►
From YouTube: EIPIP meeting 22
Description
Agenda: https://github.com/ethereum-cat-herders/EIPIP/issues/43
A
The
first
item
on
agenda
is
stronger
rules
for
discussion
url
when
you
click
the
link
that
is
coming
from
the
issue
that
was
created
sometimes
back
by
exec.
We
wanted
to
pick
up
some
of
the
other
issues
that
are
there
in
the
eips
ripple.
So
the
first
one
is
a
stronger
rules
for
discussion.
So
far
we
have
been
recommending
ethereum
magician
forum
for
discussion
for
any
of
the
proposals,
but
it's
just
a
recommendation:
do
we
have
thoughts
on?
Should
it
be
recommendation
or
should
it
be?
B
A
I
think
there
would
be
two
questions
related
to
it
number
one.
What
is
the
ideal
place
for
discussion
tool
and
number
two
would
be
a
strongest
recommendation
for
that.
So
are
we
on
the
same
page,
about
the
discussion
to
place
that
it
has
to
be
fellowship
of
ethereum
magician?
B
Yeah,
I
mean
that's
my
preference.
I
think
that
having
it
available
for
people
to
use
the
issues
is
also
okay.
That
way.
If,
for
some
reason,
they
don't
want
to
create
an
account
on
another
website,
they
can
use
github,
which
they
already
need
to
be
having
an
account
on.
I
think
that
we
could
disallow
ease
research.
I
think
that
that's
not
really
the
appropriate
place
for
eip
discussions
anyways,
so
I
think
that
just
a
preference
of
the
magicians
but
a
requirement
that
it's
either
east
magicians
or
the
eip
repository
issue.
A
A
So
how
do
we
want
to
like
you
know
what
is
suggested
here
is
like
you
know,
we
should
be
adding
it
to
eip1
and
you
know
adding
a
recommendation
or
maybe
the
stronger
version
of
recommendation.
A
A
A
Okay,
then
we
can
add
that,
as
you
know,
I
mean
I'm
not
sure
if
we
should
add
that,
as
you
know,
one
of
the
outcomes
of
this
meeting
today,
because
we
have
less
participants,
will
mention
it
as
what
what
the
present
group
think
and
if
there
is
no
strong
opposition,
then
we'll
try
to
create
a
pull
request
to
update.
That
sounds
reasonable.
A
Okay.
The
next
item
is
handling
retroactive
changes.
It
is
coming
from
the
at
one
dot.
Oh
specs,
I
think
like
client,
you
have
created
an
issue
about
that.
Eip261
is
the
example
cited
here.
B
Yeah,
I'm
not
sure
if
this
is
the
right
group
to
discuss
this
with,
but
I'm,
but
I
say
I'm
curious
to
your
thoughts.
Even
if
it's
not
there
is
the
cip,
the
ip2681,
I
guess
whatever
yeah
yeap2681.
B
This
is
basically
changing
the
transaction,
the
validity
requirements
of
a
transaction
retroactively
up
until
we
this
was
agreed
on
in
the
last
all-court
devs.
It
was
theoretically
possible
to
have
an
account
whose
nonce
is
incredibly
high,
something
that
could
be
represented
in
you
know
an
arbitrary
length
integer
and
what
was
decided
on.
B
A
Yeah,
I
think
I
think
this
item
we
can
bring
it
back.
When
we
have.
You
know
more
people,
I
mean
right
set
of
people
to
answer
this
thing
I
mean
it's
coming
from
network
upgrade
repository,
so
my
thought
was
james
presence
would
have
helped
you.
B
A
Moving
on
the
next
item
is
implementation
section.
This
is
again
coming
up
from
the
eip
repo
issue
it
talks
about.
Like
should
be,
should
we
have
implementation
section
in
the
eips?
C
B
I
think
micah
is
probably
the
biggest
proponent
for
making
this
not
making
eips
not
have
the
implementation
section.
So
it's
kind
of
unfortunate
to
not
discuss
that.
B
C
B
A
Right
I
wish
malka
has
joined
the
call,
but
due
to
some
outage
power
outage
in
his
location,
he
wouldn't
be
able
to
make
the
call
today.
So
let's
move
it
to
the
next
meeting
I
just
heard
from
hudson
also.
Unfortunately,
he
is
also
not
able
to
make
the
meeting
today,
I'm
wondering,
should
we
continue
with
the
rest
of
the
items.
