►
From YouTube: EIPIP meeting 51
Description
Agenda: https://github.com/ethereum-cat-herders/EIPIP/issues/112
A
A
A
B
In
the
past,
I
have
if
it's
like,
just
a
typo
or
something
like
someone
just
fixing
a
typo
or
they're,
just
like
maybe
it's
a
very
non-contentious
like
word
change
like
a
grammar
fix
and
whatnot
pretty
much
anything.
That
is
definitely
nothing
so
nothing
normative
can
happen
to
a
family
at
all
that
that's
just
straight
up,
can't
do
it
if
the
change
is
substantial
in
any
way
like
I
can
strawman
why
someone
would
disagree
with
it.
B
Then
I
usually
wait
for
the
author,
so
this
includes
like
who
it
was
wanted
to
go
through
and
change.
The
usage
change,
a
bunch
of
word
choice,
choices
throughout
all
the
ieps,
like
I
forget
what
it
was
think
blacklist.
They
wanted
to
change
to
something
else
like
block
lists.
I
think-
and
that
is
something
that
I'm
unwilling
as
an
editor
to
override
so
again,
because
it's
a
it's
a
very
political
political
thing.
It's
not
just
a
grammar
fix
like
the
eip,
isn't
incorrect.
B
It's
not
invalid
grammar.
It's
not
like
a
spelling
error
like
this
new
person
is
coming
in
and
saying.
I
think
this
should
be
worded
differently,
because
I
have
a
different
worldview
or
belief
system
or
whatever
for
those
ones.
I
am
very
much
against
editors
overriding
the
author,
even
though
they
are
technically
allowed
changes
like
that
are
non-normative
and
therefore
they're
allowed
for
final
eips.
A
A
B
Oh,
I
see
the
code
code
is
wrong
and
does
not
currently
execute
yeah.
I'm
fine
with
merging
this
one.
It's
just
a
non-normative
correction
that
fixes
the
bug
and
the
example
code.
Normally
I
so
for
the
first
situation
like
this.
B
Usually
what
I'll
do
is
I'll
wait
a
little
bit
to
see
if
the
we
can
get
a
hold
of
one
of
the
authors
to
get
them
to
approve
it,
just
because
I
prefer
to
not
override
the
process
if
it
can
be
avoided,
but
for
something
like
this,
it's
been
a
month,
I'm
okay
with
merging
it.
Without
the
authors.
A
Right
so
I
was
hoping
like
if
we
can
come
to,
like
you
know
some
suggestion
or
guideline
for
this
for
future
eip
editors
to
be
referring
to
just
like
we
have
a
policy
for
eip.
One
like
it
is
open
for
two
two
weeks
and
it
is
approved
by
a
couple
of
editors.
It
can
be
merged
after
two
weeks,
even
if
we
do
not
get
all
eip
editors
approval
by
that
time.
A
So
for
these
kind
of
small
changes
which
are
considerably
no
brainer,
I
mean
like
I
know,
eip
editors
are
educated
enough
to
identify,
if
can
be
or
not,
and
it
is
approved
by
them.
Then,
probably
after
a
month
or
maybe
two
weeks
time,
it
can
be
much
so
just
wanted
to
have
some
decision
on
that
side.
B
Yeah
so,
like
I
said,
the
main
thing
that
I
care
about
is
making
it
very
clear
that
this
would
be
for
grammar
and
spelling
and
incredibly
trivial
changes,
only
any
changes
that
someone
might
find
contentious
for
any
reason.
I
think
we
should
avoid
doing
so
as
long
as
the
wording
kind
of
makes
that
clear,
I'm
okay
with
it.
A
B
Out
there,
so
if
an
editor
wants
to
go
through
and
actually
review
this,
I
am
okay
with
it,
but
like
from
that
line
alone,
I
can't
assert
that
that
is
not
a
normative
change
like
someone
would
need
to
actually
like
read
the
eip
and
make
sure
that
that
this
is
in
fact
a
correct
change
to
make
things
better
and
not
something
that
makes
it
incorrect.
B
This
gets
into
the
problem
of.
We
don't
have
enough
editors
to
go
through
and
review
everything,
which
is
why
we
lean
on
authors
to
verify
stuff
like
this.
A
All
right,
I
think
I
got
your
point
here.
I
was
also
looking
into
one
more
pull
request.
It's
four,
four
one:
seven,
I'm
sorry!
