►
From YouTube: EIPIP meeting 43
A
So
welcome
to
eipip
meeting
43,
I'm
going
to
share
agenda
in
the
chat
here.
The
first
item
on
the
agenda
listed
here
is
rename
review
period,
end
to
last
call
end
or
last
call
deadline,
so
this
has
been
reported
by
asic.
I
have
added
the
issue
for
reference
generally.
It
makes
sense
like
now
that
we
have
review
as
a
status,
not
as
just
the
last
call
review
period.
A
So
we
try
to
add
the
end
review
period
for
the
last
call
not
for
the
status
review
but
yeah
looking
for
general
opinion
so
that
it
can
be
used
as
a
standard
field
from
here
on.
D
B
A
All
right
so
maybe
closer
to
the
earlier
nomenclature
like
it
was
review
period,
and
so
maybe
we
can
take
it
for
last
call
end
or
the
yeah.
A
All
right
so
this
might
need
to
be
added
in
like
template,
eip
template
and
eip1,
and
obviously
we
will
add
the
general
consensus
here
to
that
issue.
So
that
issue
can
be
closed.
A
A
Quick,
so
the
next
one
is
discuss
qualification
for
being
on
active
editors
list.
So
there
are
multiple
agenda
items
suggested
by
micah
to
be
added
on
the
call
today-
and
this
is
the
first
one,
so
we
have
listed
some
of
the
qualification-
I
suppose
back
in
february,
when
we
were
trying
to
document
what
it
takes
to
become
an
eap
editor.
That
was
just
for
inviting
more
participation
from
the
community.
A
But
it
looks
like
it's
time
to
revisit
and
maybe
to
update
that
easy
one.
So,
over
to
you
micah,
for
your
suggestions
or
comment
for
this
topic.
B
So
the
reason
this
came
up
was
the
editors
list
up
until
very
recently
included
a
large
number
of
people
that
didn't
actually
do
any
editing.
I
think
some
of
them
were
there
just
included
just
because
when
the
ap
process
was
created,
they
happen
to
be
around
and
those
people
aren't
even
around
anymore.
Some
of
them
were
active
editors
for
a
while,
but
are
no
longer
active
editors.
B
Some
of
them
are
people
that
helped
put
the
vip
process,
eap,
process
together,
but
haven't
done
active
editing,
and
so
the
idea
is
is
that
if
we
have
a
list
of
editors,
it
feels
like
the
primary
purpose
should
be
to
serve
users,
and
when
users
go
looking
for
editors,
they
should
find
a
list
of
people
that
are
actually
editors
like
people
who
are
actually
actively
involved
in
the
process,
and
they
can
talk
to
and
get
feedback
from
and
and
also
importantly
names.
They
should
look
out
for
on
their
pr's.
B
I
give
you
if
you
get
a
pr
review
from
random
person,
which
we
actually
get
quite
a
few
spam
pr
reviews
you
can
ignore,
but
if
you
get
an
ap,
a
pr
review
from
an
editor
that
kind
of
holds
a
little
bit
more
weight,
so
the
idea
is
is
to
have
that
list
be
include
all
the
people
who
are
actively
editing
but
at
the
same
time
not
be,
and
at
the
same
time
not
be
too
long,
because
if
it
gets
too
long,
then
it
turns
into
a
list
of
you
know:
100
people
and
that's
not
a
useful
list,
and
so
we
wanted
to
be
concise
and
accurate
and
also
by
keeping
the
list
short.
B
B
So
the
question
then
is
is
what
is
the
process
for
removing
people
from
that
list
and
I'm
going
to
try
to
provide
since
greg's?
Not
here,
I'm
going
to
try
to
provide
his
arguments.
We've
been
discussing
this
a
little
bit,
I'm
probably
not
the
best
person,
because
I'm
against
him
on
this,
but
I'll
do
my
best
to
represent
him.
B
I
think
what
he
his
belief
is
is
that
anyone
who
is
interested
in
being
an
editor
continuing
to
be
an
editor
and
continuing
to
be
on
the
list
should
be
allowed
to
remain
on
that
list,
and
I
think
the
idea
is
is
that
these
are
people
that
have
expressed
an
interest
and
even
if
they
don't
have
time
right
now,
they
they
have
good
intentions,
and
maybe
they
do
help
out
here
and
there,
like.
