
thing,
we
are
having
Greg
on
the
call,
welcome
Greg.
A
Morning
Greg,
so
we
were
discussing
the
first
item,
that
is
the
external
link
policy
based
on
the
questions.
Those
are
shared
on
all
core
Dev
Discord
by
Sam
Wilson.
We
were
discussing
about
thoughts.
It
looks
like
there
is
some
this
agreement
with
that.
If
you
would
like
to
share
it
with
us,
yeah
well,.
D
C
I
don't
know
if
people
are
against
referencing
like
a
published
piece
I'm,
just
against,
like
it
being
like
a
requirement
for
understanding
like
I,
think
that
we
should,
like
you,
know,
kind
of
rewrite
the
portion.
That
is
a
requirement
for
even
a
specification
and
say
this
first
derived
in
this
work
inside
it.
B
D
C
D
D
A
Greg,
what
do
you
think
about
referencing
these
national
resources
in
the
fellowship
cafeteria
magician
page,
like
we
definitely
I
mean
I
I
feel
like
we
need
to
set
a
boundary?
What
can
go
into
the
specification
in
EIP
and
what
can
be
left
out
for
any
educational
resources
that
are
currently
not
allowed,
and
we
think
that
it
is
not
directly
related
to
Specs?
Maybe
it
is
only
for
references
purposes.
Can
we
not
have
it
on
fem
thread
sharing?
These
are
the
additional
resources
to
follow
along.
D
I
I
guess
I'm,
just
not
seeing
why
this
became
such
a
big
problem.
The
ietf
has
been
dealing
with
this
for
many
years
and
I
suggest
their
policy
is
a
good
place
to
start.
We
can
keep
bringing
up
examples
of
bad
lengths
and
for
the
most
part
they
should
simply
not
be,
should
not
be
needed.
C
I
mean
I
think
that
the
ietf
is
has
a
bit
of
a
different
angle,
because
it
tends
to
have
a
lot
more
of
an
academic
footprint
and
so
there's
a
lot
of
citations
that
are
academic
journals
that
maybe
do
cost
money.
If
you're
not
part
of
that
community
and
I,
don't
think
like
for
crypto.
Most
people
have
access
to
that
stuff.
C
There's
like
free
ways
of
accessing
it
and
yeah,
not
super
against,
like
linking
to
academic
pieces,
because
it's
pretty
much
commonly
accepted
is
okay.
D
Well
things
a
reference
is
a
reference
they
actually
consider
links
to
be
optional,
but
what's
needed
is
a
reference.
You
know
the
author
of
the
title
enough
information
to
find
it
right.
B
So,
to
be
clear
in
5757,
it
doesn't
specify
whether
it's
a
URL
or
like
an
APA
or
whatever
citation
it's
anything
that
refers
to
an
external
document
is,
is
a
link.
D
I'm
suggesting
we
have
a
reference
section
as
as
the
most
straightforward
way
to
do,
it
is
there's
a
reference
section
and
anything
external
there's,
a
citation
and
the
citation
gives
the
information.
Someone
needs
to
find
this
thing
so
yeah.
D
So
the
Journal
of
publication
is
a
good
link,
even
though
it's
even
though
it's
locked
up,
it's
the
Publisher's
link.
So
it's
a
place
to
start.
If
there's
a
DOI
identifier,
that's
a
good
link.
D
The
author,
the
author
of
the
editor,
the
reviewer,
someone
could
do
a
little
work
to
try
to
find
high
quality
Lakes
that
aren't
paywalled
and
Last
Resort
whoever's
implementing
it
has
to
get
the
information
somehow
but
you've,
given
them
a
big
leg
up
on
finding
the
information
and
if
it's
information
that's
necessary
to
implement
it.
D
That
seems
to
be
a
much
bigger
favor
to
the
author
than
concentrating
on
on
whether
a
link
might
go
dead
in
the
future
that
if
it
goes
dead
in
the
future,
it
can
be
fixed
in
the
future.
B
D
It
would
certainly
be
a
very
low
quality
link
and
I'd
be
looking
for.
Isn't
there
a
better
way
to
do
this,
and
if
it's
your
own
website,
you
would
have
the
rights
to
it,
and
wouldn't
we
say,
let's
put
that
in
the
assets.
