►
From YouTube: EIPIP Meeting 65
Description
Agenda: https://github.com/ethereum-cat-herders/EIPIP/issues/176
A
Welcome
to
eipip
meeting
65
I
have
shared
agenda
in
chat
and
we
have
a
few
open,
pull
requests
and
some
issues
from
EIP
GitHub
repository
here
for
discussion
and
probably
make
some
decisions.
So
we
can
move
forward
with
the
pull
request,
at
least
and
then
we'll
get
into
the
progress
on
EIP
path
with
some
eip's
inside
and
maybe
action
items
or
decision
made
from
the
earlier
meeting.
So
let's
get
started.
A
B
Sure
this
is
actually
Panda
Pip's
proposal.
The
idea
is
to
add
a
bot
that
corrects
common
markdown
issues
and
tries
to
key
people
to
the
lowest
common
denominator
of
markdown
so
that
it's
compatible
with
different
renderers.
There's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
on
that
pull
request
already.
I
think
we've
settled
on
a
relatively
decent
set
of
lints
to
start,
and
we
just
wanted
to
get
some
consensus
before
merging
that
PR.
A
C
Yeah
no
on
late
breaking
agenda,
I
noticed
Sam
is
here,
so
it
could
be
an
opportunity
for
he
and
I
to
discuss
the
reference
client
and
how
that's
going
and
how
how
we
should
be
relating
it
to
the
EIP
work.
Since
we're
making
progress
on
that.
C
C
A
Cool
I
I,
don't
see
any
other
EIP
editor
I
can't
see
sorry
light,
client
or
exec
or
anyone
else.
Panda
page
did
mention
that
he
would
be
a
little
late
for
the
meeting
today.
However,
this
pull
request
is
by
him
so
I'm,
assuming
that
he
is
definitely
on
board.
So
maybe
we
can
just
let
people
know
one
more
time
in
a
Discord
Channel
and
move
ahead
with
the
decision
sounds
fair.
D
B
I
think
that's
a
less
contentious
suggestion.
It's
just
adding
JavaScript
library
that
can
render
latex
and
I
think
Greg.
You
mentioned
you
like,
like
Tech,
so
maybe
that's
a
good
thing
to
add.
A
So
the
idea
here
is
like
we
are
trying
to
make
all
editors
aware
of
any
changes
which
are
proposed
and
also
being
merged
by
active
editors
on
board.
A
B
So
you're,
are
you
okay
or
not?
Okay,
with
adding
math
checks.
B
Oh
I'm,
not
sh,
I,
didn't
hear
you
ask
anything:
yeah
I've
never
used
it.
I
think
it's
probably
okay,
I
think
it's
the
most
common
JavaScript
latex
renderer,
but
we
can.
We
can
do
some
tests
if
you'd
like
yeah.
C
B
No
I
I
know
how
that
goes.
I
guess
if
there's
anything
in
particular,
you'd
like
to
see
like
a
test
of
put
it
in
a
comment
on
that
PR
and
we
can
try
it
out.
Okay,.
C
I
mean
eips
are
full
of
of
math
that
winds
up
getting
you
know,
sort
of
butchered
with
with
you
know,
asking
math
in
line.
That
would
looks
much
better
if
it
was,
you
know,
properly,
typed,
set
and
snatches
from
the
yellow
paper,
and
things
like
that.
B
Yeah,
okay,
well:
I'll
I'll
try
to
get
it
to
format
some
stuff
from
yellow
paper,
yeah
yeah.
C
D
A
All
right,
in
that
case,
we
can
jump
over
to
the
latest
item
that
is
added
by
Sam.
Thank
you
and
I.
I
believe
Greg
also
wanted
to
discuss
that.
That's
the
execution
specs
yep.
B
So
we're
almost
done
implementing
London
we've
got
to
pause
so
far
on
on
discussing
how
we
want
to
integrate
it
into
the
process.
Since
you
know
the
merge
and
core
devs
kind
of
wanted
to
break
for
about
a
month,
so.
B
There's
not
going
to
be
much
happening
in
terms
of
like
what
we're
planning
on
doing
we're.
Just
in
the
final
stretch
of
polishing
up
the
while
finishing
you
know
catching
up
to
Paris
and
then
and
then
publishing.
C
I'm
really
happy
that
it's
coming
together,
you
may
have
noticed
that
the
that
the
VM
oriented
IPS
are
are
all
moving
to
python
as
the
as
the
demonstration
language,
but.
B
C
C
But
I
can
write
through
the
code.