Maybe
someone
sends
them
a
dm
or
something
or
mentions
them.
B
They
will
show
up
and
help,
but
they're
not
actively
editing,
and
so
the
question
just
comes
down
to
you
know:
do
people
get
once
you're
an
editor,
always
an
editor
or
once
you're
an
editor?
You
can
lose
that
status
or,
more
importantly,
lose
like
that
slot
on
the
list.
At
some
point,
yeah.
C
B
C
Not
sure
how
to
phrase
this
better,
it's
not
going
to
be
well
phrased,
but
like
is
this
like
a
process
problem
or
like
a
people
problem,
because
I
I
suspect
I
know
I've
talked
with
vitalik
and
I
like
explained
to
him
and
he
was
kind
of
fine
being
taken
off
the
list.
The
active
editor
list
right
now
would
be
basically
mica
like
client,
and
maybe
exec
is
that
right.
B
Yeah
like
if
we
sort
of
those
that
would
be
this
right
order
as
well,
I
think,
in
terms
of
yeah.
B
C
Right,
yeah,
okay
and
then
so
it's
like,
if
we're
sorting
it's
like
micah
like
client,
axic
and
then
greg
kind
of
who's
like
been
worked
on
some
of
his
vips.
But
I
don't
think
he's
like
worked
on
like
he's,
he's
helped
edit
any
eips
that
were
not
his.
Is
that
correct,
like
in
the
say
like
last
year
or
whatever
like
recent
past?
I.
B
Do
not
remember
his
name
coming
up
on
as
an
editor
like
helping
people.
He
has
indicated
to
me
that
he
has
helped
people
out
with
eap
authoring
in
the
past.
I
don't
have
much
more
context
than
that.
He
has
not
had
an
active
role
in
like
right,
reviewing
eips
and
approving
them
and
pushing
through
the
process
that
that
piece
at
least
nothing
invisible.
I
could
just.
C
Edited
like
these
are
people
that
you
can
ping
and
expect
a
response
on
your
eip
pr
within
a
week
right
like
maybe
that
should
actually
be
kind
of
the
you
kind
of
flip
it
and
say
what
should
the
user
reasonably
expect
right
like,
and
it's
not
going
it's
not
necessarily
a
guarantee
that
it
happens
every
time
but
like
if
I
were
submitting
an
eep
and
I'd
look
at
that
list.
I
kind
of
hope
that
if
I
pay
you
know
somebody
on
that
list,
they
would
get
back
to
me
sometime
during
that
route.
B
F
B
C
Yeah,
I
think
that's
fair.
It's
like
you
know,
can
they
be
pinged
on
github,
but
can
they
be
expected
to
show
up
once
a
quarter
to
one
of
these
meetings?
That
seems
like
a
very
low
bar
yeah
and
that's
also
something
we
can
ask
greg
right
like
do
you
want?
Basically
do
you
want
to
be
paying
by
random
people
on
their
eips
and
to
have
like
a
soft
expectation
that,
like
you'll
deal
with
these
pains
and
do
you.
B
Want
to
apparently
currently
all
the
editors
are
pinged
by
the
bot.
Every
time
eip
is
put
up
right
to
for
review
yeah.
So
so
we
we
are
getting
paid.
We
know
we're
getting
ping
he's
getting
pinged
and
he's
not
showing
up.
Neither
was
any
of
the
other
people
who
removed
from
list
right,
yeah
same
thing,
I
think
alex
also
rarely
shows
up
to
the
pings.
I
think
he
has
them
ignored.
F
C
C
Yeah-
and
I
do
feel
I
don't
know
my
perspective
of
like
somebody-
who's
like
loosely
involved
to
this
from
the
outside
is
like
alex-
is
he's
not
like,
as
involved
as
the
two
of
you
obviously,
but
like
he
is
somewhat
involved.
He
just
commented
on
my
pr
and
I
think,
like
he
does
show
up
when
like
there's
important
discussions,
so
I
think
he
would
fit
this
news.