B
D
D
B
I'm
not
sure
about
that,
but
yeah
I,
don't
know
I
think
like
I
I,
really
don't
think,
there's
much
of
a
problem
with
having
like
a
list
of
places
that
we
allow
like
I.
Don't
know
why
like?
Why
there's
a
lot
of
opposition
to
that
particular
idea.
D
A
few
of
them
yeah,
it
can
become
a
long
list.
It.
D
May
have
misread,
but
I've
checked
to
making
the
author
go
through
the
work
of
making
their
Source
beyond
that
list.
Just
because
we've
said
that's
a
cool
link
for
this
article
doesn't
mean
this
is
a
cool
source
for
all
possible
links.
You
know
it
could
be
as
a
last
resort.
This
is
the
source
we
use
for
this
link.
We
don't
recommend
it
in
general.
D
It
really
is
I
could
see
a
small
list
of
things
that
just
are
obviously
fine
and
after
that
it
gets
Case
by
case
and
the
academic
literature
is
hard
because
so
much
of
it
is
paywalled.
That's
that's
just
an
unfortunate
fact:
there's
there's
a
story
that
when
Reagan
came
in
one
of
his
people
in
charge
of
PubMed
I,
think
the
NIH
director
was
going
to
insist
that
anything
listed
on
PubMed
would
have
to
have
a
publicly
accessible
copy
online
to
be
listed
and
that
guy
got
fired.
D
So
this
is
the
world
we're
stuck
with,
but.
A
So
Greg
I
would
like
to
share
a
couple
of
thoughts
from
my,
and
here
I
am
I.
B
B
This
is
how
we
approve
links
follow
this
process
because,
like
otherwise
we're
going
to
get
into
so
many
arguments
with
people,
and
we
see
it
all
the
time
already
and
it's
like
once
we
automated
the
process
with
epw
a
lot
of
those
arguments
just
went
away
and
it's
a
lot
easier
now
so
I
I
I
I'm
on
the
fence
of
automating
as
much
as
possible
and
having
a
clear
policy
for
external
links.
I
think.
A
We
are
not
EIP
editors,
but
trying
to
let
them
know
where
to
go
and
find
what
to
do
next,
we
will
be
like
having
some
documentation
or
some
reference
to
site
to
people
and
I
believe
that
will
help
us
like
a
lot
of
discussion
in
future,
and
this
eipip
meeting
is
especially
for
streamlining
the
process.
A
So
if
we
can
come
upon
any
agreement
on
what
is
the
best
middle
ground
from
where
we
can
let
other
VIP
authors
know
that
Beyond
this
line,
you
are
not
allowed
to
put
anything
into
the
proposal
that
means
into
the
dot
MD
file
of
that
EIP.
You
are
very
welcome
to
the
have
it
on
Fellowship
of
ethereum
magician
and
people
can
go
and
refer
it
over.
There.
A
No
here,
in
this
case,
like
we,
are
not
taking
guarantee
of
a
stability
of
the
link,
whatever
is
there
in
Fellowship
of
ethereum
magician,
but
what
we
are
providing
them
is
the
discussion
tool
link
which
is
added
in
EIP,
and
we
are
sharing
that
this
is
a
place
where
you
can
go
and
add
your
thoughts.
So
when
we
are
providing
a
platform
that
can
be
relevant
and
that
cannot
be
relevant
after
a
few
period
of
time.
But
that
is
not
a
part
of
a
standard
right.
A
Yeah
right,
so
that's
what
I'm
suggesting
here,
let's
start
making
use
of
that
link
and
only
where
we
think
is
directly
related
to
Specs,
should
be
put
into
the
dot
MD
file,
any
additional
information
or
the
link
which
may
or
may
not
have
paid
like
money
involved
there
or
copyrights
involved.
There
should
be
a
part
of
like
you
know
the
discussion
to
threat,
not
the
part
of
the
dot
MD
file,
yeah.
D
A
E
I
I
need
to
open
up
the
link.
Is
that
the
one
that
Sam
Wilson
is
having
to
add
external
link
policy.
E
I
think
my
feedback
would
be
first
of
all,
it's
I
I
appreciate
that
effort.
