►
From YouTube: EIPIP Meeting 72
Description
Agenda: https://github.com/ethereum-cat-herders/EIPIP/issues/202
A
Welcome
to
eipip
meeting
72
I
have
shared
agenda
and
chat,
so
it
is
an
extension
from
the
last
meeting.
We
could
not
have
the
last
meeting
because
that
was
holiday
season,
so
most
of
the
items
are
carried
over
from
the
last
meeting
agenda.
We
can
probably
start
with
the
items
listed
here.
The
first
one
is
to
discuss
open
issues
and
PR
and
also
the
other
topics.
The
number
one
topic
is:
what
are
the
prerequisite
for
someone
to
be
considered
a
viable
reviewer?
A
Right,
unfortunately,
Sam
is
not
here
today,
I'm,
not
sure
if
anyone
else
has
any
information
about
the
peer
review
process
or
if
the,
if
there
is
any
documentation
that
could
be
shared
with
community
so
yeah,
they
be
able
to
contribute.
A
Okay,
maybe
we
can
skip
it
for
now
and
we'll
try
to
add
it
next
time
when
Sam
is
around
okay.
Next
one
is
also
which
was
proposed
by
Sam,
and
the
question
is
here:
should
we
make
the
markdown
linter
required?
B
Yeah
I
also
think
that
that
is
okay,
I
reviewed
the
the
linter
rules
and
seems
reasonable.
B
Should
we
wait
for
Sam
and
assigned
to
to
continue
I
think
Sam
needs
to
be
in
providing
his
idea.
I
guess.
A
Okay,
that
sounds
fair
because
he
isn't
available
today.
We
can
have
it
back
on
the
next
meeting
unless
we
get
it
resolved
on
the
pull
request
itself.
A
So
there
are
a
few
items
which
are
carried
over
from
the
last
meeting
discussion.
I'm
gonna
skip
two
five
six
five,
the
pull
request
number
is
five
to
four
zero
because
it
seems
to
be
changed
to
draft.
A
So
there
were
other
items
which
were
for
existing
eips
and
there
were
changes
I
think
their
people
were
into
like
we
should
not
make
more
changes
to
eips
which
have
been
widely
adopted.
There
is
this
pull
request?
6038
I,
wonder
if
there
is
any
change
in
thoughts
and
opinion
on
that
yeah.
A
Sounds
good
I'm
not
sure
do
we
want
to
have
this
pull
request
closed
with
adding
these
comments
over
there.
C
Fine
with
it
away
from
my
computer
for
another
15
minutes
or
so
so,
I
can't
do
it
right
at
this
moment.
Another.
A
A
Okay
and
the
last
one
in
this
section
is,
it
will
be
three
four
seven
five,
some
changes,
I
think
that
is
coming
directly
from
the
author
and
we
probably
discussed
it
in
the
EAP
editing
office
hour
yeah.
Hopefully,
there
would
be
a
few
making
a
few
more
changes
to
it.
A
Okay,
there
is
one
other
pull
request:
six,
two,
six,
nine.
A
So
we
were
discussing
this
one
in
the
last
EAB
editing
hour
and
Sam,
wanted
it
to
be
discussed
here
in
this
call
to
maybe
collect
some
thoughts
from
other
participants
yeah.
What
do
we
think
about
this
particular
pull
request?
I'm
sharing
the
link
here.
It
is
about
full
evm
equivalence.
B
B
Mention
a
specific
question:
I
I
guess
eipip
meeting
was
about
Pro
process.
Is
he
trying
to
solicit
feedback
for
how
to
review
individual
eips.
C
C
A
I
have
added
the
comment
link
here
in
the
chat.
So
Sam
mentioned
that
if
the
author
would
prefer,
they
can
have
a
pull
request
to
update
eip1
with
the
sources
and
yeah
I'm,
not
sure
if
we
should
have
it.
C
C
C
A
A
Okay,
before
moving
ahead,
I
see
some
comments
by
Victor
Victor.
If
you
would
like
to
have
those
thoughts
discussed
here,
I
know
it
is
from
two
weeks
ago,
but
unfortunately
we
could
not
get
Chance
to
discuss
it
earlier.