That's
good
enough
and
it
can
be
a
bit
better
than
that
because
I'm,
basically
stealing
code
from
the
Epsilon
group
and
it's
it's
better
code.
But
anyway,
that
code
is
not
particularly
related
to
the
reference
implementation
because
it
predates
it
and
that
could
be
aligned.
I,
don't
think
it
can
be
aligned.
Just
by
you
know,
GitHub
diffs.
C
The
code
is
there
to
demonstrate
an
algorithm
not
to
demonstrate
a
diff
to
any
some
other
system.
Yeah.
C
Well,
getting
it
getting
it
aligned,
so
it's
recognizably
the
same.
You
know
the
same
algorithm
in
both
places,
not
gratuitously
different,
but
the
other
trouble
with
the
diff
is
that
that
client
moves
on.
So
you've
got
a
diff
against
some
earlier
version
of
the
client
and
that
that
works
against
the
EIP
being
reasonably
self-contained
specification.
C
E
One
one
of
the
one
one
of
the
scenario
I
can
think
of
is
that
there
was
a
recent
pull
request
to
update
the
one
of
the
parameter
names
to
be
consistent
with
one
one:
five
one:
five,
five,
nine
I
I
just
want
to
call
out
that.
That's
a
good
thing,
because
keeping
parameter
named
the
same
across
different
at
least
different
eips
is
going
to
be
helpful
for
readability
and
understanding.
B
E
One
thing,
though,
about
specifically
using
python,
is
that
I
realized
some
of
the
early
eips
didn't
specify
parameter
pipe
like
one
question.
I
have
is
for
eip7
at
introduced,
delegate
call
and
vitalik
wrote
the
there's
six
operands
being
taken,
but
I
had
a
hard
time
figuring
out
like
what
what
length
of
those
parameters
or
operands
needs
to
be
python,
doesn't
give
you
that
I
wonder
if
thoughts
have
been
given
to
make
it
more
explicit
of
the
lens
of
parameters.
So.
B
If
you're
talking
specifically
about
the
parameters
to
delegate
call
the
opcode
itself,
they're
all
popped
off
the
stack
so
they're
all
u256s,
but
in
the
execution
specs
we
do
use
type
to
python.
So
everything
has
types.
B
I
I
think
we
can
probably
make
that
comment
on
a
PR,
but
really
it's
that's
up
to
the
author
I
think.
That's
like
a
more
of
a
Content
thing
than
a
like
formatting
thing,
but
yeah.
We
can
definitely
suggest
it.
E
Yeah
I
I
I
feel
this
editorial
because
it's
like,
if
you
want
people
to
adopt
your
EIP,
you
have
to
be
specific
in
in
the
type
so
that
the
clients
implementing
your
EIP
is
consistent
across
the
board.
A
You
can
probably
leave
a
comment
on
the
pull
request
and
that
author
decide
on
that,
but
going
back
to
the
discussion
of
execution
specs
if
I
remember
correctly
a
few
meetings
earlier,
we
were
on
a
page
where
we
were
hoping
to
have
a
meta.
D
A
The
changes
those
are
proposed,
I
am
wondering
the
if
we
are
there
yet
on.
We
still
see
some
discussion
needed
to
be
reaching
their
proposing
status.
We.
B
Have
the
same
hack
MD
the
timber
app?
We
haven't
really
progressed
beyond
that.
Yet
because,
like
I
said,
the
merge
and
awkward
apps
is
paused
for
the
time
being.
A
Right
piano,
I'm
gonna
share
the
link
here.
Oh
you
already
did.
No
okay
I
have
shared
the
link
to
the
hack
MD.
That
Tim
has
shared
earlier
for
people
to
refer
to
I
believe
the
changes
has
to
be
done
on
both
the
elmcl
sites.
So
we
should
look
forward
to
the
meta
proposal
that
is
coming
up
for
the
expected
changes
with
executable
specs.
A
Moving
on
to
the
issue,
sections
I
have
listed
a
few
issues
which
I
collected
from
the
eips
GitHub
repository.
A
A
few
of
them
are
created
by
Panda,
peep
I
know
he
is
not
on
the
call,
but
I
just
wanted
to
share
with
all
the
present
participants
if
they
have
any
thoughts
that
they
would
like
to
share,
or
else
they
are
always
welcome
to
leave
a
comment
there.
The
first
one
listed
here
is
new
contract
interface
and
EAB
should
be
required
to
include
a
privacy
concentration
section.
B
A
Excuse
me:
that's
a
good
point.