I
think
I
I
want
the
general
concept
I
I
agree
with,
but
I
I
I
think
we
need
to
make
it
easier
to
add
source
shall
be
necessary
to
add
something
in
in
a
list
and
then
also
I
I
object
to
the
requirement
for
a
source
to
be
creative
access,
two
of
the
main
asset,
and
we
should
also.
E
We
should
also
have
a
have
a
broader
extension.
For
example,
like
ethereum
projects
should
be
like
it
shouldn't
be
very
hard
for
ethereum
projects
to
be
LinkedIn,
especially,
it
should
be
easier
for
yellow
paper
to
be
linked.
I
think
it's
a
little
bit
kind
of
surprise
to
people
that
they
can
even
not
link
to
the
consensus
spec
or
the
Yellow
Page.
The
yellow
paper.
B
Yeah
yeah
I
think
those.
So
if
we
go
ahead
with
like
a
trial
run
of
57,
57
I
can
put
up
a
like
eips
to
do
like
the
execution.
Specs
consensus,
specs
the
yellow
paper
and
I
can
take
care
of
all
those.
E
I
I
I,
don't
like
to
have
EIP,
have
a
requirement
for
a
new
EIT
in
order
to
add
a
add
a
source
yeah.
B
B
B
Like
then,
if
a
source
comes
up
again
like
we
can't
sorry
you're
cutting
out
a
little
bit,
I
I
thought
you
were
done
talking
yeah
I
started
sorry
to
cut
you
off
there,
but
so
like.
If,
if
the
source
comes
up
again
and
we
have
the
discussion
on
Discord,
then
it's
it's
very
difficult
to
point.
Somebody
at
the
existing
discussion
and
be
like
here-
we've
already
talked
about
it,
so
we'll
end
up
having
the
same
discussions
over
and
over
again,
so
that
that's
my
concern
with
not
having
an
EIP
per
source
yeah.
E
The
IP
itself
has
a
full
workflow
from
to
to
last
call
to
final,
and
if
the
only
thing
you
want
is.
E
I
think
I'm
okay
to
make
that
as
a
requirement
and
have
let's
say
two
weeks
of
of
wait
time
I
think
I
can,
if
that
is
like
I
can
I
can
make
that
kind
of
trade-off.
E
A
E
The
the
thing
is
that
no
matter
he
takes
too
long.
I'd
rather
have
one
EIP
being
alive
rather
than
have.
If,
if
it
requires
like
it,
doesn't
have
to
be
a
uip
either
we
can,
we
can
add
something
to
the
ER
if
you
want,
or
anything
like
require
a
high
bar
for
it
to
be
merged
in,
but
I
I
think
asking
it
to
be.
A
formal
EIP
can
take
too
long
for
people
if
they
want
to
contribute
and
add
things
yeah
in
general.
I
think
the
allow
listed
approach
is
too
restrictive.
E
E
That,
with
unlimited
time,
you're
okay
with
yeah
yeah,
if.
B
C
B
E
Yeah
I'm
I'm
so
like
in
in
favor
of
well
external
link,
I
I
feel
that
we
we
lose
our
ability
to
make
it's
a
it's
a
Implement
proposal
right.
It's
you're,
trying
to
articulate
and
convince
people
to
do
something,
and
you
need
to
let
people
put
them
into
context,
and
the
fact
is
that
a
lot
of
contacts
needs
to
come
in
the
format
of
Link
or
otherwise.
We
will
need
to
have
a
full
Wikipedia
on
on
the
that's.
E
E
Prohibiting
free
non-free
access,
non-free
access
content
and
EIP
dot
requiring
an
EIP
to
add
new
sources.
What
I
would
be
happy
with
to.
C
B
Sure
so
in
the
5757
framework,
you'd
pick
say
DOI
right
so
say
you
want
to
link
to
it
as
a
DOI.
So
we'd
have
a
an
EIP
that
defines
the
like
format
of
a
DOI
reference.
So
it'd
probably
have
like
title
authors,
the
DOI
number,
the
publication
date,
and
that
would
be
just
like
a
blob
of
markdown
that
you
copy.
B
C
E
B
So
I
don't
know,
like
ether
scan,
probably
wouldn't
be
a
valid
external
Source
like
maybe
like
I,
don't
know,
maybe
you
guys
would
disagree,
but
I
don't
think
etherskin
is
so
linking
to
a
reference.
