►
From YouTube: EIPIP Meeting 77
Description
A
Welcome
to
eipip
meeting
77
I
have
shared
agenda
and
chat.
The
first
item
listed
here
is
new
contract
interface
and
EIP
should
be
required
to
include
a
privacy
consideration.
Section
I
believe
we
discussed
this
in
the
past.
I
should
have
mentioned
it
in
the
section
2,
but
recently
it
was
requested
by
Twitter
to
maybe
have
more
discussion
on
that
Victor.
If
you
would
like
to
maybe
quickly
recap,
and
why
do
we
want
to
have
it
here
for
discussion
today?.
B
Yeah
so
I
think
last
time,
I
was
not
there,
and
the
question
here
is
that
if
we
have
something
other
than
privacy
consideration,
where
do
they
go,
it
seems
like
current
status.
Current
layout
is
quite
rigid,
I'm,
proposing
that
we
have
several
options:
either
have
a
privacy
section,
independent
ones
or
have
a
other
other
considerations
by
itself
as
an
excellent.
C
Section
as
a
fallback
catch-all,
so
that's
generally
the
idea.
A
All
right,
I
don't
see
Sam
on
the
call,
but
if
I
remember
correctly,
I
guess
he
wasn't
in
favor
of
having
a
privacy
consideration
as
a
part
of
EIP
I
wonder
what
are
other
thoughts
that
the
present
editors
today.
D
B
So
we
know
that
it's
on
it's,
it's
not
not
all
EIP
need
a
consideration
for
privacy,
but
if
someone
needs
a
privacy
consideration
in
some
of
the
case,
what's
the
best
section.
B
Is
what
I
tell
not
the
right
thing
to
do,
because
a
lot
of
non-technical
and
people
consider
security
the
same
as
complete
security
and
privacy
and
we
as
a
standard
body,
especially
in
the
crypto
space
I
I,
feel
that
is
not
a
good
example
to
set
up
that.
We
would
probably
ask
people
to
put
privacy
into
security
section.
D
I
mean,
ultimately,
this
is
a
blockchain
and
there's
not
much
privacy
at
all.
So
I
think
that
anytime
there
is,
you
know
extraordinary
scenario
of
breaches
of
privacy.
This
would
fit
perfectly
in
the
security
consideration
section.
B
What
do
you
think
if
we
increasingly
see
incoming
protocols
or
bystanders
addressing
ZK
privacy,
preserving
scenarios
in
that
case,
do
you
still
consider
that,
as
security
space.
B
D
C
B
D
E
Once
Upon
a
Time,
and
not
that
long
ago
people
keep
telling
me
things
have
changed
and
I'm
going
really
has
not
been
that
long
authors
were
allowed
to
put
an
appendix
more
perhapsibly
more
than
one
appendix
on
our
proposal.
So
there
was
a
place
to
put
things
that
were
important
to
discuss
but
did
not
exactly
fit
one
of
our
predefined
procrustean
backup
people
know
what
a
procrustian
bad
is.
E
It's
a
pretty
common
thing
in
documents
to
just
let
there
be
an
appendix
it's.
You
know,
other
considerations,
call
it
what
you
want,
but
it's
an
appendix
and
then
the
author
can
lay
out
important
material
that
doesn't
fit
our
procrasti
in
bed.
That's.
It
was
a
Greek
myth
about
somebody
who
ran
a
roadside.
Something
and
I
forget
all
the
details,
but
it
was
sort
of
this
bed
of
nails.
E
I
think
that
he
you
had
to
lay
in
the
bed
and
if
you
didn't
fit,
you
would
be
scrunched
or
scratched
until
you
did
fit
so
some
somewhere
in
the
format
it's
good
to
have
it
come
all
out,
rather
than
get
a
bad
EIP,
where
someone
scrunched
something
into
a
section,
it
didn't
really
belong
in
and
then
later
say.
Oh
well,
we've
got
this
stuff
put
in
security
systems.
It
really
isn't
a
security
issue,
and
now
we
have
these
fatty
IPS.
E
Where
is
it
we
have?
Oh,
some
of
our
eips
are
showing
up
with
appendices
about
privacy,
and
maybe
we
do
need
a
privacy
section.
I
didn't
think
we
really
did
until
I
saw
it
a
long
list
of
VIPs.
In
particular,
considerations,
I
hadn't
thought
of
so
clearly
there
are
reips,
for
which
there
are
privacy
considerations,
and
for
for
some
of
them
they
actually
are
security
as
well.
E
E
I
I
wouldn't
bind
a
non-normative
privacy,
section
I'm,
not
quite
sure,
where
to
go
with
that,
and
so
I'm
really
happy
to
just
say
that
yes,
there
can
be
an
appendix,
but
in
general,
when
we
put
this
process
together
just
a
few
years
ago,
over
and
over
and
I
can't
find
the
logs,
because
we
did
it
on
Skype
and
it
evaporated,
but
over
and
over
it
was.
These
are
strong
suggestions.