All
right,
yeah
I
mean
like.
Obviously,
if
there
are
some
changes
that
people
are
interested
in
proposing
any
changes,
the
next
step
would
be
to
propose
it
and
form
a
full
request.
Creating
an
issue
definitely
gives
a
good
start,
so
people
can
start
adding
thoughts
over
there,
yep
and
I.
Think
the
next
one
which
is
eips
should
preemptively
add
a
CLA
is
also
by
the
same
author
I.
Believe.
E
I
I
think
panda
is
also
in
favor
of
having
a
CLE
with
patents.
E
Waiver
I,
however,
personally
feel
that
that
I
have
concern
that
will
make
it
harder
to
contribute
to
eigs
and
before
my
Mikhail
quit
I
think
he
voiced
a
strong
opinion
about
not
having
CEO
and
clas
yeah
I
I
I
think
my
stance
is
weekly
against
having
a
CLA
I
can
see
the
value
of
it,
but
I
can
also
see
the
the
barrier
it
creates.
So
I
just
want
to
hear
other
editors
opinion
on
this.
B
I
guess
I'm
weakly
in
favor
of
having
a
patent
Grant
I,
don't
necessarily
like
the
idea
of
having
a
separate,
CLA
and
I'm,
also
not
sure
I,
like
Micah's
approach
of
just
ignoring
legal
concerns,
but
yeah
I'm,
not
a
lawyer
again.
So
I
have
no
idea.
C
Don't
think
other
organizations
go
to
all
of
this
effort.
It's
it's
a
lot
to
ask
of
an
author
to
be
signing
off
on
all
this
legalese.
C
If
an
author
is
concerned,
they
can
the
author,
themself
can
add
the
legalese
that
they
feel
they
need,
but
otherwise
it's
just
being
offered
to
the
world
here.
It
is.
B
Yeah
I
think
the
concern
is
more
on
the
side
of
like
consumers
like
if
somebody's
implementing
an
EIP,
they
might
be
concerned
that
the
author
has
a
hidden
patent
that
they
haven't
released.
E
Even
if
the
author
is
not
is
releasing
the
patent
chances
are,
they
buy
infringe
someone
else
who
have
not
have
anything
to
do
with
the
econom
right.
You
can
influence
a
patent.
Have
you
can
just
run
into
a
pattern
without
the
author
being
both.
D
E
So,
even
if
you
so,
a
client
has
to
make
their
implementing
client
have
to
make
their
own
judgment
and
research
if
they're
serious
about
this
I
I'm
in
favor
of
the
practice
that
we
can
recommend
that
EIP
proposer
to
say
that
they
release
the
patents.
So
my
take
on
the
EIP
is
that
it's
an
improvement
proposal.
E
So,
therefore,
if
you
want
to
be
adopted
as
an
author,
then
the
easiest
for
you
to
like
the
more
the
easier
you
make
it
to
adopt
it,
the
better
for
you,
as
an
author
and
wearing
a
hat
of
of
like
editor
or
editorial
contributor,
I,
would
say
making
authors
from
different
background.
The
easier
is
to
contribute
the
better
for
the
entire
EIP
repository,
so
that
I
would
say
using
that
argument.
I
would
try
to
Advocate
that
we
can
recommend
but
not
make
it
at
a
mandate.
A
Okay
and
I
also
have
shared
the
link
to
a
document
created
by
Panda
peep
in
favor
of
this
proposal.
So
yeah
people
may
go
through
and
probably
leave
them
or
comments.
There.
B
C
E
Said
I
I
think
I'm
in
aligned
with
you
Sam
in
that
CLA
might
be
a
little
bit
too
much
so
we
can
have
something
recommended
in
the
content
of
EIP
e
yeah.
E
B
B
Reasonable
would
you
mind
putting
up
a
PR,
so
we
can
discuss
the
specifics
of
of
what
you're
suggesting.
E
Did
the
CLA
issue
be
a
good
place
to
continue
the
discussion
yeah.
B
A
A
Okay,
we
can,
if
anyone
has
any
thoughts
they
would
like
to
share
right
away.
It's
fine.
We
can.
We
can
discuss
that
otherwise,
I
have
shared
the
link.
Probably
we
can
add
comment
over
there.
A
A
B
A
B
Is
the
more
complicated
approval
system
that
Mike
had
proposed
I,
don't
think
I
have
any
problems
with
doing
this.
I
just
think
it's
complicated
yeah.