Implementation
would
just
be
linking
to
the
byte
code
on
the
Chain,
so
I
don't
know
how
useful
that
would
be,
but
like
sure
I
mean
you
can
make
a
5757
source
for
linking
to
an
ethereum
address.
If
you
want
and
then
you
could
link
to
it,
I
don't
really
care.
B
Like
5757
doesn't
make
any
statements
about
what
sources
are
allowed,
it
just
says
these
are
the
things
that
have
to
be
met,
and
then
we
can
argue
about
any
individual
Source
on
the
discussions
thread
or
sorry,
I've
renamed
them
Origins.
Now,
because
Source
was
confusing,
so
you
cannot,
you
can
argue
about
any
individual
origin
of
documents
on
the
discussion,
too
thread.
D
B
So
yeah,
so
for
each
so
like
Panda
paper
is
calling
them
like
categories.
I
call
them
Origins
right
now.
I
still
haven't
settled
on
a
term
that
everybody
understands,
but
like
DOI
like
the
digital
object,
identifier
mix
system
would
be
one
origin
and
then
anything
that
has
a
DOI
number
would
be
from
the
same.
B
B
Hang
on
I
have
I
sent
panda
a
message
that
kind
of
explains
this.
Let
me
see
if
I
can
find
it
here.
We
go
okay,
I'm
also,
okay.
Here
let
me
let
me
just
read
you
this:
it's
not
too
bad.
So
we
have
an
author.
Let's
call
her
Alice
right
and
she
wants
to
link
to
the
w3c.org
media
capture
streams.
Specification
right,
I
think
we
can
all
agree
that
that
is
a
specification
that
we
want
to
allow
people
to
link
to.
B
So
the
the
Alice
includes
the
center
EIP
eipw
sees
the
external
Lincoln
complaints.
It
says
this
is
not
an
improved
external
Source.
You
can't
link
to
it
so
Allison
reads:
5757
and
sees
oh:
okay:
I
need
to
open
an
EIP
allowing
w3c
links,
so
she
creates
EIP
X,
whatever
the
number
happens
to
be
it
doesn't
matter
and
she
describes
like
w3c
has
existed
for
10
years.
W3C
has
like
a
history
of
providing
documents.
B
We
can't
include
w3c
specifications
because
they're
not
licensed
appropriately,
for
whatever
reason
doesn't
matter
and
she
creates
this
proposal.
Then
editors
look
at
this
proposed
and
they
say:
okay
yeah.
We
like
w3c,
we'll
approve
it.
As
a
source
now,
Alice
can
use
her
link
to
Media
capture
streams
in
her
EIP.
That's
it
now.
Bob
comes
along
and
he
wants
to
use,
say
the
geolocation
API
the
w3c
specifies
he
includes
the
link.
B
D
Okay,
I'm
objecting
to
putting
that
load
of
work
onto
Alice,
she's,
already
doing
the
work
of
writing
her
proposal.
That's
that's
a
lot
of
work
and
just
because
in
that
example,
that's
probably
a
good
source,
but
the
hard
cases
come
down
to
the
source,
just
isn't
a
very
good
source
and
we
have
to
decide
in
that
case,
okay,
we
can't
find
better
sources,
so
we'll
use
it
like
I'd,
say
in
general
links
into
authors.
D
D
The
DOI
organization
maintains
where
that
goes
to
it's
a
good
resource.
Here's
a
link
to
the
author's
copy
yeah
it
might
go
away,
but
it's
free
if
it
goes
away
in
the
future.
That's
in
a
rata
that
can
be
fixed
and
you
just
the
point-
is
to
give
the
reader
access
to
information
not
to
maintain
the
purity
of
our
Repository.
C
I
mean:
do
you
have
an
alternative
proposal,
because
what
you're
describing
is
how
things
were
previously
done
on
the
repository
and
it
doesn't
seem
like
people
want
to
do
it
that
way
anymore.
So,
I
think
if
we
want
to
do
something
other
than
5757,
we
need
a
different
proposal
than
what
we
were
previously
doing.
D
C
Is
the
one
who
like
really
instantiated
it
but
I?
Think,
like
you
know,
Sam
and
and
Panda
are
generally
against
external
links,
and
if
we
want
to
move
to
a
place
where
we
can
allow
external
links,
we
have
to
you
know,
negotiate
amongst
ourselves
and
compromise
and
to
me
5757
is
a
compromise.