I
I
kind
of
collected
all
these
numbers,
which
I
thought
that
might
use
some
attention
here
so
about
this
four
four
one,
seven,
it
looks
like
it
was
approved
by
one
of
the
editors,
but
we
haven't
received
any
response
from
the
author
and
the
change
seems
to
be
like
smaller
one
and
obviously
this
is
like
a
longer
duration.
So
is
it
fine
like
proposals
like
this
should
be
merged.
B
B
Also,
none
of
this
is
so
like
the
white
space
changes,
for
example,
are
not
necessary,
like
they
don't
actually
change
the
rendering
at
all,
I'm
I'm
fine
with
them,
but
it
feels
very
opinionated
and
I'm
generally
apprehensive
of
making
opinionated
changes
to
other
people's
eips
yeah.
I
think
for
this
one
personally,
I
would
rather
get
author
approval,
but
also
it's
an
erc,
so
I
wouldn't
be
the
one
to
handle
it
anyway,
right
so.
A
All
right,
I
think
I
have
also
added
in
the
later
agenda.
I
think
it's
point
number
two
also
that
if
we
can
some
way
automate
these
things
and
send
reminders,
I
will
bring
it
back
when
we
get
into
item
number
two,
but
for
item
number
one
I
I
think
it
is
okay
to
have
like
grammar
or
spelling
or
like
trivial
changes.
Small
trivial
changes
can
be
merged
after
one
month
of
period,
and
once
it
is
approved
by
some
of
the
eip
editors.
A
B
Yeah,
I
would
say
if,
if
it's
been
sitting
for
a
month-
and
it
is
a
trivial
grammar
or
spelling
change
or
typo,
or
just
like
very,
very
minor
bug
like
missing
semicolon
or
extra
extraneous
semicolon
some
code
and
it's
been
sitting
for
months,
then
yes,
I'm
fine
with
it.
That
seems
reasonable
to
me,
so
any
at
that
point
any
of
the
editors
can
override
and
maybe
one
day
we
have
a
bot
that
helps
with
this.
But
I
don't
know,
I'm
just
overwrite,
I
think
works.
A
C
I
mean
I'm
kind
of
in
the
complete
opposite
direction.
As
micah
I
mean
I
think
we
should
probably
like
have
a
formal
process
for
taking
over
eips
and
for
like
assigning
new
owners
and
all
of
that
stuff,
and
I
but
I'm
new
right
like
I
don't
really
have
I
haven't
you
know
battle
tested
my
opinions
yet
so
we'll
see
how
this
goes
for
a
while
and
see
what
happens.
A
Yeah,
I
think
one
thing
that
we
discussed
probably
before
you
joined
the
call.
This
is
like
for
exceptional
cases,
especially
for
the
edits
related
to
final
eips,
because
I
don't
think
it
makes
sense
that
we
go
ahead
and
create
another
eip.
A
C
A
Yeah
yeah
all
right
and
does
it
need
to
be
updated
somewhere
on
eip1.
I
I
own
my
and
maintain
a
hackmd
file
where
I
try
to
add
these
exceptional
cases
for
reference
of
new
eip
editors,
like
people
who
are
from
the
apprenticeship
program,
but
do
we
think
that
it
needs
to
be
updated
somewhere
on
eap,
one
as
well.
B
A
A
A
C
A
Okay,
in
that
case,
sam,
I
would
like
to
straightway
come
to
item
number
nine,
which
is
about
a
survey
for
having
a
new
time.
I
know
like.
I
would
like
to
see
more
iap
editors
joining
this
call
but
looks
like
the
time
is
not
working
the
best
for
everyone.
So
I
have
created
a
small
survey.
It
has
only
three
question.
One
is
what
would
be
the
best
time
for
you?
A
There
are
a
few
options
you
can
select
from
that,
or
maybe
you
can
suggest
something
that
works
best
for
you
and
if,
in
future
we
would
like
to
rename
this
meeting
the
current.
The
current
name
is
eipip
and
there
are
a
few
suggestions
if
we
would
like
to
rename
or
just
go
with
that,
I
would
highly
appreciate
taking
out
time
and
responding
to
that
survey
and
based
on
information
collected
from
all
ap
editors.
Maybe
we
will
propose
new
time
for
the
meeting.
A
All
right,
moving
on
to
item
number,
two
number
two
is
discuss:
the
possibility
of
bot
replacing
the
pr
description
with
the
standard
standardized
template.
