►
From YouTube: EIPIP Meeting 79
Description
Agenda: https://github.com/ethereum-cat-herders/EIPIP/issues/226
A
B
79
I
have
just
shared
agenda
in
chat,
so
we
have
few
open,
pull
requests,
one
or
two
issues
to
be
discussed,
and
there
are
a
few
suggestions
left
and
comment.
So
I
have
tried
to
add
them
all
here
for
discussion
today.
Thank
you,
everyone
for
joining,
so
the
first
pull
request
that
is
here
is
update.
Eip1,
strengthening
wording
of
status
update.
It
is
a
PR
6894.
B
C
Yeah
so
I
mean
those
are
minor
comments,
but
just
changing
the
wording
and
one
of
the
things
I'm
suggesting
is
that
so
we
use
word
free
based,
instead
of
updated,
whenever
to
basically
reflect
the
status
of
any
IP
to
the
different
to
the
different
PRS
that
are
still
pending,
so
that
the
commit
the
on
PR
history.
The
commits
look,
still
look
good.
B
Moving
on
the
next
one
is
number
is
6840.
It's
about
stale
last
call
deadline,
so
a
user
has
shared
a
list
of
proposals
which
have
passed
their
deadline,
and
the
question
is:
what
should
we
do
about?
It
I
see
a
comment
from
Sam
Wilson
suggesting
that
it
should
be
there,
and
anyone
can
maybe
create
a
new
pull
request
to
move
it
to
the
final
status.
But
there
is
another
proposal
here.
Perhaps
a
bot
should
move
them
back
into
review
after
six
months.
B
B
Okay,
so
I'm,
taking
that
the
bot
can
move
it
back
to
review.
But
the
question
is
like
bot
already
moves
it
to
Steel
right.
B
My
understanding
is
I
may
be
wrong,
but,
as
per
my
understanding
or
the
present
bought,
treat
all
of
the
EIP
proposal
or
any
of
the
pull
request
in
in
okay
in
the
repository
in
the
pull
request,
form
move
it
to
stagnant,
and
sometimes
the
status
is
changed
or
stagnant.
So
if
someone
wants
to
bring
it
back,
it
has
to
bring
it
back
from
stagnant
to
whatever
the
last
call
it
to
whatever
the
last
status.
It
was
so
here
the
suggestion
would
be.
B
Instead
of
moving
it
to
stagnant
status,
it
will
be
moved
back
to
the
review
status.
Are
we
okay
with
it
or
we
still
want
to
move
it
to
a
stagnant,
irrespective
of
the
present
status
of
the
EIP?
B
B
B
We
are
just
joined
by
Sam
as
well,
so
if
I
can
quickly
catch
his
thought
as
as
well
before.
Writing
summary
for
this
meeting
Sam,
we
were
discussing
EA
issue
number
6840,
where
Panda
beef
has
suggested
to
move
proposals
from
last
call
to
review
after
six
months
passed
the
deadline.
B
B
A
I
just
want
a
quieter
bot
like
this
thing
is
creating
so
many
PRS,
and
it's
just
not
really
that
important
to
be
updating
all
these
dependencies.
Every
time
the
author
decides
to
push
something
to
master
so
I,
don't
know
what
our
bot
situation
was
before
I,
don't
know
what
the
landscape
of
the
Bots
look
like,
but
I
think
that
this
mend
renovate
bot
is
too
much.
D
A
B
Okay,
so
looks
like
sorry:
I
was
muted.
Okay,
it
looks
like
the
recommendation
here
is
to
update
the
depend
bar
to
kind
of
do
the
batch,
or
only
for
status
change.
Not
for
any
other
PR.
D
B
Moving
on
to
the
next
one
is
hello:
Bab,
as
external
resources,
I
don't
see
Twitter
on
the
call
this
was
proposed
by
him.
So
probably
we
can
take
it
later
today.
I
hope
he
joins.
B
I
have
added
a
few
pull
requests
here.
Those
are
two
update
proposals
of
Shanghai
Shanghai,
upgrade
proposal
to
move
to
the
final
status
I'm
assuming
at
present.
They
are
waiting
for
authors
to
approve,
but
considering
these
proposals
are
already
deployed
and
they
are
final
I
wonder
if
editors
can
force
merge
them
or
we
have
to
wait
for
authors
to
approve
it.