C
You
know,
and
I
suspect,
if
we
ask
them
to
come
to
one
of
these
meetings
per
quarter
or
something
he
like,
he
would
sure,
especially
if
there
was
a
reason
for
him
to
be
here
like,
rather
than
just
like
checking
that
he
actually
showed
up
but
yeah.
A
Yeah,
I
think,
having
like
this
kind
of
synchronous
meetings,
definitely
add
value
to
whatever
is
being
done.
Asynchronously
and
meeting
once
a
quarter
is
like
the
lowest
minimum
bar
that
we
can
say
but
yeah
I
mean,
if
not
visiting
here
regularly,
not
bi-weekly
at
least
getting
some
comments
on
other
pull
requests
makes
sense
and
that's
not
been
observed
in
case
of
greg.
I
mean
I
I
didn't
remember
anything.
A
Definitely
in
the
past
one
year
I
can
see.
I
was
looking
into
that
and
then
exit
he
showed
up
and
he
responds
to
that.
So
yeah.
C
So,
what's
the
next
step,
so
greg
is
already
removed
from
the
list.
No.
D
E
G
E
C
B
So
there's
yeah,
there's
there's
two
two
separate
issues.
One
is
who
are
who's
classified
as
editors
and
two
is
who
has
right
access
to
the
repo?
I
believe
the
ops
team
was
doing.
I
I
don't
know,
but
I'm
guessing.
The
ops
team
was
just
doing
general
cleanup
and
removing
people
who
that's
what
you're
supposed
to
do.
You
know
as
good
security
practice.
You
clean
up
people
who
don't
need
access
anymore
and
I
think
they
just
cleaned
up
a
bunch
of
people
and
that
included
greg
again,
I'm
guessing
speculating
here.
B
So
yeah
so
two
separate
issues.
One
can
be
an
editor
and
not
be
have
right
access
three,
but
you
don't
need
right
access
to
be
an
editor.
F
F
F
D
F
A
To
jamie
for
this
for
getting
the
access,
I
don't
know
I
may
not
write
or
whatever
is
needed,
but
I'm
waiting
for
his
response,
maybe
tim.
If
you
can
give
him
a
little
nudge
and
get
this
thing
through,
would
be
helpful.
C
Okay,
let
me
see
if
I
can
do
something
about
this
yeah.
C
So,
like
clients,
you
basically
need
to
be
have
right
access
to
the
ei
piece,
repo
that
would
fix
that
right.
F
B
F
B
B
B
They'll
tell
you
well,
we
did
a
background
check
on
my
client
and
I
would
really
rather
not
give
him.
B
A
Sharing
a
pull
request-
number
four,
three
nine
zero
here,
so
this
has
been
stuck
because
I
mean
we
were
looking
into
proposals
yesterday,
proposals
and
pulled
requests
yesterday
in
the
eip
editor's
meeting,
and
we
they
found
that
because
this
is
done
by
micah.
It
needs
to
be
merged
by
light
client,
and
he
cannot
do
that
with
the
access
yeah.
D
C
C
Of
the
repository
yeah,
I
I'm
fine
taking
any
backlash
that
comes
from
adding
matt
as
an
eip
admin.
E
D
B
A
C
So
I
guess
what
I
understood
is
you:
you
expect
the
person
to
respond
to
respond
to
pings
from
the
bot
at
a
reasonable.
You
know,
with
a
reasonable
delay
and
to
show
up
to
these
meetings
say
once
a
quarter.
B
B
I
would
say
that
you
are
actively
responding
to
random,
like
people,
people
looking
for
editor
editorial
support
on
the
aps,
repo
at
some
regular
interval.
That
is,
you
know,
on
the
order
of
months.
So
so
not
just
like.
Oh
I
review
my
friends
pr's
like
we
have
had
editors
in
the
past.
E
B
Have
you
know
they
show
up,
but
they
only
show
up
and
edit,
you
know,
pr's
by
their
friends
or
by
them,
and
we
really
want
editors
to
be
people
that
are
helping
everybody.
I
I'm
this
is
part
of
my
soap
box
that
I'll
get
to
later
on
the
agenda,
but
I
don't
like
the
idea
of
giving
special
treatment
to
prominent
figures
within
the
community
so
like
when
vitalik
opens
a
pr
he's,
got
like
four
editors
jumping
on
to
review
it
because
the
problem
there
is,
it
means
every
time
metallic
doesn't
think.