I
think
this
is
also
suggested
by
sam
wilson,
yep.
C
Yeah,
just
a
lot
of
authors
seem
to
or
or
a
lot
of
people
making
pr's,
I
should
say,
don't
replace
the
the
text
of
the
pr
with
anything
useful.
They
just
keep
the
template
there.
So
you
know,
I
think,
some
things
that
I'd
like
to
see
is
like
a
link
to
the
rendered
eip.
C
A
C
Be
done
by
the
bot
so
like
it
would
just
take
whatever
text
the
author
leaves.
There
puts
it
in
like
a
little
like
puts
it
in
a
specific
section
and
then
adds
like
a
header
to
the
the
comment.
A
I'm
sorry
I
did
catch
it,
so
this
part,
okay,
all
right.
Okay,
then
maybe
we'll
create
an
issue
for
this
and
see.
If
someone
can
work
on
this
particular
item
and
just
for
bots
enhancement,
I
have
added
few
more
items
here.
One
is
like
what
sending
reminders
to
author
for
action
required
and
what
sending
reminders
for
editors
to
action
required.
So
I
have
few
pull
requests
here
like,
for
example,
pr4762.
A
It
seems
like
it
has
been
open
for
authors
response
for
very
long
time.
What
do
people
think
about
having
a
bot
sending
reminder
after
three
months,
because
after
six
months
we
just
send,
we
just
make
the
proposal,
the
pull
rick
was
stagnant
and
it
would
be
nice
to
have
sending
a
reminder
before
that
and
similar
thing
for
the
eip.
A
Authors
like
I
have
seen
that,
for
example,
3975
pull,
request
number
3975.
That
has
a
response
from
the
author,
and
it
appears
to
me
like
now.
Editors
has
to
take
action
on
that,
but
I'm
not
sure
if
that
is
slipped,
because
we
have
like
over
50
pull
requests
open.
A
So
the
request
here
was
to
make
some
changes
and
like
it
is
to
move
it
to
final,
I'm
concerned
about
this
particular
eip,
because
this
would
be
required
for
the
merge
eip,
because
in
that
I
think,
3675.
A
This
proposal
is
mentioned
and
we
generally
recommend
that
if
a
proposal
is
getting
into
finance
status,
we
make
sure
that
all
the
proposals
which
are
like
required
should
be
in
the
final
status
and
I'm
not
sure
why
this
is
being
blocked
for
so
long.
If
it
is
just
waiting
for
editor's
response.
So
maybe
we
can
send
a
reminder
using
bot.
B
So
for
this
one
in
particular,
I
am
unwilling
to
approve
it
so
we're
waiting
to
see
if
we
can
get
two
other
editors
that
disagree
with
me
to
approve
it
and
currently
matt
has
approved
so
we're
waiting
for
someone
else
to
say.
Yes,
I'd
like
this
to
go
through
and
to
prove
that
eip
editing
is
not
actually
a
dictatorship.
B
My
reason
is,
I
don't
think
there
should
be
an
eip
at
all
like.
I
think
this
should
be
live
somewhere
else
and
not
be
in
the
eaps
repository.
It's
essentially
fiber
correctly.
It's
consensus,
spec-ish
thing
and
it's
lived
in
the
it's
got
put
in
the
ap
repository
because,
as
danny
mentioned
in
discord
today,
it's
dumping
ground
for
homeless
standards
and
specifications
and
I'm
very
much
not
a
fan
of
the
ips
repo
being
the
dumping
ground
for
homeless
standards
and
specifications.
B
But
if
two
other
editors.
C
Are
up
for
it
feel
free
to
override
me?
Is
there
a
precedent
for
something
like
this
being
merged.
B
Yeah
so
there
there
have
been
precedence
for
overriding
micah.
Yes,
like
there
have
been
eips.
I've
refused
to
merge
because
I
disagree
with
their
presence
at
all,
and
yet
other
editors
agreed
that
they
should
go
in,
and
so
it
has.
That
aspect
has
essence.
B
Historically,
we
also
have
stored
lots
of
stuff
in
the
afp's
repo
that
is
not
an
ethereum
technical
standard
or
at
least
a
core
layer
technical
standard,
this
one's
not
even
a
standard
or
specification,
which
is
also
why
I
don't
like
it.