C
Yeah,
the
only
update
I
have
is,
let's
see,
pull
up
my
notes
here.
I've
I'm
trying
to
get
a
hold
of
william
entrekin,
because
he's
done
some
work
and
made
some
progress
on
this,
but
I
can't
get
him
to
respond,
so
I'm
also
gonna
try
and
contact
sam
richards
or
josh
stark.
C
I
haven't
done
that
yet,
but
plan
on
reaching
out
to
any
of
those
and
if
anyone
else
has
any
information
of
who
at
the
ethereum
foundation
or
the
ownership
that
owns
that
website,
that
might
be
able
to
help
me
or
or
give
me
access,
so
we
can
try
and
make
some
improvements
there.
If
anyone
has
any
more
information
anyway,
that's
work
in
progress,
I'm
continuing
to
work
on
that.
That's
all
I
had.
A
So
I
believe,
you're
talking
about
a
single
source
of
truth
right.
C
Right,
yeah
there's
right
now:
there's
eips.ethereum.org
and
there's
also
ethereum.org
slash
eips
and
they're
sort
of
like
copies
of
each
other,
but
we
should
have
one
or
the
other,
and
william
and
tradekin
has
done
some
research
and
found
one
is
by
far
used
the
most
and
so
we're
talking
moving
towards
that
one.
But
anyway
there's
some
other
cleanup.
That
needs
to
be
done,
but
so
yeah.
A
So
I
believe,
exec
also
had
some
thoughts
on
that
about
single
source
of
truth
for
eip's
repo
and
that
we
did
earlier.
A
Okay,
so
one
another
item
is
eip.
Repo
cleanup,
the
intention
behind
adding
this
was
like
we
were.
We
were
looking
into
proposals
to
you,
know
kind
of
filter
out
which
are
in
draft
which
are
in
steel.
I
know
most
of
the
eips
have
been
if
they
are
still,
they
have
been
removed
or
marked
still
with
the
help
of
both,
but
there
are
still
some
eips
which
are
there,
for
you
know
more
than
longer
duration,
that
it
needs
to
be
in
the
state
of
last
call.
C
I
thought
we
were
going
to
wait
until
I
I
guess
do
we
have
the
the
a
well-defined
set
of
states
that
the
eip
can
be
be,
and
I
thought
we
were
just
waiting
until
we
had
that
well-defined
state.
Then,
once
we
have
that
state,
then
we're
going
to
start
start
contacting
all
the
authors
to
see.
If
we
can
push
things
along.
A
C
Okay,
cool
yeah,
so
so,
in
other
words,
can
we
start
contacting
eip
authors
again
and
start
pushing
things
along.
A
B
C
B
C
B
Yeah,
there's
one
more
state
after
that.
Well,
the
bot,
I
think,
makes
two
comments.
It
marks
something
as
stale,
meaning
that
it
has
not
been
interacted
with
for
a
period
of
time.
I
forget
what
the
exact
time
is
and
then
maybe
a
week
after
that
it
will
close
it
or
two
weeks
or
something
like
that.
It'll
actually
close
the
issue.
So
if.
C
Okay,
so
in
other
words
but
then
once
it's
closed,
then
it's
closed
and
that's
the
end
and
that's
the
goal.
A
B
B
So
the
things
that
are
actually
closed
would
need
to
be
manually,
moved
to
the
whatever
the
preferred
inactive
stages,
abandoned
or
yeah.
A
A
C
So
help
it
sounded
like
you
were
talking
about
just
eips.ethereum.org
as
if
that
was
different
than
ethereum.org
eips.
What
is
I
thought?
Those
were
both
built
from
the
eip
repository
and
deposited
in
those
two
locations
via
some
build
process,
but,
but
are
those
different
then
is
that
is
my
understanding
and
correct.
A
As
per
my
information,
the
difference
there
is
ethereum.org
slash,
eips
does
not
list
the
eips,
which
I
mean,
what
kind
of
what
category
of
eip
it
is
or
what
state
it
is
only
eips.ethereum.org
list
that.
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
Sure
I
shared
the
link
in
the
chat,
so
if
people
have
thoughts
and
comment
on
the
article
we
are
planning
to
publish
it
on,
ethereum
cathode
is
blocked.