B
There's
a
problem
like
the
dog
thinks
that
the
iep
process
is
working
fine
because
for
him
it
always
works.
Fine,
and
you
see
this
in
really
corrupt
governments,
where,
like
some
government
official,
will
go
through
a
process
and
they're
like
everything's
fine,
but
like
regular
people,
it
sucks,
like
it's
horrible.
The
reason
it's
fine
for
those
people,
other
people
is
because
they
have
special
treatment,
and
so
I
really
want
to
avoid
giving
special
treatment.
B
And
so
that's
why
I
want
to
specify
that,
if
you're
an
editor
that
means
you're
editing
for
everybody
you're
helping
all
the
people
who
want
to
participate
in
this
eip
process,
you're,
not
just
helping.
You
know
a
couple
of
friends
that
will
you
know,
vote
for
you
when
it
comes
time
to
vote
for
who
the
editors
are
or
whatever
it
is,.
C
A
Yeah
yeah
all
right
do
we
think
that
this
is
something
that
needs
to
be
maybe
added
somewhere
even
in
eap
one
I
mean
I
already
maintained
something
separate
in
a
hackmd
file
where
we
are
trying
to
add
all
the
coin
cases
or
special
instructions
that
cannot
be
added
to
eip1,
but
is
it
worth
adding
to
eip1?
That
would
be
helpful
for
people.
I
don't.
B
A
Okay,
so
while
we
are
discussing
this,
I
would
like
to
skip
the
number
three
and
come
to
number
four,
because
both
are
relevant
agree
on
who
gets
mentioned
in
the
eips,
so
my
guy
has
created
this
pull
request
to
like
who
should
get
mentioned,
and
that
I
mean
at
least
that
should
be
based
on
the
present
eip
editors
list.
B
It
says
I
just
wanted
to
bring
it
up
with
people
before
we
merge
that.
Currently,
it's
late,
client
and
alex
get
mentioned
for
everything
and
micah
gets
mentioned
for
core.
E
A
Fair
because
you
have
been
vocal
about
it,
that
you
want
to
review
only
core
proposals,
so
it
sounds
fair
and
rest
of
the
two
editors
who
are
there,
maybe
get
paid
for
every
sort
of
proposal.
A
Okay,
so
this
needs
to
be
merged.
I
see
that
this
has
been
approved
by
all
the
editors,
so
so
bot
can
do
that
or
any
of
you
can
do
that.
B
One
I
was
just
waiting
for
agreement.
That's
all.
A
B
So
the
tl,
dr,
is
it'd,
be
nice.
If
there's
a
way
to
have
lists
of
things
in
standard
repo
so
like,
when
you
create
a
standard
for
thing,
you
could
then
have
a
a
list.
A
great
example
is
transaction
types
right.
We've
got
three
transaction
types
now
going
on
four
or
five
in
the
pipe,
and
we
just
it'd
be
nice.
If
there's
a
place
that
we
can
record
all
these
numbers
in
one
place
so
a
list.
B
The
after
some
discussion
and
thinking
with
nick
my
recommendation-
and
it
sounds
like
his
as
well-
is
to
have
some
new
type
of
standard
or
file
or
whatever
that's
maybe
in
this
repository,
maybe
in
another.
I
think
he
he's
lobbies
for
another
and
I'm
fine
with
that,
where
it
is
only
and
the
author
of
the
registry,
it's
up
to
them
to
include
very
clear
instructions
as
to
what
is
necessary
to
get
included
in
the
list
and
the
idea
behind
this
is.
B
We
want
to
maintain
censorship,
resistance
within
our
process
as
much
as
possible,
and
so
we
don't
want
to
just
be
like.
Oh
bob
runs
this
list
and
then,
when
bob
disappears,
the
list
doesn't
doesn't
get
maintained
or
we
have
you
know
fights
over
who
gets
rights
to
access
ideas.
Is
someone
can
draft
a
new
registry
and
as
part
of
that
process,
they
would
say
anyone
can
get
added
to
this
as
long
as
they
meet
these
requirements
like?