B
A
Yeah
I
mean
if
this
has
to
be
done
by
broad,
even
if
it
is
complicated
and
it
can
be
put
into
like
codes
and
can
be
run
then
I
think
should
be
fine
right.
A
So
we
can
probably
the
next
step
would
be
to
have
couple
request
to
the
EAP
bar
repository
to
maybe
see
if
this
works.
A
Okay,
now
we
we
don't
have
panda
on
call,
so
maybe
we
can
bring
it
up
later.
A
The
last
one
here
is
automatically
merge
all
new
eips
and
the
number
is
five
six
four
one.
D
B
I'm
a
little
torn
on
this
one,
because
a
lot
of
eips
still
have
like
mixed
up
motivation
and
rationale:
sections
in
in
the
first
draft,
but
you
know
the
formatting
has
certainly
gotten
a
lot
better
lately.
So
maybe
we
do
this
I
don't
know.
A
Actually,
I
have
to
have
an
opinion
proposal
I
feel
like
it
should
not
be
merged
as
dropped
on
by
itself,
without
a
reviewer
reviewed
by
an
EIP
editor.
Even
if
body
is
doing
a
good
job,
I
believe
there
is
manual
intervention
needed
at
least
for
two
statuses
number
one
is
when
it
is
merged
for
the
first
time
as
draw
and
number
two
when
it
is
merged,
as
final
I
believe
that
we
want
to
create
a
standard.
A
So
the
first
pass
as
draft
is
also
very
important,
as
we
have
the
final
pass
as
final,
because
we
don't
want
to
spam
our
repository
with
all
proposals
getting
in
as
draft,
and
it
never
goes
through
different
statuses
and
never
reaches
to
final.
That
will
swell
up
the
repository
I
mean
it
will
add
a
lot
of
maybe
not
so
useful
proposal,
even
if
they
are
syntax,
wise,
correct
it
if
they,
even
if
they
are
drafted
properly.
So
that's
my
thought
on
that.
I.
B
C
Yeah
I
think
we
want
to
encourage
people
to
start
from
bigger
ideas
on
The
Magicians,
the
starter
of
discussion
from
something
closer
to
an
EIP
and
let
things
die
on
the
vine
there.
C
C
B
A
C
C
It
can
be
arbitrarily
large
marked
down
and
editable,
so
it
can
and
it
maintains
the
history.
So
a
draft
a
pre-draft
can
be
maintained
there
for
discussion.
It
doesn't
need
any
help
from
GitHub
foreign.
A
We
can
probably
move
on
and
see
when
he
joins
and
if
he
may
have
any
thoughts
to
add,
we
can
get
back
to
this
one,
but
in
the
essence
of
time,
let's
move
on
to
item
number
two
I'm,
assuming
that
we
do
not
have
any
decision
or
do
we
on
this
topic.
C
If
I
could
back
up
for
a
second
to
the
patent
issue,
I
looked
at
the
Creative
Commons
license
again
and
it
it
specifically
says
that
it
does
not
does
not
affect
patent
and
trademark
and
I
think
that's
appropriate
that
we
just
not
have
a
policy.
It's
simply
a
specification.
C
We
don't
endorse
the
specification,
we
don't
certify,
it's
simply
that
and
it's
totally
on
the
user
of
the
spec
to
to
be
aware
of
any
patent
or
trademark
issues,
and
it's
perfectly
fair
for
the
author
to
hold
patents
with
the
intent
of
of
you
know:
licensing
patents.
That's
that's
fair!
It's
a
specification!
That's
all!
It
is.
A
That
sounds
fair
and
I
believe.
The
next
topic
that
is
listed
as
here
for
formal
discussion
is
about
license
and
yeah
what
license
to
use
for
EIP
assets.
We
discussed
this
in
the
past,
but
I
believe
there
were
no
conclusion
or
diffusion
on
that
and
we
wanted
to
have
a
little
bit
more
of
discussion
here
so
yeah
some.
If
you
would
like
to
give
a
little
bit
background
on
this
topic
to
just
chart
the
memory
of
everyone
here.
B
Some
editors
want
to
force
all
assets
to
be
cc0
and
I.
I.
Don't
want
to
do
that.
I
want
anything
that
isn't
copy
left
to
be
allowed
for
assets.
A
I
mean
on
a
high
level,
I
personally
think
that
when
we
are
talking
about
ethelium-
and
we
are
talking
about
having
something
as
a
standard
and
giving
place
to
ethereum
repository,
we
should
try
to
make
things
as
much
as
open
source
free,
no
patent,
no
like
trademark
things,
so
people
can
use
it
freely.