That's
not
perfect,
but
it
is
going
to
resolve
many
of
the
issues
that
we're
having
and
I
think
we
should
do
it.
D
I'm
happy
to
have
I'm
happy
I
think
we
should
have
a
reference
section
very
much
along
the
lines.
What
the
ITF
recommends
and
I
think
the
general
policy
laid
out
here
is
fine
things
like
10
years
since
Dutch
we're
just
being
too
specific.
D
I
see
the
point
of
the
editors
maintaining
a
list
of
sources
that
we
don't
even
have
to
think
about.
If
you're
using
these
sources
no
problem,
and
then
it
does
come
down
to
judgment,
calls.
C
C
Yeah,
but
this
is
the
compromise
that
we're
trying
to
make
like
what
you're
proposing
is
how
things
were
previously
done,
and
many
of
the
editors
are
against
it.
I'm
like
personally,
not
against
it
like
I,
think
Common
Sense,
makes
sense
to
me
and
I
would
be
happy
to
do
it,
but
I've
been
trying
to
make
that
happen
for
over
one
year
and
it
hasn't,
and
the
only
like
reasonable
Solution.
That's
like
really
been
worked
out
is
57.57,
and
so
I
would
like
to
move
forward
with
it.
E
B
Okay,
let's
have
a
moratorium
on
revisiting
it
for
a
little
while
and
then
we
can
come
back
to
it
and
see
if
we're
happy
with
it,
because
you
know
maybe
I'm
wrong.
Maybe
you
know
this
is
a
horrible
process
and
everybody
hates
it
and
it
just
hurts
everybody
and
I'm
totally
okay
with
scrapping
it.
After
after
we
give
it
a
trial
run
so.
D
My
only
big
objection
is
putting
the
author
through
the
work
of
creating
yet
another
EIP
and
Crea.
You
know
having
all
these
VIPs
that
don't
do
anything
but
say
we
approve
this
Source
yeah,
because
I
don't
want
to
approve
sources
in
general,
just
just
because,
for
particular
EIP
we
decided
that
this
particular
low
quality
link
was
the
best
that
we
could
do.
It
doesn't
mean
that
we're
blessing
that
source
for
all
time.
We're
just
saying
in
this
case
this
particular
low
quality
length
was
the
best
we
could
do
and.
B
D
Well,
then,
I
have
to
start
really
digging
in
because
I'm
not
quite
sure
what
obviously
allow
means,
because
I'm,
not
a
lawyer,
that's
been
a
problem
with
the
assets
all
along
some.
Some
things
are
obviously
recopyable
and
other
things.
D
You
know
who's
gonna
judge
there
yeah.
As
soon
as
you
move
the
assets,
you
pulled
them
out
of
their
original
context,
so
that
that's
a
hard
call.
B
So
you're
objecting
to
the
like
the
redistribution
like
first
requirement.
D
D
B
Remove
the
requirement
for
redistrict
the
redistribution
requirement,
would
you
be
okay
with
57.57
yeah
I.
C
E
C
E
C
C
Reason
to
link
to
something
like
we
can
open
EIP
to
add
it
as
a
permeable
origin.
D
E
Well,
if
you
like,
force
people
to
not
link
to
things
like
you
have
two
choice:
either
they
would
they
they
can
not
submit
an
EIP
which
is
happening,
or
that
is
it's
that
becomes
segment
or
they
would
just
remove,
linked
and
reduce
the
quality
of
their
articulations.
That's
what's
happening
too
in
like
web
to
provide
object
provider
like
I.
C
I
don't
mean
we
generally
shouldn't,
allow
everyone
to
submit
an
EIP
like
there
needs
to
be
some
rigor
for
what
is
accepted
and
I.
Think
that
having
a
link
policy
that
is
a
bit
restrictive,
keeps
the
quality
of
the
aps.
A
bit
higher
like
just
letting
someone
willy-nilly
link
to
Twitter
to
blog
posts
and
stuff
I
think
creates
poor
quality
use.
So.
B
As
a
great
example
of
that,
the
the
merge
EIP
was
just
awful,
it
had
links
to
like
tweets
and
random
blog
posts
by
vitalik
and
like
at
least
three
of
the
links
were
dead,
and
it's
just
like.