B
If
you
achieve
you
know
this
this
this
and
this,
then
you
can
get
added
and
then
the
eap
editors
or
registry
editors
would
do
the
job
just
making
sure
that
when
someone
submits
a
pr
to
add
themselves
to
a
list,
they'd
include
an
argument
for
why
they
meet
the
requirements
and
then
they
would
say
yep
you
check
all
those
boxes.
So
we
will
add
your
line
to
the
list
like
yep
you,
you
check
all
the
boxes
for
having
a
new
transaction
type.
So
we'll
add
you
to
the
new
transaction
type
list.
A
I
see
light
length
unmuted,
but
unfortunately
we
are
not
able
to
hear
anything
from
his
and
at
least
I'm
not
able
to
go.
I'm
just.
B
B
I
don't
know
if
that's
nick
nick
might,
we
might
have
created
the
issue
because
he
specifically
is
hoping
someone
else
will
take
it
take
up
the
torch.
That
is
not
me,
do
not
have
the
time.
A
Okay,
in
that
case,
maybe
we
can
spread
the
news
and
we'll
see
if
we
can
find
someone
to
actually
champion
this
idea
or
convert
it
into
a
proposal
and
then
come
back
to
submit
a
proposal.
Formal
proposal
for
that.
A
So
I
mean
if,
if
this
sounds
reasonable,
we
can
probably
move
on
to
the
next
issue
and
let's,
let's
keep
that
issue
open
for
some
time,
and
so
we
can
refer
people
to
to
a
particular
issue
and
see
if
they
are
willing
to
champion
this
idea.
A
Moving
on
to
the
next
item
listed
today
is
eap
file,
name
error
problem
for
new
submission,
so
this
issue
is
created
by
submitted
by
an
author,
an
eip
author,
who
probably
is
documenting
the
proposal
for
the
first
time
and
is
looking
for
some
help.
I'm
not
sure
this
is
for
alita,
maybe
to.
A
The
next
item
is
eap
inside
so
we
have
shared
this
report
for
october,
122
eips
have
been
moved
to
stagnant
five.
New
proposals
were
added
as
draft
and
two
eips
are
moved
to
review
one
eip
resurrected
from
stagnant,
that's
for
the
octopus
and
in
november
so
far
there
is
only
one
proposal
which
has
been
added
as
a
draft
that
is
eip.
4396
time
aware,
base
the
calculation.
A
I
have
one
question
for
alita:
I
wanted
to
check
what
happens
to
move,
to
statement,
pull
request
that
is
created
by
bond
and
if
someone
respond
to
that
full
request,
when
is
the
next
time
that
is
reviewed
or
considered?
G
So
the
only
way
to
like
get
yeah,
I
mean
the
only
way
to
like
prevent
the
bot
from
reopening
a
pull
request
against.
It
is
to
actually
push
a
change
to
a
file
either
that
or
you
have
a
pull
request
open
against
that
file.
That's
yeah!
If
you
just
leave
a
comment
on
the
on
the
pull
request,
nothing
will
happen.
A
G
Well,
no,
the
I
guess
what
I'm
trying
to
say
is:
if
a
person
just
are
you
saying
like
like
they
leave
a
comment
on
the
pull
request
right.
G
A
All
right,
so
there
was
this
one
specific
case
that
I
identified.
It
was
for
eip200,
which
was
marked
for
stagnant,
and
it
was
my
simple
comment
that
it
should
be
like
move
to
withdrawn.
I
I
found
that
that
hasn't
been
merged
as
a
stagnant.
So
I
was
wondering
like
what
would
be
the
next
review
period,
or
would
it
simply
be
merged,
because
there
is
nothing
from
the
author's
side.
G
If
that's,
I
think
I
saw
your
comment.
It's
going
to
be
merged,
it
says
the
the
pull.
Requests
are
open
for
two
weeks
and
then
they're
merged.
G
Unless
a
change
is
made
to
the
file
and
or
the
pull
requests,
a
pull
request
is
opened,
notably
right
now.
Actually,
that
feature
doesn't
really
work
because
it
checked
to
merge
open
pr's
for
two
weeks.
G
Let's
actually
just
go
back,
I
I
don't
over
complicate
this.
So
the
answer
to
your
question:
it's
going
to
be
immersion
week
to
move
into
stagnant
unless
the
pr
is
opened
or
unless
a
change
is
made
of
that
file.