Ethereum
is
an
open
source.
Blockchain
we
are
like
trying
to
I
mean
anyone
is
welcome
to
come
and
use
it.
So
why
to
add
things
which
may
or
may
not
have
a
permissions
to
be
used
or
reused?
B
That
that's
my
thought
as
well
like.
If
somebody
wants
to
come
in
with
a
and
mandate
that
you
have
to
use
a
certain
algorithm
and
an
EIP,
and
then
you
know
a
year
later,
they
start
suing
everybody,
because
they
patented
that
algorithm
I
think
that's
completely
ridiculous
and
we
should
try
to
avoid
that
situation.
A
Like
and
now
we
are
joined
by
Panic
Panda,
we
were
discussing
couple
of
proposals
by
you,
issues
that
you
have
listed
and
one
of
the
latest
one
which
is
currently
under
discussion,
is
about
the
patent
and
also
the
use
of
license
for
EAB
assets.
I
wonder
if
you
have
any
thoughts
to
share
on
that.
F
A
Okay,
not
a
problem.
If
you
can
hear
me
now
now
we
were
discussing
the
allowing
patenting
staff,
or
maybe
assets
which
may
have
some
trademark
already,
or
should
it
be
only
which
is
free
for
people
to
reuse
license
issues,
if
you
have
any
thoughts
on
that,
but
you
can
share
it.
F
Well,
I
think
it's
pretty
obvious
that
well
I
mean
for
one
thing:
all
the
all
of
the
assets
should
be
sorry.
All
the
EIP
should
be
cc0
just
so
that
anyone
can
just
use
an
EIP
without
having
to
worry
about
randomly
being
sued
like
in
any
case
and
I
feel
like
patent
and
trademark
waivers
are
just
like
kind
of
an
extension
of
that
you
should
be
able
to
use
an
EIP
without
having
to
worry
about
randomly
being
sued
for
using
it.
B
D
A
C
Just
think
that's
too
much
to
ask
of
an
author.
Patents
are
a
Minefield.
You
can't
you
can't
help
but
violate
them.
At
Oracle,
Engineers
were
not
allowed
to
look
at
patents,
because
the
penalty
for
knowingly
violating
a
patent
was
three
times
the
penalty
for
unknowingly
violating
it.
So
it's
it's
just
a
Minefield.
The
author
can't
be
expected
to
do
a
patent
search
and
it's
unfortunate,
but
it's
just
a
risk
that
that
the
client
teams
take
I.
F
So
the
particular
patent
waiver
I
added,
is
basically
the
authors.
If
they
have
any
patents
that
they
use
in
the
IP,
then
they
aren't
allowed
to
sue
anyone
for
using
the
EIP.
C
I'm
generally
in
favor
of
just
leaving
it
as
it
is
I
hate,
putting
more
requirements
on
authors
and
we
haven't
had
any
problem
yet.
E
F
Think
it's
yeah.
What
I'm
suggesting
is
that
basically,
the
pattern
waiver
I've
added
is
that
the
authors
can't
sue
people
for
for
their
own
pants.
Other
people
can
other
other
anytime
that
it's
a
patent
not
owned
by
the
authors
like
say
like
some,
some
random
third
party.
They
use
some
random
third-party
images.
Image
thing
that's
lies
that
is
patented.
The
authors
had
no
idea.
The
patent
waiver
wouldn't
apply
there,
since
it's
specifically
the
authors,
this
clip
and
authors
is
rights
that
are
waived.
Not
those
of
the
third
party.
E
I'm
not
in
favor
of
have
it
optional
and
make
it
a
convenient
way
for
people
to
waive
the
patents.
E
Because,
as
author,
if
it's
a
sincere
author,
the
easiest
it
is
for
the
adopters,
the
better
for
the
EIP.
So
any
sincere
author
would
try
to
make
it
as
easy
as
possible,
but
I
coming
from
an
industry.
E
That
cares
a
lot
about
patent
and
IPS
like
for
people
like
me,
I'm
not
even
sure,
if
I
were
able
to
contribute
to
EIP
anymore,
if
there
is
a
mandate
for
patent
granting
because
of
other
type
agreements
that
I
have
with,
for
example
like
my
employer,
so
that
that's
the
background
so
I
I,
when,
when
Greg
mentioned,
that
in
Oracle
employees
were
not
even
permitted
to
make
a
patent
search,
I
I
totally
resonate,
because
that's
some
other
trainings
I've
seen
as
well
so
I
I
think
we're
entering
a
space
of
legal
practice
and
none
of
us
I
I,
assuming
is
a
lawyer
here
on
this
call.