B
Oh
no
problem,
I
think
my
comments
was
regarding
Sam's
proposal
about
peer
review,
so
I
I
just
commented
there
and
then,
if
he's
here
to
discuss,
then
that
would
be
great,
otherwise
I
just
love
to
hear
anyone
is
our
thoughts
or
postpone
this
to
when
we
have
more
editors
in
the
room
to
discuss
the
peer
review
process.
A
Very
well,
one
last
poll
request
that
Sam
shared
to
be
discussed
in
this
meeting
is
6306.
It
is
to
update
eip1
for
permitted
links.
If
anyone
can
maybe
take
a
look.
C
A
A
Sounds
good
all
right,
so
next
one
is
eaps
inside
I
can
see
a
few
new
eids
getting
on
added.
In
the
month
of
January,
we
have
three
core
eids.
One
is
six
one,
eight
eight
non-scap.
Next
one
is
6189
Alias
contract
and
6190
functional
self-destruct.
All
three
are
proposed
by
Panda
pip
and
now
have
been
merged.
As
draft
we
have
one
standard
track:
networking
EIP,
which
is
back
from
stagnant
resurrected
from
stagnant.
The
number
is
1459
no
Discovery
via
DNS.
A
Three
new
erc's
are
added
to
the
repository
EAP
5805
voting
with
delegation,
5982
role-based
access
control
and
a
6147
that
is
a
guard
of
nft,
SBT
and
extension
to
EAP
721
other
than
that
we
had
three
eips
and
review
status
and
two
in
the
last
call
last
call
the
proposals
are
eip2771
and
the
deadline
is
a
January
20th.
A
Similarly,
there
is
another
proposal
4834
that
is
hierarchical
domains
and
the
deadline
is
January
28th.
So
people,
if
you
are
interested
in
adding
any
last
minute
feedback
comment
for
authors,
please
go
ahead
and
make
sure
you
have
your
comments.
Added
in
discussion
thread
Linked
In,
the
EIP,
and
we
do
have
some
other
improvements
on
the
readme
CI
updates
on
both
sides.
A
That's
on
EAB
is
inside
EAB
editing
office
hour.
We
did
have
a
meeting
yesterday.
We
tried
to
cover
almost
all
of
the
pull
requests
those
were
listed
there.
However,
there
are
a
few
which
still
needs
to
be
looked
into
this
week.
Hopefully
that
will
be
covered
before
the
next
meeting
are
the
video
and
agenda
for
the
next
meeting
is
now
available.
A
There
was
this
one
discussion
that
came
up
in
the
Discord
channel
of
ethereum
catheters
about
the
next
meeting
for
eipip
people
in
earlier
meeting
also
mentioned
that,
because
some
of
the
editors
do
not
get
to
join
the
during
weekdays
meeting,
is
it
okay
to
plan
one
meeting
or
the
other
like
once
in
a
while
kind
of
meeting
in
in
the
weekend?
B
I
think
we
can
have
one
off
and
then
I'm
I'm,
okay,
with
both
on
week
weekend
and
weekdays,
and
also
I'm
in
favor
of
supporting
more
diverse
of
of
time
zones.
Availability
like
I
know.
People
here
seems
to
be
all
in
the
American
time
zone,
but
if
we
are
want
to
welcome
more
participations
and
authorship
than
in
the
future,
when
more
people
join,
we
can
kind
of
start
considering
enough
more
other
shifts.
B
But
it
totally
understand
some
people
want
to
make
sure
that
they
have
time
off.
So
Meetup
will
work
or
some
type
of
casual
meeting
can
work,
and
so.
A
Yeah
yeah,
we
do
not
have
rest
of
the
editors
here,
but
what
I
have
gathered
is
like
a
few.
People
are
interested
definitely
in
having
a
meetings
on
weekend,
but
talking
about
me
I
would
rather
have
it
on
weekdays,
considering
it
to
be.
You
know
week
off
the
time
off,
but
we
can
definitely
make
arrangements
like
meeting
can
be
recorded
and
it
can
be
uploaded
later
on.
A
However,
I
am
in
favor
of
having
fixed
time
for
any
particular
meeting,
so
we
can
make
community
be
aware
of
like
what
is
the
time
earlier.