E
As
the
IPS
come
in
yeah,
we
can
loosen
up
the
format
for
any
given
the
IP
to
fit
that
EIP
better
and
that
eliminates
a
whole
bunch
of
arguments
about
changing
the
format
in
anticipation
of
stuff.
That
hasn't
happened.
Yet
but
anyway,
I'm
rambling.
B
Yeah,
thank
you
Greg
and
then
I
I
agree
which
correct
in
that
I've
seen
at
VIP.
Consideration
comes
up
in
some
of
the
cases.
I'm
I
felt
resonate
with
a
lot
of
other
editors.
That's
it's
not
generally
needed
so
I,
okay,
for
it
to
be
it.
Foreign,
optional
ones,
I
also
paste
in
a
Google
search
as
well
as
in
our
Discord
channel.
For
you
to
see
that
Eid,
erc's
and
EIP
that
has
mentioned
privacy
in
their
text.
B
Examples
includes
restricted,
ethereum
provider,
API
and
just
injection
for
EIP
for
privacy,
consideration,
app
keys
and
application
specific
quality
contracts,
including
author
by
Dan
Finley,
and
also
steals
addresses.
That
is
recently
a
topic
as
well.
B
So
this
scenario
has
increasingly
seen
that
some
of
our
Eis
EIP,
especially
ERC
side
has
touched,
has
changed
some
of
the
perspective
about
potential
use
case
for
privacy,
professional
considerations
about
quite
privacy
and
once
that
back
for
me
is
that
we,
as
editors,
provide
an
format
in
order
to
make
it
more
consistent
and
useful
for
the
authors
to
use.
But
we
are
not
there
to
to
dictate
what
information
is
is
should
be
included
and
what
information
should
not
be
included
by
the
Format
itself.
B
The
format
serves
the
purpose,
and
so
that's
why
I'm
arguing
that
a
one
one
consideration
could
be
useful
to
give
authors
more
leeway,
because
I
still
experience
carry
a
lot
of
memory
when,
when
I'm
authoring
a
lot
and
and
the
rigid
format
has
make
it
very
hard
for
us
to
provide
the
full
information
about
this,
something
like
adoptions
existence,
adoptions
are
also
considered
can
be
put
in
that
other
considerations.
A
Okay,
I
think
I
mean
like
what
I'm
getting
from
the
whole
conversation
is.
Obviously,
there
is
a
strong
recommendation
of
having
a
section
for
other
consideration
at
this
point
of
time.
However,
people
think
that
it
would
be
a
good
idea
to
have
a
particular
example
in
mind
like
if
we
are
struggling
with
any
proposal.
A
If
we
have
a
proposal
to
be
like
struggling
with
adding
the
information
I
think
that
way,
it
would
be
better
for
editors
to
weigh
if
we
really
need
this
thing
and
making
the
policy
change
in
advance
that
can
be
abused
if
not
properly
explained
to
people
can
be
a
threat.
So
what
do
you
think
Victor
in
in
this
case,
like
as
we
kind
of
are
discussing
that
there
could
be
a
proposal?
A
Let's
wait
for
a
proposal
to
be
like
that
and
have
it
discussed,
maybe
on
issue
section
and
then
probably
in
the
future
meeting.
B
The
I
shared
in
the
in
a
Discord
there
are
more
than
10
existing
ones
date
back
to
erc1385,
mentioning
about
privacy
and
privacy
is
a
strong.
It's
important
consideration,
I,
don't
know
what
our
other
new
the
ircs,
or
are
we
just
ignoring
that
this
has
been
unless
a
need
from
a
from
EIP
all
together
back,
but
for
such
a
long
time.
So.
B
So
privacy
is
usually
depending
on
security.
So
when
asking
that
question,
it
is
very
hard
to
kind
of
get
you
out
of
context
answering
okay,
but
it's
important
that
we
don't
conflate
them.
That's
why
I
think
me
and
then
a
bunch
of
other
authors
could
thinking
my.
E
All
right,
it's
not
that
simple
it.
That
is
some
cases
on
a
blockchain.
The
fact
that
everything
is
visible
is
the
whole
point.
It's
not.
The
check
is
in
the
mail,
it's
the
transaction
is
on
the
blockchain
and
there's
no
arguing
about
it.
Everybody
involved
can
look,
and
this
is
a
feature
other
times
it's
a
problem
and
people
are
inventing
technology
to
do
a
better
job
of
that
and
people
are
inventing
whole
blockchains
and
other
technology
that
is
much
more
and
sometimes
almost
completely
private,
so
it
just
seems
for
some
eips.
E
It
actually
is
a
security
concern
and
needs
to
be
handled
there
and
I
think
that
would
then
show
up
in
the
motivation
that
that
these
privacy
concerns
are
part
of
the
point
and
if
they
fail
it's
a
security
issue,
then
then
there's
this
Middle
Ground,
where,
where
things
have
privacy
implications
that
nobody
thought
about,
but
they
really
are
important
and
so
an
optional
privacy
section.
Does
yes
motivate
people
to
look
at
that
in
those
cases
where
it
matters?
