►
From YouTube: EIPIP Meeting 64
Description
Agenda: https://github.com/ethereum-cat-herders/EIPIP/issues/174
A
Welcome
to
eipip
meeting
64.,
I
have
shared
agenda
in
chat.
I
have
tried
to
list
items
as
per
our
general
discussion,
that
is
there
in
discord,
channel
and
also
in
the
eips
github
repository.
A
So
let
me
quickly
give
a
little
background
about
why
required
so
requires
came
across
in
one
of
the
issues
that
we
were
reviewing
yesterday
in
eip
editors
office
r-
and
there
was
this
question
that
sometimes
authors
get
confused
like
what
to
put
in
eips
requires
section
like
which
particular
erp
should
be
added
as
required,
and
when
it
is
that
it
is
mandatory
to
be
added,
as
requires
so
yeah
I'll,
be
curious
to
hear
thoughts
from
eip
editors.
I
know
sam
has
already
shared
some
but
sam.
B
Sure
so
the
requires
header
there
are
two
kind
of
opposing
viewpoints
on
it.
The
viewpoint
that
I
have
is
that
the
requires
header
is
where
you
list
eips,
that
you
have
to
read
before
you
can
understand
or
implement
the
current
eip
and
the
other
camp
is
that
the
requires
header
should
list
all
eips
that
you
mention
in
your
eip,
whether
or
not
they
are
just
context
or
are
required.
Reading.
A
Awesome
so
it
looks
like
there
are
two
major
points,
so
if
any
proposal
is
needed
just
to
understand
to
work
on
the
new
proposal
as
an
eip
that
can
be
and
another
one
if
there
is
any
mention
of
it
like
any
kind
of
dependency
on
the
other
proposal,.
C
I
mean
we
can
be
like
pedantic
on
the
wording
or
we
can.
Just
you
know
elaborate
more,
but
I
feel
like
depends
is
what
sam
is
saying
like
you
have
to
understand
this
eap,
to
implement
the
eip.
That
is
required
or,
like
I
mean
I
don't
know,
I'm
not
even
sure
understanding
is
the
bar.
I
think
like
it
has
to
utilize
something
from
that
eit,
whether
it's
like
a
concept
or
a
specific
technical
aspect
of
it.
I
don't
think
that
we
should
be
listing
the
eips
that
I
just
mentioned.
A
A
So
I
hope
that
will
be
documented
and
notes
for
this
meeting
so
going
forward.
If
there
is
this
kind
of
confusion,
we
can
probably
refer
to
it
and
just
for
general
people.
Listening
to
this
call,
whatever
is
documented
in
eip1
is,
is
correct
and
that's
what
it
literally
means.
So
please
try
to
follow
that
all
right.
The
next
one
here
is
changes
in
eip
process
and
eip1.
A
So
in
the
last
meeting
we
were
discussing
about
some
changes
and
the
pull
request
number
was
a
5463.
A
However,
it
seemed
like
it
was
not
given
enough
time
for
discussion,
so
the
pull
request
is
reopened
with
a
new
number
that
is
5533
and
yeah.
If
we
can
probably
discuss
on
general
guidelines,
however,
I
try
to
document
some
of
the
decisions
from
the
past
eib
editors
meeting
in
the
apprentice
handbook,
but
we
can
have
a
general
guideline
for
people
to
refer
to.
A
B
B
Kind
of
on
the
fence
about
it,
like
I
am
with
a
lot
of
these
things-
I
I
think
it's
a
little
bit
extra
to
add
this
field,
so
you
can
just
make
a
new
eip
and
you
know
make
yourself
the
author
on
it,
where,
on
the
other
hand,
it's
nice
to
be
able
to
like
ensure
some
continuity
between
eip
numbers
and
yeah.
So
you
know
I'm
a
little
torn
on
it
and
it
was
my
bad
for
merging
the
first
pr
without
getting
rough
consensus
among
editors.
B
So
I
reverted
it
and
opened
this
this
new
one
to
discuss
since
panda
pip
isn't
here,
I'm
not
sure
if
we'll
actually
be
able
to
debate
very
well.
A
That
is
right.
I
totally
understand
that
I
think
in
general,
like
it's
my
understanding
that
in
general
we
can-
or
we
should
keep
any
discussion
open
for
at
least
two
eipab
meetings.