A
All
right,
so
I
I
see
here
this
I
mean
this
pull
request
was
opened
about
18
days
ago,
and
there
was
just
this
one
comment.
So
if
I
understand
that
correctly,
if
there
is
any
comment
but
no
new
pull
request,
the
bot
will
merge
it
as
a
stagnant.
G
So
I
think
maybe
this
is
a
bit
of
a
false
positive.
I
would
suspect
that
first
off,
I
think,
maybe
create
an
issue
in
the
ethbot
repo
about
this
specific
pull
request
that
you're
talking
about,
and
then
I
can
investigate.
What's
going
on
with
it,
the
the
behavior
that
you're
describing
is
not
something
intended.
B
I
believe
the
issue
is
somehow
it
added
the
wrong
label.
B
B
G
The
large
number
is
the
bot
id
id
so.
B
G
That
number
well
and
that's
like
the
idea-
is
that
the
bot
the
pull
request,
and
then
it
labels
it
with
that
to
make
sure
that
you
know
it's
easy
and
it's
guaranteed
that
any
pull
request
with
that
label
has
it's
from
the
bot
anyway.
I
can
look
into
it
and
try
to
figure
out
what's
going
on,
but
so.
G
To
do
here
is
just
create
a
issue
and
eat
spot,
and
I
can
take
it
from.
There
sounds
good.
A
First,
one
is
plan
a
peep
any
session
with
the
sam
wilson.
They
did
it
yesterday.
I
will
probably
release
that
recording
next
monday
updating
ap
one
to
mark
stagnant
as
another
terminal
state.
A
A
That's
correct,
it's
correct
all
right!
Thank
you.
So
the
course
of
action
is
very
much
similar
to
the
pull
request
right.
It
will
first
mark
it
for
sale
and
then
eventually
closed
right.
A
A
So
maybe
we
can
revisit
the
ap
list
after
a
couple
of
weeks
and
see
if
we
need
to
make
further
changes
to
it.
B
But
I
actually
would
like
to
to
just
tell
share
with
everybody
and
the
two
people
who
actually
watched
the
recordings
of
this
call,
why
I
am
such
a
dick
about
eips,
because
I
know
I
am
like.
I
know
what
it
what
my
actions
look
like
from
the
outside,
and
I've
explained
this
to
people
many
times
in
eips,
but
the
message
doesn't
seem
to
get
out
there,
so
the
gist
of
it
is,
is
that
currently
I
give
people
a
hard
time
and
tell
them
hey
this.
Is
the
process
follow
the
process?
B
You
know
we
have
these
rules
and
they
don't
like
the
rules,
but
we
stick
to.
I
stick
to
the
rules,
no
matter
who
they
are,
and
I
frequently
get
people
frustrated.
I
think,
because
they
are
people
of
notoriety
within
the
ethereum
community
and
they
are
obviously
not
bad
actors.
They're
not
trolls,
like
they're,
not
the
people
who
are
supposed
to
be
protecting
ethereum
eip
process
from,
and
so
they
feel
like.
It
would
be
reasonable
and
this
is
reasonable
to
just
let
them
you
know,
put
their
stuff
in
there
whatever.
B
That
is
be
it
external
links,
be
it
extra
sections
in
the
eip,
be
it
skipping
certain
steps
in
the
process,
like
all
these
things
are
things
people
request
of
me
as
an
editor,
and
the
reason
I
say
no
to
all
of
them
is
twofold:
one:
it's
because
we
are
very
understaffed
right
now
and
the
processes
we
have
in
place
are
largely
there,
because
they're
incredibly
simple
to
implement
these
processes
are
like
no
external
links.
That's
really
easy
to
implement.
If
I
see
an
external
link,
I
just
say
no
like
it
takes
me
two
seconds.
B
However,
if
the
process
is,
you
know,
external
links
that
are
likely
to
404
or
extra
links
from
people
that
haven't
authored
a
bunch
of
vips
before
now,
all
of
a
sudden,
the
process
becomes
much
harder
to
implement.
It's
no
longer
simple.