E
F
That
PR
does
is
add
it
to
the
template.
Authors
could
absolutely
probably
just
delete
it.
I
I've
seen
authors
sometimes
change
the
cc0
to
something
else
which
oftentimes
gets
very
quickly
corrected.
Sometimes
it
requires
a
bit
of
prodding
in
terms
of
the
agreements
with
the
employer
that
applies
to
licenses
too.
You
have
to
get
permission
from
your
employer
and
that
explicitly
states
that,
in
the
cc0
license
that
you
have
to
get
permission
from
your
employer
if
it
might
be
the
property
of
your
employer,.
E
Yeah
cc0
is
much
less
like
I.
F
Agree
that
actually
required
I
could
agree.
I
I
am
I,
am
weekly
in
favor
of
requiring
there
to
be
unaware
present.
B
I
I
think
another
thing
here
is
I.
Don't
think
I
want
this
optional,
because
I
think
that
would
create
more
uncertainty
in
the
minds
of
people.
Implementing
eips
I
think
we
should
either
leave
it
completely
unstated
and
that
way,
no
like
everybody
knows
or
doesn't
even
think
about
it
and
it's
up
in
the
air
or
we
should
do
it
for
every
EIP.
B
F
B
B
D
C
Using
the
CC
we've
been
using
it
for
a
while.
It's
no
problem,
it's
been
carefully
crafted
by
lawyers
in
this
domain.
It's
got
precise
language
on
patents,
and
it's
carefully
just
saying
we
have
nothing
to
do
with
that.
This
is
a
specification,
follow
it
at
your
own
risk.
E
Yeah
and
also
Patton
is
a
very
jewist
jurisdiction.
Specific
thing,
I
wouldn't
be
surprised
if
there's
some
even
some
jurisdiction
that
doesn't
even
consider
patents
could
a
protected
thing.
It's
it's
very
widely
used
in
the
Western
and
in
in
many
countries,
but
I
I.
Don't
think
it's
a
natural
thing
as
well,
so
maybe
leave
it
to
the
implementers
and
their
own
jurisdiction
to
determine
whether
patents
in
their
place
is
any
specific
patent
is
still
valid
in
their
own
jurisdiction.
A
Right
so
as
part
of
it
suggested,
we
can
probably
keep
this
one
open
or
the
school
request
open.
If
we
have
pull
request,
number
I,
don't
see
it
added
here
on
the
agenda
and
we
can
continue
discussing
on
that
looks
like
we
have
provided
opinion
here.
It
would
be
nice
to
collect
thoughts
from
other
editors.
A
Anything
anyone
would
like
to
like
add
to
just
wrap
this
up
and
this
topic
in
their
sense
of
time.
Probably
we
should
move
on.
Yes,
please
go
ahead.
Panda.
A
Background,
but
I
am
not
sure
if
she
is
ready
to
be
talk
talking
on
this
topic
today,
shivangi,
if
you
have
any
thoughts,
if
you
would
like
to
share
anything.
D
Hi
yeah
I
I've
taught
International
contract
law
and
intellectual
property
law
for
many
years,
so
I
don't
teach
anymore,
but
yeah.
It's
a
complicated
topic,
so
I
would
rather
not
the
basically
what
I
said
in
the
chat
that
it
may
be
easier
to
just
talk
to
a
practicing
lawyer,
who's
more
familiar
with
the
ethereum
community
and
can
give
good
advice.
A
That
sounds
like
a
fair
advice
coming
from
a
lawyer.
Obviously
we
can
expect
this.
So
yes,
if
people
are
more
interested,
we
can
probably
reach
out
to
Foundation
team
and
see
if,
if
there
is
any
scope
for
change,
though
Greg
already
mentioned
that
it
was
crafted
very
well
taking
into
considerations
of
all
legal
aspects.
A
So
we
should
have
our
trust
in
there,
but
because
this
is
open
source
because
we
always
one
come
changes,
it's
good
to
keep
this
open
for
some
more
time
and
let's
hope
we
get
some
traction
from
the
foundation
side.
A
Is
that
a
fair,
like
Midway
to
move
ahead
gonna
be.
A
Cool.
Thank
you
very
much
all
right.
Let's
move
on
to
the
next
topic,
which
is
EIP
bot.
We
have
a
few
people
on
the
call.
I
know
there
are
some
progress
going
on.
I
would
say
if
you
would
like
to
share
any
updates.