B
B
Next,
one
is
a
pull
request:
number
6556,
so
I
believe
this
pull
request
is
for
eip5507
that
was
merged
yesterday
during
the
EIP
editing
office
hour,
however,
I
do
not
see
the
status
change
on
the
eips.ethereum.org
I
wonder
if
that
is
a
bug.
Yesterday
there
were
two
proposals
which
were
merged,
but
I
see
this
issue
with
only
one.
B
B
That's
all
on
discussion
for
like
new
topics.
Moving
on
to
number
two,
that
is
discussion
continued
from
earlier
meetings,
Greg
requested
for
yellow
paper
discussion.
Greg
you
mentioned
in
the
chat
with
some
issue
related
to
microphone
is.
Is
it
okay,
I
mean?
Are
you
able
to
hear
us
now.
E
Victor's
not
on
the
call
so
I
think
it
won't
be
as
useful
to
discuss
it
without
it.
He's
he's
been
reaching
out
to
to
people,
who've
been
contributing
and
just
trying
to
see
who's
who's
still
interested
in
it
and
I
I'll
probably
bring
it
up
at
the
next
ACD
meeting
just
find
out.
If
there's
any
interest
in
it
and
try
and
push
itself
myself
because
I
just
think
it
would
be
a
huge
loss
to
the
community
yeah.
B
All
right,
we
can
obviously
bring
it
back
in
the
next
meeting
when
Victor
is
around.
Having
said
that,
that's
gonna
make
our
meeting
the
shortest
one.
For
today,
moving
on
to
the
item
number
three
yeah
I.
B
F
Hello
yeah
well,
sun,
is
here
either,
so
I
think
that
we
are
already
done
with
the
testing
I
believe
that
we
are
almost
there
some,
maybe
you
can
contribute
or
correct
me.
Thank
you.
D
Yeah
I
mean
we're.
This
is
your
your
PR,
you
know
where
we
are
on
it.
B
B
Waiting
for
you
for
two
items
that
you
have
added
here
for
discussion
today,
one
is
allow
B
IPS
as
external
sources
and
yellow
paper.
I
think
we
are
done
with
major
sections.
Only
eaps
and
site
is
left
there
on
a
agenda.
So
if
you
would
like
to
maybe
talk
about
the
the
bib
as
external
resources,
that
was
on
the
first
item.
G
Yeah
so
I'd
like
to
propose
the
bips
external
source,
as
allowed
external
Source
I,
believe
that
when
we
talk
about
the
link
permission
file
when,
as
Sam
was
drafting
five,
seven
five
seven,
it
was
a
specific
turn
saying
that
external
source
that
needs
to
be
stable
for
10
years
I
think
that
term
would
propose.
We
were
using
VIP
as
one
of
the
example
for
external,
so
I
was
under
impression
that
VIP
was
allowed.
G
G
I
think
it's
reasonable
that
a
lot
of
things
in
EIP
was
referring
to
some
VIP
as
early
as
eip1
we
have
referring
to
vip1
and
also
there
is
a
hierarchical
deterministic
wallet
that
was
referring
to
vip32,
so
generally
I
think
there's
it's
not
harmful
to
refer
to
VIP
stable
enough
and
then
it's
a
legitimate
source,
so
I
like
to
propose
it
to
be
allowed
as
an
external
source.
G
B
Awesome
that
was
pretty
quick,
so
I
think
kavi
should
be
just
expecting
a
pull
request
to
make
that
change
in
eib-1.
B
G
Oh,
oh,
so
so,
thanks
to
Tim
Baco
and
Greg,
who
point
out
the
last
known
maintainers
of
yellow
paper
and
the
people
Andrew
responded,
snake
saber
has
not
responded.
Andrew
says
that
he
took
his
best.
Knowledge
doesn't
know
anyone
else
other
than
him
has
continued
to
maintain
yellow
paper.
After
him,
he
himself
loved
to
help,
but
he
is
having
personal
life
commitments
so
that
he
he
will
be
have.
G
If
someone
is
interested
in
continue
to
maintain
it
he's
into,
he
will
be
happy
to
help
review,
help,
give
the
those
people
up
to
speed
and
then
I'm
still
waiting
for
Nick
saber
to
respond.