This
generally
states
about
what
are
the
current
statuses
that
the
group
agreed
upon.
It
is
already
documented
in
eip1
just
this
explanation
of
how
how
we
are
moving
along
the
process
of
standardization.
B
A
Yeah
I
mean
because
we
have
access
to
that
only
so
if
it
is
something
that
should
be
on
a
broader
scale,
we
can
probably
share
it
or
I
don't
know
if
there
is
another
suggestion
for
that
or
any
other
better
place
for
it
to
be
published.
B
A
So
I'm
sorry,
I
did
not
get
it
properly,
so
where
I
mean
would
be
the
right
place,
maybe
on
the
github
repo
of
ethereum
dot,
spec.
B
B
B
I
don't
know
sorry,
I
just
cut
out
perspective.
I
was
getting
a
phone
call.
I
didn't
hear
what
he
said.
Friends.
B
Like
you
know,
the
genesis
of
e2
these
are
things
that
they
post,
and
so
I
feel
like
this
is
in
that
kind
of
category
of
informational
things
about
ethereum
that
they
could
post
on,
and
I
don't
know
you
know,
I
don't
know
who
the
right
person
as
they
ask
about
that
is
probably
james.
Hancock
would
know
if
that
would
fit
in.
C
A
Right
so
we
will
like
hold
the
publishing
it
on
the
characteristic
medium
right
now.
If
people
have
feedback
on
it
feel
free
to
suggest,
and
then
I
will
check
with
james
on
this
okay.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
that
suggestion.
A
I
I
think
edson
would
be
the
right
person
to
do
that,
it's
his
blog.
So
I'm
not
sure
if
he's
unable
to
mention
atm
and
talk
here
but
I'll
communicate
it
to
him.
D
A
A
On
that
we
had
a
small
discussion
in
cat
herders
meeting,
I
would
be
reaching
out
to
ethereum
magician
people
to
first.
You
know
check
with
them
if
they
are
comfortable
for
editors
funding,
because
the
idea
was
if
this
eip
is
very
much
close
to
the
fellowship
of
ethereum
magician
people.
So
let
them
have
this
funding
thing
for
eip
editors.
If
at
all,
we
would
like
to
pursue
this
idea
and
if
not
working,
then
cat
hurdlers
can
help
out
with
the
requesting
of
fund
and
distribution
as
required
as
needed.
A
The
next
decision
made
in
the
last
meeting
was
like
client
is
now
an
editor.
Congratulations,
and
thank
you
very
much
nightlife
for
of
offering
your
services
are
gonna
data.
We
were
looking
for
more
people
to
help
out
with.
C
A
Okay,
21.3
states
discuss
issues
from
the
network
upgrade
repository
here.
We
did
try,
but
in
absence
of
sufficient
people
or
the
right
set
of
people
here,
we
could
not
make
any
decision.
We
would
like
to
bring
it
up
again
in
the
next
meeting.
C
So
is
nick
johnson
then
volunteered
to
be
someone
that
can
make
changes
to
the
merge
bot
that
we
request
and
stuff
like
that.
B
I
don't
know
I
I
need
to
re-look
at
the
discussion
that
happened.
I
think
that
the
main
outcome
was
just
that
we
were
sure
we
were.
You
know
we
figured
out
that
for
sure
he
is
the
one
who
was
running
it.
We
figured
out
where
it's
located
and
he
said
that
he
could
add
someone
to
it
so
that
they
could
restart
it.
In
the
case
that
there
were
issues
which
was
the
main
thing
we
were
looking
for,
but
nobody
really
was
it.
You
know
committing
to
making
actual
changes
to
it.
C
D
Okay,
so
I'm
so
sorry
so
I
was.
I
was
saying
that
I
want.
A
A
So
when
we
started
this
group
of
eipip,
the
intention
was
to
improve
the
process
as
well
as
support
the
eip
repository
that
is
already
there
to
clean
it
up
to
make
the
process
streamlined
and
all
these
things
we
have
made
good
progress
here.
We
have
finished
so
many
tasks
that
we
started
in
the
beginning
of
this
year.
The
group
started
in
january
2020
and
by
the
by
the
end
of
the
year,
we
made
good
progress.
A
So
if
people
have
suggestions
what
other
tasks
or
action
items
we
can
consider
for
this
group
feel
free
to
add.
Here
we
are
already
working
on
eip
repo
cleanup.