B
E
Yeah,
that
would
be
my
argument
like
right.
We
can
make
suggestions,
say:
hey
they're,
not
like
stable,
they're
social
media
they're,
not
part
of
the
standard
that
what
I
agree
like
the
the
hard
cases
are,
for
example,
like
OE,
like
apparently
I
think
always
should
be,
and
and
also
other
client.
Implementation
should
be
allowed
to
be
linked.
And
then
you
you
it's
a
no
it's
a
no-brainer
and
they
should
not
be.
E
I
think
it's
I
think
it's
an
example,
as
that,
like
we
are
accepting
five
seven
sites
like
that,
with
the
sconces
of
default
and
I'm.
What
what
I'm
referring
to
is,
if
we
accept
577
then
default
is
not
accepting
bill
is
unless
it's
approved,
but
I'm
looking
I'm
I'm
more
inclined
to
have
another
version
that
is
more
open
default
is
allowed
unless
it
is
being
spread
down
like
in
those
cases.
E
C
A
Yeah
I
would
agree,
I
think
the
idea
of
having
five
seven
five
seven
is
I
mean
from
where
I'm
seeing
is
to
make
it
difficult
for
people
to
have
like
external
resources
added
to
the
EIP.
We
generally
speaking,
we
are
not.
The
group
doesn't
seem
to
be
in
favor
of
having
allowed
all
the
external
links.
A
D
Right
but
I
don't
want
them,
it's
just
clutter.
It
makes
sense
for
the
editors,
the
editors,
to
maintain
a
small
list
of
sources
in
the
ip1.
That
just
says
these
are
acceptable
sources.
Don't
worry
about
it.
You.
E
So
and
so,
like
Ryan,
I,
I,
think
when
you
say
everyone,
anyone
can
make.
The
petition
in
reality
is
that
the
author
is
being
blocked
from
submitting
those
links
into
their
EIP
and
they
either
have
to
do
it
themselves
or
they
have
to
submit
it
yeah
right,
that's
the
reality.
If
we
say
hey,
any
editor
is
striking
down
our
games
to
make
one,
then
we
can
copy
saying
that
that
doesn't
add
the
two
editors
for
an
alternative
work,
but
we
don't.
We
all
know,
that's
not
gonna
happen,
so
I
think
Greg
made
a
develop
point.
E
C
Is
the
point
of
this
EIP?
It
is
supposed
to
be
restrictive.
It
is
not
supposed
to
be
trivial
to
add
links
to
eaps
I,
honestly,
don't
care
whether
or
not
it's
an
EIP
or
if
it's
an
update,
eip1
I,
think
it's
better
than
their
eaps,
because
if
we
rely
on
just
making
a
PRT
one,
then
we're
like
further
increasing
our
Reliance
on
like
this
GitHub
infrastructure,
and
it's
not
easy
for
us
to
like.
Have
the
history
or
like
the
rationale.
C
If
we're
adding
things
and
making
decisions
like
I
get
it,
we
already
use
GitHub
for
a
lot
of
things
in
this
case.
I
think
it's
good.
If
we
can
have
this
as
like
a
separate
artifact,
but
if
this
is
like
the
thing
that
stopping
57
from
happening
and
I
think
we
should
just
remove
the
concept
of
of
having
Source
or
origin
eips
and
just
say
you
have
to
open
a
PR
to
equal
one
to
change
it
and
we
can
discuss
on
the
pr
thread.
E
E
E
B
So
no
I
I
I'm
not
ever
going
to
back
away
from
requiring
free
access
to
an
EIP.
There
are
too
many
IPS
like
links,
but
the
requirement
for
redistribution.
That's
the
so
like
if
there's
a
requirement
in
5757
that
says,
sources
should
not
allow
redistributing
in
the
assets
directory
and
I.
Think
Greg
had
an
issue
with
that
because
of
context
like
if
it's
on
the
is
that
right,
so
I
can
remove
that
I.
C
D
Don't
understand
what
it's
saying
there
just
pointing
out
that,
on
the
one
hand,
it's
good
to
have
things
in
assets,
on
the
other
hand,
there's
both
legal
aspects
as
to
whether
we
had
a
right
to
put
it
there.