It's
just
kind
of
like
a
description,
and
I
really
feel
like
this
should
be
a
blog
post
or
a
docs
documentation,
site
or
a
readme,
or
something
like
that
somewhere
else,
not
an
eip,
because
there's
no
standard,
no
specification
here,
it's
just
like
hey.
B
This
is
a
description
kind
of
ish
thing
of
I
want
to
say
it's
a
proof
of
stake
like
it's
a
vague
high
level.
It's
not
it's
not
sufficiently
specific,
either
like
it
just
kind
of
glosses
over
some
very
important
parts
of
how
a
proof
state
works,
and
it
has
you
know,
a
thousand
external
links
to
a
bunch
of
other
different
documents.
So
it's
not
self-contained
like
this.
B
B
But
again
that
doesn't
mean
that
all
the
editors
agree
and
matt
has
already
expressed
that
he
thinks
it's
fine
as
an
eip
and
so
he's
just
waiting
for
one
other
person,
because
he
feels
that
if
an
editor
is
saying
no
and
another
saying
yes,
then
we
should
have
a
tiebreaker
basically,
and
I
tend
to
agree
with
them
and
in
the
inverse
situation.
I
do
the
same
thing
so,
if
you're,
if
you're
up
for
it
sam,
feel
free
to
take
a
look
at
it
and
be
there.
B
Also,
unfortunately,
we
have
you
greg
and
alex,
and
we
need
one
of
you
to
get
involved
in
the
controversial
controversial
eip
and
it's
been
what
is
it
five
months
and
neither
greg
nor
alex
have
gotten
involved.
So
it's
that's
why
it's
kind
of
sitting
here
in
this
really
uncomfortable,
neutral,
middle
ground
state,
because
we
don't
have
enough
editors
to
act,
actually
block
it
and
say
no.
This
will
never
go
in.
We
don't
have
enough
editors
to
actually
approve
it.
Yes,
this
will
go
in
so
it
just
sits
here
in
pr
waiting
waiting,
yeah.
A
Actually,
I
think,
a
little
different
here
I
mean
I
may
have
a
little
different
opinion,
because
this
particular
proposal
is
an
informational
category
that
can
be
allowed
because
informational
proposal,
by
definition,
is
not
a
mandate
that
people
needs
to
follow.
A
It's
just
a
piece
of
information
around
the
protocol
development,
which
this
proposal
is
actually
trying
to
provide
here
in
terms
of
like
what
was
planned
with
the
beacon
chain
and
like
how
people
want
to
continue
working
on
the
beacon
chain,
and
some
of
these
inspiration
has
been
implemented
in
the
proposal
3675.
A
I
believe-
and
at
least
the
terms
are
being
referred
to.
So
I
think,
because
this
comes
into
a
informational
category
if
editors
find
it
okay
to
be
allowed
to
be
merged
as
a
pull
request.
This
would
be
one
of
the
best
informational
categories
proposal,
because
we
are
really
scarce
on
informations
around
the
protocol.
Changes
in
this
particular
category,
especially.
B
Yeah,
so
if
you
agree,
the
informational
category
is
a
reasonable
category
to
have,
then
this
eip
does
fit
that
I've
been
trying
to
get
the
informational
category
removed
from
the
aps
repository
for
a
while.
A
B
I
think
I
think
things
that
go
end
up
in
the
informational
category
should
really
just
be
like
their
own
web
page
like
or
their
own
doc
site,
or
go
to
ethereum.org
and
draft
up
like
a
thing
there
or
hackmd
article
or
any
number
of
other
places.
That
is
not
a
technical
standards
again,
I'm
mostly
alone
in
this,
like
I
think,
greg,
has
spoken
out
about
being
generally
in
favor
of
informational,
ips
and
previously
nick
was
in
favor
of
them.
I
believe
so.
You
wouldn't
be
going
against
the
grain.
B
A
Yeah,
I
think
that
that
is
fair.
Unfortunately,
sam
has
to
drop
off,
but
I
think
the
recording
will
help
him
follow
your
opinion
on
this,
and
I
am
not
an
eip
editor.
I
cannot
definitely
approve
that,
so
we'll
wait
for
more
eip
editors
to
chime
in,
I
was
just
hoping
like
to
look
into
some
of
the
enhancement
features
to
be
added
for
bot
that
can
that
some
reminders
can
be
sent
out
to
the
eip
editors
like
if
that
is
lost,
long
lost.
A
And
I
think
there
is
another
pull
request
which
I
believe
is
created
by
you.
The
number
is
4601
created
by
mica
and
yeah.