But
my
understanding
is
that's
one.
G
G
Are
called
developers
they're
interested
in
help
out
reviewing,
so
this
is
the
updates
and
now
there's
the
subjective
part
of
my
personal
feeling,
I
think
I'm
with
Greg.
That's
having
a
mathematical
way
of
representation
out
there,
as
like,
yellow
paper,
helps
bridge
the
gap
between
between
the
ethereum
and
specific
execution
spec,
which
is
the
developer
side,
as
with
the
researchers
within
the
ethereum
ecosystem
and
also
in
the
Eco
in
Academia.
So
there's
high
value
there
and
I
do
understand.
G
There's
a
a
controversy
for
allowing
linking
to
yellow
paper
at
this
current
state,
but
I
think
it
would
be
beneficial
I'm
proposing
to
allow
it
to
be
linked
today,
but
I
I
think
it
would
be
good
for
us
to
look
into.
How
can
we
facilitating
re
resuming
of
editing
for
yellow
paper?
G
My
that's
my
subjective
feeling,
and
my
proposed
next
step-
is
to
connect
with
the
all
core
devs
and
the
any
and
the
consensus
sync
meeting
to
to
see
throughout
the
interest
for
people
who
are
currently
developing
in
this
space
for
the
core
development,
whether
they
are
they're
interested
any
volunteers
who
love
to
come
over
and
either
review
or
directly,
add
it
to
the
L
paper.
And
then
we
can
start
Reviving
it.
We
might
need
to
get
some
help
from
the
ethereum
foundation
to
set
up
our
git
repository
permissions.
G
To
start
that
conversation
I,
wonder
in
that
case
with
who
is
the
best
person
to
talk
to?
Should
it
be
oja
or
who
do
we
know,
is
the
best
to
kind
of
set
up,
get
repository
permissions
to
yellow
paper.
G
Oh
yeah
I
think
I
can
yeah.
Then
we
can
continue
the
conversation.
Basically,
we
want
people
want
to
have
a
few
people
who
are
interested
in
helping
out
start
to
propose
permissions,
propose,
pull
request,
and
then
people
who
are
committed
to
review
them
have
the
permission
to
to
review
them.
Ideally,
a
bot
can
help
in
that
case,
so
we
can
make
it
easy,
even
more
easier
to
add
and
remove
people
who
have
the
review
permission.
G
Or
if
if
a
bot
is
not
available,
yet
you
can,
we
can
set
them
to
be
to
just
use
GitHub
roles
of
in
the
first
place.
So
yeah
should,
should
it
be
you
Sam.
G
Yeah:
okay,
yeah!
That's
that's
my
my
up,
the
the
updates
and
then
also
my
I
share,
my
subjective
feeling.
I
need
feedback
comments.
E
But
I
think
clearly
the
if
we
had
the
yellow
paper
going
whoever's
whoever's
taking
responsibility
for
that
leads
to
coordinate
with
the
executable
reference.
The
reference
implementation
and
the
eips
I
would
see
the
yellow
paper
as
being
at
the
very
end
of
that
process.
I,
don't
think
that's
a
problem
and
I
don't
think
referring
to
it
now
is
a
problem.
There
has
to
be
some
care
taken.
Most
of
it
doesn't
change
in
any
given
upgrade
you
know.
E
G
I'll
be
in
support
for
that
I
know.
I
do
know
that
salmon
Matas
have
strong
concern
about
linking
to
it,
which
is
we
we
try
to
discuss
last
time
and
we
believe
that
we're
not
bringing
him
back
this
topic
back
up
until
certain
time
passed
or
as
things
too
significantly
change,
because
even
though
Greg
you
and
I
really
believe
that
yellow
paper
should
be
linkable,
I
I,
don't
think
we
have
make
a
strong
enough
case
to
convince
them
yet.
E
So
I've
got
a
couple
proposals
which
are
in
withdrawn
status,
but
heavily
depend
on
the
yellow
paper,
they're
incomprehensible
without
it,
even
though
they're
withdrawn
I
want
to
do
a
little
bit
more
work
on
them,
so
that
they're
left
in
a
correct
and
consistent
State
simply
as
as
to
published
documentation
of
those
Concepts.