So
we
get
to
share
the
information
with
the
eap
editors,
because
sometimes
some
of
the
editors
may
miss
their
discussion,
so
yeah.
C
I
I
just
think
that
we
need
to
leave
things
open
for
a
fairly
long
time.
If
editors
disagree
definitely
for
a
couple
eip
meetings,
we
should
discuss
it
synchronously
if
there's
disagreement
before
merging-
and
I
mean
just
generally
waiting
for
you-
know
mostly
consensus
among
the
editors
or
at
least
the
editors
who
are
active,
and
I
don't
think
that
we
should
have
the
adoptable
field.
So
it's
my
take.
A
Yeah
one
other
thing
that
I
would
like
to
make
a
mention
of
generally
in
case
of
any
changes
to
eip1
earlier
we
were
having
like
two
editors
approval,
but
now
we
have
like
around
five
editors
available,
so
it
will
be
nice
to
have
minimum
three
editors
on
board
and
get
that
approval
done.
I'm
not
sure
if
this
is
already
added
in
the
part
and
it
is
taken
care
of,
but
if
not,
I
think
that
would
be
a
good
idea.
C
There's
also
like
a
general
courtesy,
I
think
that
we
haven't
merged
too
many
things
in
the
past,
where
editors
disagreed,
even
if
we
had
two
editors,
unless
the
editor
who
disagreed
said,
I'm
not
gonna
block.
This
like
there
is,
does
seem
to
be
a
bit
of
veto
power
amongst
single
editors.
If
they
think
a
change
is
bad.
I
don't
want
to
like
encode
that,
but
I
think
that
it's
like
a
reasonable
courtesy
to
not
just
just
merge
things
after
two,
even
if
somebody
has
already
said
they're
pretty
against
it.
B
Yeah
that
was
entirely
my
bad,
like
I
it's
entirely
my
fault,
like
panda
pip
has
been
adding
eips
to
a
manual
merge
like
list,
because
some
of
them
require
it,
and
I
didn't
realize
that
we
didn't
have
consensus
on
this
one.
So
that's
entirely
my
battery.
B
C
A
Yeah
in
general,
I
have
noticed
a
huge
spike
in
number
of
comments
going
on
in
the
repository
and
if
they
look
into
the
insight
eaps
inside
report
that
I
generally
share
it's
like
up,
I
don't
know
maybe
over
20
times
or
close
to
30
times.
I
don't
know
it's
very,
very
high,
which
is
not
a
bad
thing,
because
we
are
trying
to
improve
process,
but
I
feel
like
for
certain
decisions
which
is
like
not
that
easy
and
we
definitely
should
have
consensus
of
eip
editors.
A
We
can
probably
wait
for
some
time
and
give
it
enough
time
for
ap
editors
to
provide
feedback.
A
Unfortunately,
panda
pipe
is
not
here.
We
would
love
to
hear
what
he
thinks
about
it
and
probably
be
considerate
and
future
and
merging
all
these
proposals.
C
C
B
You
know,
as
a
newer
editor,
I
never
had
any
idea
how
the
build
system
works.
So
this
is
a
no
change
for
me.
Okay,
but
I
think
most
of
the
changes
have
been
pretty
reasonable,
like
I've
tried
to
be
reviewing
most
of
them
just
to
keep
on
top
of
them
and
like
it's
mostly
non-critical
things
like
the
labels
and
like
some
of
the
merge
rules
and
those
kind
of
things,
and
I
think
those
those
changes
are
like
they're,
not
part
of
the
core
approval
process
like
it
doesn't
matter.
B
If
it
has
the
right
tag,
so
I
think
we
can
afford
to
be
a
little
fast
and
loose
with
them,
but
I
would
like
to
start
stabilizing
the
build
system
again
and-
and
you
know,
cut
down
on
the
number
of
changes.
A
Yeah
totally
there
I
know
a
lot
of
things
is
being
bot
driven
now
we
are
talking
about
bots
and
we
have
recently
made
some
changes
in
words
as
well,
so
we
can
definitely
expect
a
lot
of
comments
going
on
into
the
repository,
which
is
again
not
a
bad
thing.
A
It's
a
good
thing
to
happen,
but
at
the
same
time
discussing
it
in
these
meetings
or
may
be
able
to
document
it
somewhere
else
will
help
other
people
to
follow
along
and
maybe
community
to
like
follow
after
whenever
they
would
like
to
refer
it
to
so
yeah.