For
me
to
just
say
no,
I
now
have
to
look
at
who
the
author
is
look
at,
where
the
link
goes,
try
to
evaluate
that
link,
and
then
on
top
of
that,
what
this
leads
to
is-
and
I
actually
do
get
this
a
lot.
B
This
is
not
just
me
making
stuff
up
when
I
approve
a
pr
that
allows
a
link
through,
and
then
I
disapprove
someone
else
that
person,
I
disapproved
will
say,
but
you
let
so
and
so
through
and
now
I
need
to
have
a
very
long
discussion
with
the
second
person
explaining
why
the
why
link
a
is
okay
but
link
b
is
not
okay
or
why
section
from
this
guy's
eap
is
okay,
but
the
section
in
their
ap
is
not
okay,
and
so
that
is
one
of
the
reasons
why
I'm
a
dick
on
the
ips
and
why
I
just
make
everybody
follow
this
silly
bureaucratic
process,
because
we
are
very
understaffed
and
the
bureaucratic
pro
the
process
is
in
place
to
make
sure
that
the
little
staff
we
have
can
actually
get
things
done.
B
If
people
want
the
rules
to
change
the
number
one
thing
you
can
do
is
become
an
iep
eip
editor
or
recommend
some
ip
editors.
If
we
had
more
staff,
we
could
make
more
wishy-washy
decisions.
We'd
have
fuzzier
rules,
we
wouldn't.
We
could
have
time
to
explain
to
users
why
you
know
link
a
is
good,
but
link
b
is
bad,
but
at
the
moment
we
don't
have
that
we
have
me
and
matt
and
sometimes
alex
and
so
so
yeah.
So
that's
that's
one
of
the
reasons.
B
The
other
reason
is,
and
this
is
kind
of
tangent
sort
of
related.
There
are
people
who
are
notorious
within
the
ethereum
ecosystem.
You
know
vitalik
being
the
obvious
one,
though
I
don't
actually
get
this
problem
from
him,
but
just
as
an
example,
and
then
there
are
people
who
are
not
so
who
have
never
shown
up.
B
Maybe
they
created
a
new
github
account
anonymously,
and
so
I
I
have
no
idea
who
they
are
and
both
these
people
are
submitting
eips
and
there
is
a
desire
for
the
people
who
are
notorious
to
get
their
eip
pushed
through
a
little
quicker
than
everybody
else
like
they
want.
They
don't
want
to
follow
the
process.
They
don't
want
to
go
through
the
steps
they're
they're
they're
frustrated,
they're
like
why
can't
you
let
this
through,
like
you
know,
who
I
am
I'm
not
like
this
isn't
spam
obviously
etc,
and
for
those
people.
B
The
reason
specifically,
I
do
not
push
them
through
and
in
fact
I
put
them
at
the
like,
whatever
place
in
line,
they
show
up
at
that's
where
they
get,
they
don't
get
special
treatment
and
the
reason
for
that
is,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
I
really
want
everybody
who
is
in
positions
within
the
ethereum
ecosystem
to
recognize
how
understaffed
we
are
like,
as
I
said
before,
if
the
people
who
are
in
positions
that
they
can
actually
have
a
voice,
they
can
you
know
tweet
to
people,
and
people
actually
hear
it.
They
can
solicit
for
assistance.
B
They
have
to
solicit
additional
assistance
and
additional
help
and
get
more
people
like
working
on
this,
so
everybody
cannot
suffer.
I
don't
want
to
just
be
like
okay,
I'm
going
to
help
so
and
so
because
they're
important
or
they're
special
and
I'm
going
to
ignore
all
these
other
people.
So
that
is
why
mike
is
a
dick,
the
short
version.
I
just
want
to
everybody
to
know
that
it's
not
just
because
I
derive
pleasure
from
being
a
dick,
though
I
do,
but
that
is
not
the
reason
in
this
case.
A
That's
right
I
mean
I
would
agree
here,
but
you
have
been
a
hero
here,
because
many
things
that
have
that
we
have
changed
in
the
past.
It's
because
you
like
climbed
hudson
for
some
time
and
people
like
you.
They
showed
up
and
tried
to
make
a
decision,
and
then
we,
the
catholics,
tried
to
document
them
formally
and
share
it
with
the
rest
of
the
community
that
this
is
the
process.