There
were
two
things
I
think
is
missing.
We
sometimes
back.
We
talked
about
having
a
document,
I'm
not
sure.
If
we
have
that
document
for
eip
editors
right
with
rules
and
responsibilities,
did
we
miss
it
out
somewhere.
A
Is
it
worth
putting
in
a
future
meeting
agenda.
C
A
My
thought
is
general
idea
of
like
we
do
have
a
general
process,
but
the
unclear
part
is
like
how
do
we
reach
on
consensus,
like
it
happens
in
the
all
core
dev
meeting,
but
I
mean
I
come.
I
came
across
this
thing
like
for
core
proposals.
Consensus
are
made
in
all
code
of
meetings,
just
one
person
or
two
person
say
I
mean
one
client
or
two
clients
say
it
is
there,
but
there
is
no
defined
line.
So
we
want
yeah.
C
That
seems
totally
ambiguous
and
confusing
and
expecting
people
to
browse
through
those
notes
and
everything
to
try
and
find
out
what
status
everyone's
on
anyway.
My
thinking
is,
we
need
to
have
some
definitive
source
where
people
can
say
if
you're
in,
if
you
are
for
this,
you
sign
this
petition.
If
you
are
against
it,
you
create
an
account
anyway.
C
Just
in
my
opinion,
I
think
everyone
knows
my
opinion
on
that,
but
I
think
that
would
be
a
great
help
if,
if
we
could
say
singles
and
and
also
you
have
to
be
able
to
jump
camps,
if,
if
you're
not
on
board,
you
need
to
be
able
to
jump
off
and
if
you
aren't
on
board
jump
on
and
track
all
that
rigorously.
Just
my
thoughts.
A
I
I
think,
as
of
now
with
the
one
dot
or
spec
repo,
we
are
trying
to
get
some
clarity
on
that
like
if
we
look
into
the
yellow,
v2
or
v3
document
md
file,
there
we
are
trying
to
mention
like
which
client
is
okay
with
what
proposal
or
they
are
planning
to
implement
it.
This
may
be
good,
as
per
the
core
eips
are
mentioned
there,
but
for
some
other
eips
like
network
eips,
networking
eips.
C
Yeah
that
that's
both
of
those
things
are
critic
it'd,
be
great
to
just
have
a
single
source
of
proof
have
a
process
where
everyone
could
know,
go
to
a
single
source
and
find
out
what
is
the
current
state-of-the-art
state
of
that.
B
I
think
that
this
is
something
that
it's
unfortunate,
how
the
process
currently
is,
but
you
know
it's
really
run
by
client
teams
and
client
teams
sort
of
dictates
what
goes
into
the
protocol.
What
doesn't
and
I'm
not
sure
that
we
can
come
up
with
a
process
for
them.
The
only
way
we
could
hope
for
a
process
is
if
we
did
it
together
with
them,
and
you
know
my
experience
of
working
with
them
is
that
they
are
really
busy
and
they
don't
have
time
to
mess
with
this
sort
of
stuff
right
now,.
C
Right
yeah,
but
basically
I'm
just
talking
about
a
communication
process
where
all
of
the
teams
can
like
communicate
to
everyone
else,
what
they
are
and
not
implementing
and
who's
on
board
and
who's,
not
on
board
and
that
kind
of
stuff.
A
Yeah
I
mean
I
find
this.
As
you
know,
an
area
of
opportunity
that
can
be
the
gap
can
be
reached.
I
understand
that
client
teams
may
not
have
the
kind
of
bandwidth
to
document
these
processes
or
how
to
do
they
think
about
it.
But
if
we
get
some
senses
of
the
decision
making
process,
possibly
documenting
them
and
sharing
them
with
people
in
the
form
of
blog
as
we
are
doing
it
for
statuses
of
eips
and
others
would
be
helpful,
but
just
a
thought.
B
I
guess
I
think
that
there
are
things
that
we
can
tackle
within
the
vip
repository.
That
is
that
we
would
be
better
suited
for,
and
I
mean
those
are
things
like
trying
to
have
more
separation
of
concerns
in
terms
of
the
types
of
eips
that
we
have.
I
know
that
mica
wants
to
just
totally
remove
erc
type
eips
from
the
repository
and
see.
I
think
these
are
things
issues
that
we
could
really
make
progress
on.