That's
all
good!
Thank
you,
sam!
Thank
you,
cannabi
and
yeah.
Thank
you,
matt,
for
sharing
your
thoughts
over
here.
A
All
right,
I
I
think
it's
safe
to
move
on
to
the
next
item.
So
the
next
item
is
a
eip.
Bots
related
discussion,
updates
agreement
on
merging
ps
and
closing.
Generally,
I
keep
this
item
on
number
three
after
the
github
issues
and
pull
requests,
but
we
are
not
getting
enough
time
to
discuss
this
item
so
on
requester
for
say
this
has
been
pumped
up.
A
We
will
get
into
the
either
spotting
issues,
but
before
that
there
is
a
one
pr
which
is
five
five
zero,
eight,
that
is
to
upgrade
eap
bot
to
eip
review.
I
just
wanted
to
share
it
with
editors
if
they
have
any
comment.
Concern
with
that,
it
looks
like
it
is:
a
change
for
the
eip
bot,
so
yeah
any
thoughts,
any
comments.
A
And
if
not,
then
probably
you
can
check
it
review
the
quotes
and
yeah
if
needed,
much
as
I
wanted
to
just
share,
so
this
should
not
be
blocked
for
very
long
time.
D
D
A
This
is
just
for
attention,
but
in
other
than
that
jose
did
you
wanted
to
share
any
update
or
anything
in
specific.
You
wanted
to
discuss
on
this
topic.
D
Well,
just
just
to
let
the
basically
son
know
that
if
you
have
the
time,
I
agree
with
panda
pip
to
take
care
of
the
issues,
95,
63
and
34
from
the
eip
board.
So
if
I
just
don't
want
to,
that
was
something
that
I
was
briefly
talking
to
him.
I
just
don't
want
to
get
into
something
that
someone
else
is
working
on.
Suddenly
you
know.
D
D
D
A
A
There
were
two
issues
added
in
the
past
two
two
weeks.
One
is
make
eips
website
a
pwa,
it's
a
proposal
by
panda
peep
and
he
wants
to
volunteer.
Unfortunately,
there
is
no
plan
shared
but
yeah
wondering
if
anyone
has
any
comments.
C
C
B
B
C
A
On
a
separate
note,
I
have
shared
it
in
the
past
as
well,
and
I
want
to
mention
it
again
that
I
have
put
together
a
small
team
of
aspiring
ethereum
developers
like
they
are
not
developers
as
of
now
they
are
aspiring
developers
to
create
a
dashboard
for
either
chart,
but
that
is
at
present
would
not
be
a
part
of
eip's
github
repository.
However,
this
is
an
experiment.
I'm
trying
to
do
it
on
on
a
different
github.
Once
it's
successful,
I
will
like
to
come
back
and
propose
it.
A
A
The
next
issue
here
is
advocate
for
eip
editors
to
clearly
explain
the
current
external
policy
to
new
authors.
I
know
this
is
like
repetitive.
We
have.
We
have
discussed
about
at
multiple
time,
and
the
proposal
is
also
not
on
the
call,
but
anything
that
any
of
the
apa
readers
would
like
to
mention
again
on
external
link
policies.
B
I
mean
it's
in
it's
in
eip1.
Links
to
external
authors
should
not
be
included,
external
resources
may
disappear,
move
or
change.
Unexpectedly,
I
think
that
covers
the
current
external
links
policy
pretty
well.
Maybe
we
should
be
more
polite
when
we're
expressing
it
in
prs,
but
that
is
pretty
clear.
B
C
B
I
have
an
issue
open
on
ew
for
somehow
giving
like
eap
editors
the
ability
to
override
specific
errors.
I
just
I
I
haven't
really
thought
about
how
to
do
that,
yet
so
sure.
A
Do
you
have
the
number
handy
sam?
Maybe
we
can
try
to
reach
out
to
community
if
anyone
is
interested,
taking
a
look
at
it,
maybe
well.
B
It's
not
specified
yet
like
here
I'll
get
the
link
here.
It's.
A
Yeah
I
mean,
and
that
would
be
nice-
we
can
probably
share
it
in
our
next
catalyst
calls
as
well.
If
anyone
is
interested
to
make
contribution,
they
would
be
there
but
yeah
summarizing
this
current
external
link
policy.