F
So
there's
the
EIP
bar
there's
the
other
kind
of
Bot
I'm
working
on
which
is
eipart
but
faster
and
a
bit
less
code
and
not
automatically
tested.
So
that's
probably
something
that
I'm
going
to
have
to
add
sooner
rather
than
later
main
upside.
A
bit
I.
Think
more
simple
code
base
also
works
with
deleting
files,
the
ability
to
add
or
remove.
F
Basically,
it
kind
of
works,
pretty
simple,
simply
so,
adding
new
rules
removing
or
rules
modifying
them
really
like
that
easy
they're
all
in
one
place,
separated
by
file
name
downside.
Of
course
it's
been
manually
tested
but
doesn't
have
automatic
test
cases,
which
is
something
that
I
think
about
it
probably
should
be
added
before
it's
merged.
As
for
the
EAP
bot
itself,
a
I'll
leave
it
to
you.
G
Actually
it
is
no
problem
with
the
with
any
of
the
two
existing
Bots,
the
EIP
double
double
b
and
the
EIP
bot
you're,
very
common
in
the
in
the
issue
63
respectively,
and
there
therefore
you
will
you
can
see
there
the
the
test
why
the
the
bot
didn't
fail.
I
mean
basically
just
to
Briefly
summarize.
G
F
Not
entirely
true,
although
the
CI
was
failing
there,
EIP
bot
was
also
failing
because
in
in
the
code
it's
assumed
that
firewall
always
exists
when
a
file
is
modified,
I
added,
changed
or
deleted,
it'll
always
be
accessible.
The
problem
is
when
it's
deleted.
That's
not
the
case
it
when
it
when
the
bot
calls
the
GitHub
API
returns
a
404
not
found,
and
if
you
go
to
that
pull
request
hold
on
delete.
G
G
If
the
Rules
start
following
following
the
template
for
the
for
the
file,
if
you
want
to
delete
the
file,
you
just
go
and
delete
it,
you
you
try
to
to
merge
it
and
it's
gonna
be
EIP.
Double
Double
D
is
going
to
check
the
the
template,
the
aipbot
is
not
gonna
run
and
the
CI
will
run.
We
should
just
need
to
consider
the
fact
that
there
is
a.
G
A
non-existing
file
what
you're,
trying
to
or
delete
it
file
what
you're
trying
to
match
I
mean
those
of
course
you
can
write
a
you,
can
write
another
bot
or
okay,
this
bot
I,
just
just
as
I
comment
in
the
issue,
just
to
consider
the
fact
that
you
are
the
the
pull
request
that
you're
trying
to
to
merge
is
just
from
the
from
the
fact
that
the
file
doesn't
exist.
I
mean
that's
it.
There's
that
that's
it
that's
the
best
case,
but
as
it
is,
is
not
failing.
Yes,.
F
F
F
Whatever
you
say,
like
kind
of
I've,
determined
that
this
is
because
the
and
I
have
determined
that
this
is
because
the
PR
that's
updating,
pip,
23,
35,
sorry,
whatever
it
is,
the
diamonds
one,
the
one
that
updates
that
deletes
a
file
deletes
the
two
files.
Actually,
it's
failing
with
the
exact
same
error.
I
once
created
a
PR
to
update
my
AIP
deleted
the
found
assets
folder.
It
failed
for
the
exact
same
reason.
It's
very
clearly
because
it's
sending
a
get
request
to
the
GitHub
API.
F
They
fetch
the
contents
of
a
file
which
no
longer
exists.
That
is
the
reason
why
it
is
failing.
Admittedly,
there
are
other
reasons
why
this
particular
PR
can't
be
automatically
merged
the
eipw
issue,
the
issues
and
the
hit
more
proofer
issues
both
mean
that,
if
that,
if
we
wanted
to
manually
merge
it,
it
wouldn't
work,
but
it
is
a
bug
that
you
cannot
delete
files,
even
if,
even
if
you
modify
your
own
EIP
delete
a
file
in
the
assets,
folder
erpw,
sorry,
not
erpw.
G
But
that's
a
different,
but
that's
a
different
issue.
That's
an
ID,
that's
a
92
which
is
not
not
the
fact
that
the
leading
the
EIP
file,
which
is
the
issue
63,
that
that's
what
I'm
testing
on
and
speaking
about
what
you're
speaking
about
is
the
is
the
leading
a
file
that
belongs
to
the
naip.
That's
a
separate
issue
that
I
haven't
tested
but
I
just
tested
is
the
point
on
the
IP
file
and
I
use
great
testing.