B
But
you
know
my
experience
in
being
a
part
of
some
of
those
conversations
is
that
it's
incredibly
opaque
and
trying
to
write
a
blog
post,
it's
going
to
be
hard
because
there's
not
much,
there's
not
really
a
great
there's,
not
really
a
process.
That's
followed,
it's
more
just
constant
discussions
and
a
lot
of
those
discussions
happen
privately
within
the
guest
team,
things
that
we
aren't
privileged
to
anyways
and
then
the
results
of
those
conversations
are
the
sorts
of
things
that
we
see
bubble
up
on
all
core
devs.
B
A
Yeah,
I
think
I'm
getting
there,
we
don't
have
to
mess
with
the
current
process.
I
get
that
part
I
mean
we
could
use
the
time
to
get
some
some
areas
where
we
can
be
actually
helpful.
So.
B
I
mean
I
would
love
for
you
know
I
would
love
it
if
we
could
help
make
the
network
upgrade
process
less
opaque
and
I
feel,
like
you
know
six
months
ago.
That
was
something
that
I
also
felt
strongly
about
this
berlin
hard
fork
a
lot.
You
know
a
lot
more
with
the
eip.
I've
been
helping
champion
with
micah.
I
just
realized
that
this
is
a
really
complicated
process
and
there
isn't
a
process.
B
That's
really
followed,
and
we
just
see
that
weekend
or
you
know
every
all
core
devs
whenever
we
try
and
decide
on
something
we'll
circle
around
for
an
hour
and
come
kind
of
back
to
the
same
point:
there's
no
rhyme
or
reason
it's
just
everybody's
trying
to
do
the
best
that
they
can
to
think
about.
What's
the
best
to
the
network.
C
So
so
it
sounds
like
to
me
you're
talking
about
exactly.
There
should
be
a
petition
of
what
someone
wants
to
do
and
everyone
that
agrees
with
that
could
sign
that
petition
and
that
could
be
a
dynamic
petition.
And
if
anyone
disagrees,
they
could
create
a
competing
camp
and
say
I
don't
like
that
for
x,
y
z
and
people
just
and
you
measure,
and
so
you
can
really
track
who's
on
board
with
what
and
who's
not
on
board.
B
Happening
right
now
in
all
core
devs
and
on
discord.
It's
just.
We
don't
have
the
formalization
of
these
petitions
and
I
don't
think
that
that's
something
that
the
core
does
are
going
to
be
amenable
to
in
the
near
future.
I
think
they
feel
you
know
incredibly
overwhelmed
with
the
amount
of
things
that
need
to
happen
to
the
theorem
protocol
and
they
don't
want
to
go
through
add
additional
bureaucracy
to
decisions
that
are
already
very
hard
for
them.
C
No,
no,
no,
no,
the
problem
is
is
now
they
spend
hours
and
hours
going
hashing
over
and
over
and
over
and
no
one
knows
any
of
the
decisions
made.
I'm
saying
reduce
all
that
work
and
just
make
a
concise
statement
on
a
petition
say
I'm
for
doing
this.
Who
is
and
isn't
on
that,
and
it
seems
like
to
me
that
would
reduce
everyone's
work
and
communication
would
all
be
natural
anyway,
just
a
thought.
B
You
know
on
paper
that
sounds
amazing
and
it
sounds
like
it
will
reduce
things,
but
the
problem
is
that
I
think
some
of
the
things
that
are
being
discussed-
it's
not
easy
to
synthesize
into
a
petition.
You
know
the
great
example
is
just
the
work
that
we've
been
doing
on
type
transactions.
The
questions
that
have
been
coming
up
are
things
that
we
didn't
think
about
at
the
previous
meeting.
They
were
things
that
just
you
know,
continue
to
come
up
during
the
implementation
phase
and.
C
That's
why
I'm
talking
about
a
dynamic
petition
that
constantly
changes
and
improves,
because
you
have
a
petition,
so
you
can
submit
a
change
in
a
wiki
kind
of
a
way
and
then
everyone
that
is
supporting
gets
notified
of
those
changes
and
if
no
one
objects
within
24
hours,
it
goes
live
and
you
can
assume
unanimous
consensus
and
that
way
you
can
track.
Who
is
and
isn't
on
board
in
real
time
and
it
becomes
easy
and
the
and
and
and
and
so
you
constantly
change
that
petition
trying.