The
policy
is
same
as
that
is
listed
on
eip1
and
there
is
no
change.
So
please
follow
what
is
listed.
There.
B
We
can
definitely
expand
it,
though,
like
do
we
want
to
say
something
more
like
you
know,
unless
there's
very
specific
circumstances,
or
we
can
definitely
be
more
clear
about
it,.
A
A
That
sounds
good,
so
there
are
three
pull
requests:
I'm
just
a
sharing
number
five:
five,
seven:
two:
five:
five:
eight
six
and
five
five,
nine.
Six.
If
other
editors
may
take
a
look,
it
looks
like
that
needs
some
kind
of
approval
or
merging
yeah.
Please
feel
free
to
do
that.
A
Next,
one
is
from
the
past
meetings.
Discussion
continued.
It
is,
I
think,
from
the
adoptable
yeah
5533
and
we
have
discussed
it.
So
probably
we
can
skip
this
one
and
move
on
to
the
next
one.
That
is
eip's
insight.
A
A
A
A
This
was
very
interesting
in
terms
of
like
this
is
the
first
time
we
were
inviting
all
authors
to
come
forward
to
share
their
questions,
comments,
concerns
related
to
the
eip
process
or
anything
that
they
are
facing
in
documentation
of
the
process.
We
were
also
looking
into
some
of
the
new
eips
plus
the
eips,
which
are
getting
into
last
call,
or
maybe
in
the
final
statuses.
A
So
if
you
are
an
author
with
an
active
proposal
in
the
eips
github
repository,
and
if
you
have
questions
you
want
to
reach
out
to
eip
editor,
I
think
that
is
the
best
one
for
you
to
reach
out
to
the
next
meeting
is
planned
on
september
20
at
1500
utc.
You
can
find
details
on
ethereum
cathartis
discard,
so
that's
about
it.
So
that's
the
new
apprentice
like
meeting
the
new
name
for
apprentice.
A
So
the
apprentice
meeting
was
for
people
who
were
interested
in
becoming
eip
editor
and
obviously
there
would
be
some
learning
which
can
be
useful
for
people
interested
in
becoming
editor.
But
this
is
generally
to
invite
authors,
eip
authors,
who
are
trying
to
document
a
proposal
to
make
it
an
ethereum
standard
we
are
receiving,
as
you
can
see
this
month.
Only
in
in
past
seven
days,
we
have
received
nine
ercs
as
draft
merged
as
draft.
A
So
these
authors,
if
they
are
facing
any
challenges,
they
are
invited
to
reach
out
to
us,
and
we
will
be
happy
to
support
moving
their
proposal
towards
final
okay.
So
for
the
youtube
channel,
we
will
you
guys,
have
the
a
new
series
of
like
a
playlist
or
will
be.
A
Yeah,
I
remember
creating
it
yesterday.
May
I
may
have
missed
it,
making
it
public,
but
definitely
I'll
do
that
today.
So,
yes,
there
will
be
a
new
playlist,
it
will
be.
It
is
known
as
eip
editing
office
hour
and
all
the
meetings
from
this
point
forward
will
be
added
in
that
so
yeah.
It
will
be
easier
for
you
to
just
follow
one
playlist
and
you
can
get
all
the
meetings.
A
Next,
one
is
a
review
action
items
from
the
previous
meeting.
I
know
we
discussed
about
eip
number,
but
I'm
not
sure
if
there
is
any
progress
on
that
anyone
has
any
information
or
update
on
them.
A
All
right
looks
like
this
is
still
open,
so
we
will
keep
it
that
way,
just
wondering
if
this
has
been
added
as
an
issue
on
any
of
the
github
repository.
Sorry
matt,
you
were
trying
to
say
something
I
saw
you
unmuted.
B
I
know
panda
pip
was
talking
about
adding
it
to
their
bot,
but
I'm
not
sure
whether
they're
at
so
far.
A
B
A
B
Think
keep
it
on
the
next
meeting.
It's
probably
a
good
idea.
I
know
a
lot
of
people
feel
strongly
about
this.
So.
A
Well,
that's
all
looks
like
added
on
the
agenda
today.
Anyone
else
want
to
bring
anything
looks
like
we
are
having
some
time.
If
anyone
has
any
point
to
discuss,
we
can
probably
check
it.