Right
now
and
and
I
mean
it's
no
problem.
F
They
are
the
same
bug.
It
is
the
root
cause.
The
root
cause
for
both
is
the
same
I
happen
to
know
this
as
a
fact
it
works
for
your
IP
asset
files.
It
works
for
just
random
files
when
I,
when
I
deleted
and
added
new
CI
files,
it
through
the
same
error
and
it's
from
the
same
error
for
when
Erp
5000
is
being
deleted.
F
G
Which
is
which
is
so,
which
is
totally
different
to
the
case
that
deleted
any
AP
file.
I
mean
you
were
trying
to
merge
the
the
EIP
5255,
which
the
third
line
was
delete.
Eap
5000,
that's
not
the
I
mean
that's
not
gonna.
The
bolts
are
gonna
fail
due
to
the
fact
that
that's
not
the
way
that
you
run
and.
G
At
least
that
you
want
to
include
I,
don't
know
that
that
you
want
to
include
a
condition
into
the
EIP
one
that
said
that
when
the
fire
sale,
when
the
file
says
the
delete,
an
AP
you're
going
to
have
a
particular
case
say
to
to
analyze
the
the
bot
I
mean
to
to
make
the
boss
wrong.
But
the
reason
that
this,
what
you're
saying
is
true,
because
that's
not
that's
a
separate
issue,
but
the
issue
for
deleting
an
EIP
file
is
exactly
what
I
test.
G
I
I
haven't
tested
your
case
to
I
mean
to
refer
to
what
you
say
and
I'm
quite
sure
that
if
there
is
the
issue
open
for
that
is
because
there
is
a
bot.
Actually
we
discussed
that
in
that
time,
when
we
were
reviewing
the
the
open
issues,
but
for
this
issue
for
deleting
a
an
EIP
file
from
the
EIP
repo
I
just
tested,
but
next
we
considered
into
the
CI.
What
I
see
is
the
case
that
the
that
that
file?
Doesn't
it's
not
going
to
exist
anymore,
but
I
recommend
that
this
should
be
done.
G
I
mean
manually
I,
don't
know
for
any
of
the
editors
or
whoever
is
in
charge
of
which
is
a
person
that
are
the
editors.
Whoever
is
in
charge
to
maintain
the
AIP
repo
Integrity,
but
yeah
I
see
what
now
you
understand
what
you
say.
You
say
that
that's
like
the
other
issue
that
we
were
discussing
one
or
two
weeks
ago,
yeah
that
that
issue
I
haven't
get
them,
which
is
an
ID
95
95.
A
A
Looks
like
we
are
getting
into
weeds
of
this
technical
proposals,
pull
requests
and
sort.
A
Yeah
we
are
on
time
like
we
are
one
minute
past
the
time
we
would
like
to
quickly
wrap
up
this
call
if
that's
okay
and
we
can
continue
discussing
either
on
the
Discord
Channel
or
on
the
guitar
pull
request.
A
So
thank
you,
yeah.
Thank
you
Jose
and
thank
you
benefit
for
sharing.
The
updates.
I
would
quickly
like
to
like
just
check
on
the
agenda
item.
We
do
have
VIPs
inside
and
AP
editing
officer
for
EIP,
editing
officer.
The
second
meeting
was
conducted
yesterday.
It
went
well,
we
discussed
a
few
pull
requests
and
try
to
help
some
new
Authors
with
their
questions.
A
I
would
encourage
more
authors
to
join
meeting
if
they
have
any
question
concerns
or
if
they
would
like
to
learn
anything
about
the
AP
editing
proposal
process
and
for
eip's
insight.
I
have
already
added
the
link
in
the
agenda
on
a
very
high
level.
We
have
five
proposes
merged
as
draft,
and
we
have
two
proposals
in
last
call
with
a
deadline
for
proposal
5528,
which
is
refundable
fungible
token.
The
deadline
is
16th
of
October
and
there
is
another
one
which
is
4834
hierarchical
domains
and
it
has
a
deadline
of
30th
September.
A
So
if
you
are
in,
if
you
are
adapt
developer
or
anyone
interested
in
either
of
these
proposals
would
have
comment
or
suggestions
or
would
like
to
reach
out
to
author.
This
is
the
time
before
this
proposal
move
into
final
status.
So
please
leave
a
comment
either
on
discussion
to
link
added
to
the
EIP
and
yeah
I.
Think
that's
all
the
time
we
have
got
for
today's
meeting.