C
In
other
words,
you
do
negotiation
for
the
people
that
aren't
on
board
and
say
well,
if
we
made
this
change
to
the
petition,
would
that
get
you
on
board
and
and
then
you
submit
that
to
the
petition
and
if
no
one
objects,
then
you
can
assume
that
everyone
that
has
signed
it
still
agrees
with
that
change.
So
so
it's
not
just
a
static
petition.
It's
a
dynamic
petition.
C
B
B
Scalable,
I'm
not
saying
this
is
scalable
as
it
is.
There
are
things
that
should
be
done
to
improve
the
system.
It's
you
know,
I
just
don't
know.
If
yeah
I
don't
know
what
the
right
way
to
go
about
that
is,
and
I
don't
think
that
we
can
really
go
about
it
without
enfranchising,
more
of
the
core
developers
in
the
work
there's
no
way
that
we
can
just
impose
something
upon
them
and
say
here's
this
great
process,
we've
come
up
with
on
our
own.
C
That
makes
sense
yeah
to
me
it
it
takes
someone
who
wants
to
do
something
like
violate
the
state
of
the
chain.
That
critically
needs
to
be
done,
that's
a
hard
decision,
and
if
someone
wants
to
do
it,
they
can
start
a
petition
say
I
want
to
do
this
and
then
people
can
start
getting
on
board
say.
Yes,
I
want
to
do
that
and
start
building
consensus
and,
and
so
it's
a
tool
for
someone
that
wants
to
do
something
to
make
it
change.
That's
primarily
what
it
is.
C
So
if
someone
right
now,
I'm
it
seems
frustrating
to
me
because
especially
violating
changing
the
the
state
of
the
blockchain
everyone's
just
afraid
to
touch
that,
because
they're
going
to
cause
a
fork
and
no
one
wants
to
go
there.
But
if
we
can't
do
that,
ethereum's
going
to
be
stuck
in
the
mud,
and
if
someone
wants
to
champion
a
petition,
we
need
to
find
out
a
way
to
formalize
that
and
make
that
so
that
we
can
make
those
kind
of
decisions
on
large.
A
A
So
I
just
wanted
to
you
know,
get
people's
attention
to
the
project
board,
to
mention
that
we
made
good
progress
now
if
we
want
to
take
some
more
tasks
that
can
be
added
here.
A
A
We
could
not
address
some
of
the
items
today.
We
would
like
to
bring
it
back
to
the
next
meeting.
B
The
first
one
is,
you
know
regarding
sort
of
the
I
guess,
the
project
board,
but
also
just
higher
level,
what
the
this
group's
goals
are-
and
I
guess
I
was
wondering-
is
this:
a
group
that
expects
to
carry
on
in
perpetuity.
Are
there
always
things
that
you
think
that
there
that
will
need
to
be
done
or
the
script
needs
to
handle,
or
is
there
kind
of
an
end
goal
that
this
group
wants
to
get
to
that
says?
Okay,
we've
achieved
what
we've
wanted
to
achieve
and
now
we're
complete.
C
I
mean
yeah,
I
think,
there's
there's
two
steps
number
one.
We
want
to
redefine
the
process,
so
we
have
a
clear
defined
process.
Then
what
then
that's
the
primary
goal,
but
then,
once
that
done,
my
goal
is,
is
to
participate
in
an
ongoing
basis,
maybe
not
as
it
is
as
busy
as
we
have
been,
but
to
constantly
be
working
on
cleaning
up,
eips
and
reporting
back
and
say
what
have
we
and
have
we
not
accomplished
and
what
eips
can
be
cleaned
up
and
coordinating
who's
going
to
try
and
clean
up
what
I
eip
to
me.
A
Yeah
I
mean
my
thought:
process
is
also
very
close
to
what
brent
just
explained
like
the
idea
of
having
this
group
was
to
get
the
process
you
know
improved
and
if
we
started
with
eips,
because
that
was
the
area
which
needed
most
attention
and
that's
how
we
renamed
this
group
as
eip
eip.
A
C
A
B
D
A
So
the
next
meeting
is
in
two
weeks
december
16..
Thank
you,
everyone
for
joining.
I
hope
that
we
have
more
people
to
make
a
decision
on
the
items
that
we
missed
today,
see
you
all
in
next
two
weeks.
Thank
you.