This
looks
like
the
even
the
author
has
approved
it,
but
this
is
waiting
because
two
reviewers
have
been
requested
to
review
and
it's
pending
on
that.
B
A
valid
concern,
I
think
it
was
alex
yeah
alex
said
they
were
against
the
change
and
that's
kind
of
why
it
stalled
out.
I
think
their
their
argument
against.
It
was
reasonable
and
so
I'd
be
very
hesitant
to
override
that,
especially
for
a
final
eip.
A
All
right,
the
reason
I
found
these
things
to
be
addressed
soon,
because
if
you
don't
do
that,
this
will
again
start
piling
up
and
the
number
of
open
pull
requests
would
be
so
much
that
it
would
be
again
the
same
problem.
So
if
we
came
across
these
kind
of
pull
requests
and
we
think
that
it
is
not
good
to
be
proceeded,
probably
we
can.
B
I
can
take
another
look
at
this
and
see
if
it's
worth
keeping
open
I'll
need
to
sit
down
and
read
through
the
whole
discussion.
Again,
if
you
don't
hear
from
me
like
in
a
day
or
two
feel
free
to
ping
me
again
about
it,.
A
Okay,
so
that
was
it
I
am
not
sure
like
if
we
have
any
recommendations,
suggestions
for
like
creating
issues
for
having
this
bot
sending
reminders,
because
I
know
this
is
like
of
the
lowest
priority.
If
at
all,
we
consider
this,
because
there
are
a
lot
of
other
open
issues
that
needs
to
be
addressed
before
this,
so
maybe
I
can
let
it
live
here,
come
back
in
future
meetings
and
discuss
this
again.
A
Moving
on
the
next
item
listed
here
is
github
discussion
for
discussion,
2
link.
I
have
picked
this
one
from
the
issue
that
is
there
on
eip
github,
also
from
the
earlier
discussions
regarding
this
particular
issue
earlier.
The
the
issue
that
was
highlighted
was
fellowship
of
ethereum
magician
does
not
allow
to
edit
the
post
like
author
cannot
edit
the
post.
A
So
I
try
to
reach
out
some
of
the
maintainers
of
their
website
and
from
what
I
was
communicated
by
the
team.
There
is
this
field
post
edit
time
limit.
It
was
then
set
at
a
certain
number
which
was
greater
than
zero.
However,
it
is
possible
by
setting
it
to
zero.
That
means
an
author
who
has
some
reputation
on
that
forum,
say
tl0
or
tl1.
A
They
are
allowed
to
edit
their
post
for
like
unlimited
period
of
time.
So
if
an
author
is
really
new,
maybe
that
would
not
be
working
for
them,
but
if
he
or
she
has
certain
reputation
and
they
belong
to
tl0
or
tl1
author,
then
they
would
be
able
to
edit
the
poster,
and
my
understanding
is
like
the
team
agreed
to
make
it
to
zero.
Though
I
cannot
say
it
for
sure
because
I
haven't
verified
it,
so
I
would
appreciate
someone
looking
into
it
and
if
there's
issues
still
persistent,
maybe
we
can
reach
out
to
team.
A
Samia,
I'm
not
an
author
of
any
proposal,
I
proposed
many
times,
but
it
ended
up
somewhere
else
and
that's
okay.
So
maybe
if
it
is
fair,
we
can
maybe
consider
that
this
issue
is
is
something
that
can
be
taken
care
of.
If
someone
has
any
challenges
editing,
author
stuff,
then
we
can
definitely
reach
out
to
team,
but
but
I
think
it
it
should
be
resolved,
and
that
should
not
be
a
case
other
than
this
particular
issue.
B
B
C
A
A
A
B
Ongoing
issue:
we
don't
have
anyone
on
our
team,
who
is
a
ruby
expert
or
even
knows
anything
about
ruby
at
all,
and
since
jekyll
is
ruby
when
there's
a
vulnerability
or
we
need
to
do
a
jekyll
update
or
some
or
ruby
dependency
update.
None
of
us
know
how
to
do
that,
and
none
of
us
have
the
time
to
go
and
figure
out
how
to
do
that.
A
Not
a
problem,
I
think
we
can
ask
community
for
help
and
we
may
be
looking
for
someone
who
has
knowledge
on
ruby
and
if
they
are
willing
to
come
and
help
on
updating
the
jackal
updates.
Here.