D
So
that's
where
a
list
really
helps
that
we've
judged
as
editors
that
we
don't
have
a
problem
publishing
things
there,
because
you
don't
want
the
author
randomly
putting
things
there.
It
is
part
of
what
we
publish
and
when
you
put
things
there
there
is
a
you
have
taken
them
out
of
context,
but
that's
where
I
keep
wanting
a
reference
section
with
a
full
citation
so
that
the
implementer
can
find
larger
context
easily
enough.
D
D
So
in
the
BLS
example,
the
the
canonical
link
to
the
Publisher's
page
was
paywalled,
but
the
DOI
link
went
to
the
same
page,
but
the
ePrint
server
had
a
free
copy
and
the
print
server
is
a
pretty
stable,
Source,
I
I,
don't
think
10
years
or
I,
don't
think
there's
any
particular
definition
of
stable
we
can
give.
But
it's
a
judgment
call
and
he
prints
pretty
good.
D
Just
saying
there's
decisions
the
editors
are
going
to
have
to
make
and
I
don't
think
we
can
need
to
set
up
all
this
policy
in
advance.
Just
say
that
you
know
we
can
agree
that
there's
a
list
of
sources
that
we
simply
approve
I
I,
think
we've
got
some
number
already
in
mind
that
aren't
controversial
to
us.
D
Any
other
links
we
do
just
have
to
take
up
as
judgment
calls
that
really
haven't
been
that
many
of
them
and
whether
to
add
whether
to
add
a
particular
source
to
the
eip1
is
an
editorial
editor's
decision.
The
the
author
doesn't
need
to
be
involved
and
I
can't
see
creating
separate
eips
for
every
change
that
we
make
the
P1
it's.
C
It's
it
is
still
an
editor
decision
and
we
said
we're
not
going
to
do
the
eip's
it's
going
to
be
a
PR
to
eip1.
The
reality
is,
is
that
sometimes
the
author
is
going
to
have
to
make
the
pr
and
advocate
for
that
link
like
if
an
editor
generally
reviews
the
pr
and
says
I,
don't
think
this
is
a
good
link.
The
author
is
going
to
need
to
Advocate,
like
it
shouldn't
necessarily
be
our
jobs
like
advocate
for
every
single
link
but
I
think
not
having
the
IP
makes
it
simpler
for
them.
D
That,
okay,
that's
the
core
of
our
disagreement,
allowing
a
particular
link
for
particular
EIP
should
not
say
that
that
is
a
good
source
for
all
eips.
C
Yeah
but
we've
like
already
discussed
that
what
you're
describing
is
how
we
like
previously
managed
the
links
for
eaps
and
the
editors
as
a
whole
are
like
against
this,
and
so
we're
trying
to
find
a
compromise
and
I.
Think
like
the
compromise
that
we're
like
trying
to
zero
in
on
is
creating
a
list
of
sources
that
we
think
are
good
for
all
eip's
foreign.
D
D
Yeah
there
was
a
DOI
for
it.
There
was.
D
Mean
it
was
fine,
but
yeah,
so.
B
So
so
what
I
was
suggesting?
What
like
how
I
would
do
the
DOI
if
we
were
using
the
old
style
5757
where
it
has
its
own
individual
EIP,
but
we're
not
doing
that.
So,
let's
not
open
that
back
up
again.
But
if
we
were,
my
idea
for
dois
was
to
have
like
the
title
author
publication
date,
the
DOI
number
and
just
any
arbitrary
link
to
a
free
copy
of
the
paper.
That
is
how
I
would
do
the
DOI,
like
reference
section,
but.
C
I
think
we
need
to
like
have
a
you
know:
General
link
to
the
DOI
object
and
expect
people
to
go,
find
it
okay,
because,
like
I,
don't
because
I
mean
lots
of
professors
will
like
put
a
paper
on
their
on
their
like
University
web
page
and
like
I,
don't
want
to
sit,
have
people
like
being
oh,
this
was
the
free
source,
or
maybe
you
were
linking
to
stuff
that
you
know
is
paid
content
and
we
shouldn't
allow
like
links
like
that.
There's,
like
legal
concerns.