There
was
always
like
a
flow,
but
there
was
no
defined
line.
What
to
follow?
A
What
not
to
follow
home
to
reach
and
now
that
cat
headers
are
there.
We
have
seen
people
reaching
out
to
us
on
the
catholic
discord
where
we
send
it
to
again
to
the
eip
editors
and
we
try
to
help
and
suggest
them.
What
is
the
right
process?
So
this
would
not
be
I
mean
we
would.
We
would
not
be
at
the
place
where
we
are
right
now,
if
that's
not
because
of
you
light
line
and
hudson
and
other
people
who
actually
became
richard
and
helped
us
define
this
process.
B
On
that
note,
do
we
have
any
potential
people
interested
in
being
editors.
C
C
It's
hard
because
if
you
make
it
like
too
open
of
like
a
too
open
of
like
a
process,
you
might
you
probably
get
people
who,
like
don't
add
a
lot
of
value
and
actually
stuck
time
away
from
like
mike
and
math,
which
is
not
great,
so
I'm
not
sure
like
what's
the
right
place
and
it
feels
like
the
people
who
are
aware
that
there's
editors
lacking
or
basically
the
people
in
the
ether,
indeed
discord
and
and
most
of
those
people
most
most
of
them-
have
most
of
their
people
yeah.
C
They
have
jobs
and
they're,
also
kind
of
yeah,
they've
they've
considered
doing
this
and
they've
chosen.
Basically,
so
I
I
I'm
not
sure
like.
What's
the
what's
the
sweet
spot
and
yeah
there's
a
question
about
funding,
I
think
we've
had
a
bit
of
funding
and
like
if
that
was
the
main.
C
A
So,
just
to
provide
some
update
here,
this
eap
editors,
internship
meeting
that
we
do
by
weekly.
We
have
one
resources
from
cat
hardest,
of
course,
and
he's
under
trading,
and
he
seems
to
be
like.
I
have
seen
william
and
likeline
kind
of
matching
him
and
training
him,
and
maybe
we
can
have
him
on
formal
editing,
but
right
now
he's
in
like
very
early
stages
of
it.
A
So
it's
trying
to
understand
how
the
process
work
and
what
would
be
you
know
the
right
place
or
the
right
context
to
add
comments
which
can
add
value
in
at
least
drafting
the
proposal.
A
So
yeah,
I
think,
adding
it
as
a
pen
message
to
fellowship
of
a
magician
would.
A
C
Yeah,
does
I
guess,
does
anyone
want
to
write
a
draft
for
the
eip
editor?
I
can
do
it
if,
if
you
all
are
too
busy
but
can
maybe
try
and
draft
something
that
we
can
post.
B
A
All
right,
I
don't
know,
I
have
shared
this
post
that
was
shared
on
the
character
this
medium
a
while
ago,
so
we
just
had
a
few
lists
here.
Let
me
reshare
it.
I
don't
know.
A
C
It's
it's
really
helpful.
Yeah
I'll
have
a
look
at
it
and
I'll.
I
guess
I'll
take
some
time
tomorrow
to
try
and
figure
out.
What's
the
best
place
to
post
this
like
how
do
we
go
about
getting
this
visibility
and
yeah?
Maybe
just
like
modifying
this
a
bit
yeah.
A
A
So
to
the
question
of
at
the
possibility
of
funding,
yes,
cat
heard
us
working
or
with
different
grants
last
time
it
was
supported
by
esp,
and
this
time
we
are
trying
to
reach
out
to
monarch
and
some
other
fundings.
If
we
have
people
we
would
be
definitely
working
on.
D
A
I
thought
I
saw
timon
meeting
so
I
thought
he
was
trying
to
add
something
because
last
time
he
was.
A
A
Yeah,
okay,
yeah,
so
funny
should
not
be
an
issue
as
to
mention
that
if,
if
someone
is
interested-
and
he
is
willing
to
be
a
part-time
editor,
please
reach
out
to
us
I'll,
be
happy
to
talk
to
them
and
lead
through
the
process.
What
we
have
currently,
we
are
trying
to
help
out
with
whatever
works,
to
get
more
people
on
board
features
on
ethereum
cat
heard
us,
and
my
dm
is
also
open
on
catalyst
discord.