I
just
wanted
to
be
sure
that
if
this
requirement
is
still
open,
so
we
shared
the
word
out
and
try
to
get
someone.
A
Okay,
I'm
gonna
skip
the
number
five
item-
execution
specs,
I
know
samuelson
has
to
drop
off
so
I'm
gonna
skip
this
item.
B
B
Anything
like
that,
and
so
we
need
somebody
who
has
some
amount
of
knowledge
of
ruby
to
help
with
that,
ideally
on
a
recurring
basis,
because
it's
not
the
first
time
this
has
come
up.
A
B
A
A
Okay,
the
next
item,
bot
issues
and
eipv
issues.
I
know
there
are
a
lot
of
open
issues
right
now
and
I
am
looking
for
more
people
to
join
in
to
help
us
get
those
issue
worked
on.
So
if
someone
who
is
listening
to
the
call
would
like
to
contribute
to
the
ethereum
eip
github
repository,
please
take
a
look
at
the
eip
part
issues
and
eipv
issues.
Links
are
available
on
the
agenda.
A
The
next
item
is
eip's
insight,
so
in
the
month
of
march
so
far
one
significant
change
is
merged
to
eip1,
and
that
is
limiting
links
to
external
resources
and
there
are
certain
wordings
that
has
been
changed
to
eip1.
So
please
take
a
look
at
it.
If
you
are
an
author
and
maybe
try
to
avoid
using
any
external
link
going
forward,
there
are
two
new
proposals
which
are
merged,
eip-4844
and
eip-4863.
A
This
is
just
the
start
of
the
month,
so
we
would
be
expecting
more
mergers
coming
soon,
but
on
this
particular
proposal
micah.
If
I
can
ask
for
your
opinion
here,
the
proposal
number
3326.
B
This
looks
like
it's
merged.
What's
the
question.
A
A
No,
that's
not
a
problem.
My
question
here
was
like
I
know
most
of
the
eips
on
the
interface
level
are
going
to
be
moved
out
of
it.
So
that's
it
like.
Should
we
start
closing
it
or
we
should
wait
for
part.
I
think
waiting
for
what
would
be
a
good
idea
right,
but
they
die.
B
Yeah,
I'm
fine
with
just
letting
them
fall
into
stagnant,
eventually,
if
they're
not
finalized
and
if
they
are
finalized,
I'm
okay,
leaving
them
there
and
at
some
point
we
may
just
remove
the
interface
section
from
there.
I
know
we
shouldn't
do
that
yeah.
I
think
my
preference
is
to
let
the
bot
turn
them
stagnant,
eventually,
if
they're
not
finalized
and
if
they
are
finalized.
Just
leave
them
there
for
the
time
being,
that's
my
weak
preference,
but
I'm
open
to
arguments
against
them.
A
Yeah,
I
think,
in
the
next
six
months
we
would
be
expecting
some
major
overhaul
with
this
eap
process.
So
if
at
all
possible
taking
the
advantage
of
change
of
the
process,
we
can
try
to
add
or
remove
the
categories
we
want
to
see
or
we
don't
want
to
see
in
the
eaps
in
future.
A
A
Number
nine
is
eipip
meeting
time
and
name
survey.
I
did
talk
about
it
in
the
meeting
earlier.
So
if
you
are
an
eip
editor-
and
you
would
like
an
alternate
time
for
this
meeting
because
it
would
be
nice
to
have
all
eip
editors
get
synced
once
in
two
weeks
and
close
the
open
issues,
I
I
hope
that
that
is
going
to
be
helpful
for
people.
A
Item
number
10
is
review
action
item
from
previous
meetings,
so
from
the
last
meeting
it
seems
there
were
three
action
items
formal
on
boarding
off
for
william
shaw,
benville
and
sam
wilson.
Sam
has
already
been
added
as
eip
editors
and
I
believe,
eip1.
It's
also
updated
because
I
remember
seeing
simple
requests
to
update
eip1
but
william
sharp.
I
have
shared
the
link
with
him
and
I'm
I'm
hopeful
that
whenever
he
gets
a
chance
he
will
he
will
make
that
pull
request.
A
Yeah
action,
50.2
puja,
will
get
in
touch
with
andrew
in
order
to
remove
eip
1706
from
the
yellow
paper.
So
andrew
confirmed
me
this
morning
that
the
yellow
paper
has
been
updated
and
I
hope
that
1706
is
removed
from
the
yellow
paper.
Now.