C
I
mean
I
think
that
we
need
to
remove
the
must,
for
it
not
being
paid,
have
like
a
very
strict
requirement
of
should
not,
but
if
it
has
a
DOI
identifier,
it's
almost
always
accessible
and
some
mechanism
for
free
and
there's
not
I,
just
don't
think,
there's
really
a
way
around
this.
E
I
have
seen
a
review
I
think
we
should
not
require
it
to
be
like
completely
free,
like
I
I
want
it,
but
I
don't
think
that
requirement
can
help
improve
the
things
over
overnight.
Questions.
C
C
Mean
it's
just
it's
not
about
I
mean
I,
don't
ever
want
to
allow
non-free
resources,
but
there
is
a
problem
where,
like?
How
do
we
uniformly
link
to
DLI
objects
and
also
ensure
there
is
a
free
link,
without
also
running
into
like
potential
legal
concerns
like
redistributing
copyrighted
material?
Well,.
C
I
yeah,
but
I
also
like
don't
like
the
idea
of
just
like
you
know:
I
don't
want
to
put
a
library,
Genesis
Link
in
the
IP
repository
I.
Don't
want
to
put
a
link
to
a
professor's
website
in
the
IPS
repository
I
would
rather
just
link
to
the
DOI
object
and
just
assume
that
people
like
know
how
to
like
access
that
information.
D
Can
I
can
live
with
that?
If
there's
a
DOI
number
there's
a
whole
organization
that
maintains
links?
If
there's
a
full
citation,
Google
will
usually
find
you
free
links.
There's
libraries
I,
don't
mind,
I,
don't
mind.
D
If
we
have
to
to
resolve
this
I,
don't
mind
pushing
onto
the
implementer
a
bit
of
work
to
go,
find
this
I
think
it's
a
fantasy
that
an
implementer
can
just
sit
down
with
an
EIP
and
Wham
Obama
implemented
it's
hard
work,
but
as
long
as
there's
a
way
to
find
the
information
Google
does
I
I
would
prefer
there
that
they
be
allowed
to
include
the
link
but
like
to
avoid
the
impasse
where
I
was
I,
simply
removed
the
link
and
put
the
citation
in
line
and
the
the
bot
quit
complaining
and
emerged.
D
D
B
So
I
I
guess
in
the
interest
of
holding
up
this
discussion
anymore.
I'll
change
it
to
it
should
not,
but
I.
C
C
Exactly
the
way
that
that
works,
I'm
happy
to
do
that,
yeah
I
mean
I,
think
that
we're
good
to
move
forward
577
in
that
case,
like
we
resolved
the
separate
EIP
issue,
we're
going
to
do
it
as
a
PR
and
Thief
one
and
we've
resolved
the
like
redistribution.
C
A
Sounds
good,
so
if
we
have
to
summarize
the
there
would
be
small
changes
to
the
current
proposal
of
5757,
but
we
are
as
a
group
looking
forward
to
have
that
merge.
B
So
just
to
enumerate
the
changes
I'm
going
to
make
and
then,
if
I
miss
something
please
speak
up
now,
I
am
going
to
remove
the
EIP
per
origin
section
and
it'll
just
be
a
PR
into
each
one.
B
We
will
figure
out
a
way
to
specify
free
links
for
DOI
objects
and
I
will
remove
the
non-redistribution
requirement.
Is
there
anything
else
that
I
need
to
change.
D
Think
I'm,
fine
and
yeah
I
could
I
can
try
to
review
the
the
document
after
the
changes
have
happened.
So
I
don't
quite
understand
the
document
as
written.
So
once
the
changes
are
there
I
think
I'll
be
able
to
understand
better.
D
A
Not
a
problem,
one
last
question
to
the
group:
do
we
think
that
we
may
need
a
breakout
room
for
like
with
the
changes,
so
I
will
be
making
some
changes
and
we
can
discuss
that
somewhere
before
the
next
eipip
meeting.
D
I
think
one
already
sort
of
happened
on
all
core
devs,
but
but
the
answer
is
probably
yes.
C
E
C
A
D
E
Sam,
are
you
going
to
represent
the
food
source
in
the
format
of
regular
expression?
Is
there
any
formal
way
that
you
want
to
establish?
Yes,.
B
I
would
love
regularly
I
would
love
regular
expression
that
makes
it
really
easy
in
epw,
but
it's
probably
going
to
be
more
complicated
than
that.