We
used
to
have
eipip
meeting
alternate
Wednesday
at
1500
UTC.
If
you
would
like
to
continue
doing
that,
which
I
think
would
be
a
good
idea,
because
now
it's
almost
said
that
we
do
have
a
client
desk
meeting
on
Thursdays
and
this
process
Improvement
meeting
on
Wednesdays
so
and
so
forth.
A
We
can
continue
having
that
and
we
can
have
of
the
schedule
meeting
if
needed,
but
yeah
that's
totally
on
the
participants
who
would
like
to
do
it,
and
even
in
that
case
it
would
be
good
idea
to
have
fixed
time.
We
recently
changed
the
time
from
1500
to
1600,
because
it
was
having
a
conflict
with
another
implementers
meeting,
the
UF
implementers
meeting
and
yeah
whatever
we
decide,
either
1600
or
1400,
just
to
avoid
the
conflict
of
these
two
meetings.
That
should
be
consistent
as
far
as
the
time
zones
considerations
are
there.
A
So
for
now,
because
we
do
not
have
more
participants,
my
thought
is
like
let's
have
the
meeting
as
scheduled
for
January
25th,
instead
of
having
it
earlier
on
January
21st
and
in
the
next
meeting.
If
they
see
that
people
are
looking
for
having
it
and
on
a
weekend
where
we
can
probably
consider
that,
does
that
sound
reasonable
to
everyone?
At
least,
we
are
present
here
today
sure.
A
All
right,
I'm
good,
thank
you!
Thank
you
Sam
and
Victor,
okay,
yeah,
and
that
is
all
which
are
covered
here.
I'm,
trying
to
quickly
take
a
look
on
the
last
meeting
notes.
A
Okay,
a
few
action
items-
those
are
listed
here
from
the
last
meeting
notes:
it's
like
PR,
6104
Sam
will
merge
it
like.
There
are
three
eight
General
consensus:
NPR
should
not
be
merged.
Okay
on
strongman
proposal
continue
collecting
feedback.
I
think
that
is
in
progress.
Anything
in
specific.
You
would
like
to
add
a
Victor
for
this
romance
proposal
here.
B
Oh,
let
me
let
me
check,
did
you
put
in
the
link.
B
It
would
be
nice
if
you
can
also
post
a
link.
I
can
give
a
brief
grief
in
introduction.
So
basically
the
idea
is
that
some
questions
there
were
feedback
on
the
sometimes
like
Erp
moves
too
fast,
or
sometimes
the
IP
moves
too
slow.
So
voices
are,
how
can
we
make
it
more
consistent
or
the
give
said,
the
right
expectation
on
how
to
move
things?
Therefore,
I
start
put
on
a
draft
for
what
it
could
be.
B
A
Yeah,
that's
right
like
this
was
the
example
which
was
shared
here
in
the
discussion.
Previously,
it
was
related
to
ap6049,
but
yes,
I
was
mentioning
about
the
proposal
that
you
have
already
put
on
on
the
fellowship
of
ethereum
magician
for
discussion.
B
Yeah
I
I,
just
like
I
put
I,
want
to
put
out
there
and
then
hear
what
other
folks
think.
A
Oh
all
right
yeah,
that
is
not
here
listed
for
the
discussion.
Probably
the
suggestion
was
to
continue
collecting
more
feedbacks
and
if
there
are
any
strong
consensus
around
any
of
the
processes
that
we
would
consider
having
it
documented,
then
we
can
bring
it
back
into.
The
discussion
sounds
good.
A
Right
I
think
that
concludes
for
the
meeting
today.
It's
short
meeting
but
I
hope
that
we
add
more
discussion,
item
and
the
items
which
you
could
not
finish.
Making
decisions
in
lack
of
less
editors,
probably
we'll
do
it
in
the
next
time.
Thank
you.
Everyone
for
joining
us
today
hope
to
see
you
in
two
weeks.
We
are
keeping
the
regular
Cadence
of
the
meeting
for
now,
like
the
next
meeting
will
be
on
25th
of
January
at
1600
UTC
instead
of
1500.