E
And
is
the
bot
going
to?
Let
me
let
me
work
on
those,
or
is
it
going
to
refuse
to?
Let
me
merge
them
back.
D
So
then,
they're
all
the
same
place
as
final,
so
you
won't
be
able
to
edit
them,
regardless
of
whether
there's
yellow
paper
or
not,
but
to
be
clear
on
this
particular
point,
I
think
we
should
actually
allow
links
to
the
yellow
paper.
I,
don't
know
if
I've
said
that
in
a
while
I
think
the
yellow
paper
meets
the
criteria
set
out
in
57-57.
E
Yeah,
because
I
wanted
them
withdrawn
to
make
clear
that
they
were
not
being
proposed.
Give
a
video
if
it's
there,
but
I
wanted
to
to
leave
I
wanted
to
put
the
correct
validation
algorithm,
yet
so
that,
as
as
a
record
of
the
vital
model
Concepts
it
would,
it
would
be
correct.
E
D
I
mean
I'd
still
open
the
pr,
and
then
we
can
talk
about
it.
I'd
like
right.
E
G
G
G
G
I'm
going
to
make
a
proposal
to
add
a
bip
and
then
waiting
for
see
if
Matt
is,
has
changed
the
the
position
or.
G
B
Maybe
we
can,
like
you
know,
add
comments
on
the
pull
request
which
is
already
existing
there
right.
So
we
can
collect
signal
on
that.
If
all
editors
have
prove
it
or
like
most
of
the
editors
have
prove
it
should
go
in
right.
B
Okay,
it
sounds
like
we
have
some
way
forward
with
respect
to
yellow
paper,
as
well
as
with
respect
to
VIP
external
link.
I
mean
VIP
being
added
as
a
link
in
in
eips.
B
Very
well,
anyone
else
would
like
to
say
anything
before
we
move
on
to
the
next
item.
B
B
Next
one
is
EAB,
is
Insight
monthly,
APS
status
reporting.
So
far
we
have
seven
Final
eibs
in
this
month.
There
are
seven
proposals
in
last
call
including
those
four
on
the
course
side
which
we
are
hoping
to
get
merged
soon
and
three.
Other
proposals
which
are
in
last
call
are
gonna
meet
a
deadline.
Soon
enough
proposals
are
ERC
6220,
which
is
18th
of
April.
It
was
yesterday
so
author
can
create
new
pull
requests
to
move
it
to
the
final
status.
B
B
Another
ERC
is
6381
deadline
is
May,
2nd
anyone
having
thoughts
on
this
proposal
getting
into
final.
This
is
public
non-fungible
token
emote
repository.
Please
share
your
thoughts
feedback
as
soon
as
possible
before
the
deadline
period
is
over.
So
author
can
take
a
look,
and
the
last
on
the
list
is
erc5507,
refundable
token,
though,
this
proposal
is
not
showing
the
last
con
deadline
on
eaps.ethium.org
as
of
now,
but
the
deadline
is
May
2nd.
B
So
if
you
are
interested
in
this
proposal-
and
you
have
feedback
common
starts
to
be
shared
with
authors,
this
is
the
time
before
it
moves
into
final,
because
we
are
discouraging
people
to
make
any
changes
after
the
proposal
gets
into
funnel.
So
please
take
a
look
and
you
can
find
this
on.
How
can
we
add
it
here
in
the
link,
as
well
as
the
website
added
here?
B
B
and
agenda
for
meeting
16
is
all
already
up
if
you
have
any
pull
requests
in
the
GitHub
or
repository,
and
you
are
not
sure
why
it
is
not
being
merged.
Please
reach
out
to
us
on,
or
please
add
a
comment
to
the
agenda
and
we'll
discuss
it.
You
are
also
welcome
to
discuss
the
same
before
the
meeting
on
cat
heard
his
Discord
yeah.
B
Please
share
your
questions
comments,
so
that
can
be
addressed
as
soon
as
possible,
but
if,
in
any
case
it
is
not
addressed
for
till
the
meeting,
is
there
please
join
the
meeting
and
editor
Samuelson
will
help
you
out
with
the
problem.
Hopefully
that
will
be
resolved
and
your
proposal
will
be
merged.