E
In
other
cases
it
doesn't
even
the
security
section,
sometimes
yep
I,
just
sort
of
scratch,
my
head
and
go.
There
are
no
implications
here,
except
the
usual
ones
of
you
know
there
better,
not
be
bugs
here.
E
So
I
kind
of
go
I
kind
of
go
on
circles
on
this,
I
see
the
points,
but
I
just
keep
coming
back
to
the
appendix
further
discussion,
not
just
an
optional
privacy,
but
just
some
sort
of
optional
section
that
people
can
use
for
these
sorts
of
things
that
come
up.
That
sometimes
are
important.
E
There's
just
a
lot
more
freedom
given
to
the
author
to
present
their
material
in
the
way
that
the
author
and
the
working
group
believe
is
best.
So,
if
we're
going
to
have
such
a
rigid
format,
we
need
a
little
bit
about
if
we,
if,
if
we
feel
the
dependencies
should
be
forbidden,
then
something
you
know
just
optional:
optional
fruit
or
discussion
section,
something
like
that.
Privacy
is
just
one
one
such
aspect
that
comes
up.
D
I
would
love
to
have
a
less
yeah.
You
know
rigid
set
of
sections
I.
Think
that
the
way
the
ietf
does
it
is
a
you
know
ideal
in
a
lot
of
ways.
The
reality
is
that
we
have
a
lot
of
people
who
are
able
to
and
wants
to,
permissionlessly
create
eips,
and
so
that
ends
up
creating
a
lot
of
noise
for
people
to
you
know,
search
through
and
try.
B
We
have
an
example
of
what
could
go
horribly
wrong
when
we
Face
sawbacks,
given
currently
we're
very
rigid
in
blocking
links.
What
are
other
concerns
that
could
be
abused
in
this
in
in
this
section,
people
can
still
put
things
in
specification
right
like
they
can
put
some
random
things
there.
What.
D
Could
not
just
to
be
worse,
it's
also
about
frustration
and
fatigue
of
process
change
like
at
this
point,
I,
don't
know
there
isn't
really
anybody
who
still
enjoys
being
a
part
of
this
process
because
of
how
much
it
changes
under
their
feeds
and
just
adding
more
and
more
things
like
this
is
not
for
the
vast
majority
of
people
who
need
to
create
eaps.
It's
not
something
that
they're
happy.
B
I
think
people,
so
speaking
of
myself
as
an
author,
what
I
and
other
authors
that
I
see
frustrated
is
adding
restrictions
and
I
haven't
heard
any
authors
complaining
about
having
flexibility.
More
flexibility
was
as
what
they
complained.
B
D
I
mean
we've
already
gone
over
it.
It's
confusing.
It
should
be
part
of
the
security
considerations.
It's
not
something.
That's
super
important
for
most
eiffs
and
erases,
so
it
just
doesn't
need
to
be
a
section.
We
don't
need
to
change
this
aspect
of
it
and
I
feel
like
we
just
keep
debating
in
there's
no
progress,
but
it
seems
like
Sam
and
I
have
both
said
that
this
probably
doesn't
need
to
be
a
section.
We
talked
about
it
on
another
call,
and
that
was
the
outcome
we
didn't
feel
like.
C
B
Greg
and
I
are
here
today
providing
more
of
the
author's
side
of
the
of
the
of
the
feedback,
and
then
our
general
concept
idea
is
to
have
flexibility,
and
you
mentioned
that
you
want
to
have
more
flexibility,
and
you
haven't
I,
haven't
heard
by
the
way
the
arguments
about
what
this
flexibility
more
flexible
section
could
help
could
could
bring
wrong
with
it.
B
The
only
argument
I
currently
heard
is
that
we
don't
want
change,
and
it's
I
think
Greg
also
answered
already
about
the
argument
that
privacy
is
not
always
security,
sometimes
privacy,
the
the
features
it's
just
a
it's
a
feature.
So
sometimes
it's
a
problem,
then
just
by
secure
design,
but
it
could
have
a
privacy
implications.
These
are
examples
that
why
we
feel
that
security
section
considering
section
is
not
enough
and
I
haven't
heard
about
a
counter
argument
about
having
other
consideration
works
here.
D
D
That
most
VIPs
don't
need
this
section.
C
B
D
E
E
E
D
Yeah
I
mean
that's
extremely
frustrating
like
having
to
update
your
EAP
as
the
rules
change
but
and
I.
Look
I
mostly
agree
that
we
should
have
an
out
I,
don't
think
we
know
how
to
do
it
properly
and
I.
Don't
think
that
having
a
generic
out
other
considerations
is
the
right
approach.
If
we
were
to
do
an
out
I
would
rather
it
be
some
sort
of
ad
hoc
situation
where
someone
says
I
need
to
have
a
top
level
section
that
says
this,
and
we
approve
that
as
something
that
is
added
to
the
EIP
right
now.
D
It
doesn't
feel
like
we
have
the
manpower
to
like
actually
make
that
happen.
The
way
that
we
have
this
continuous
integration
setup.
It's
not
easy,
and
we
have
a
lot
of
junk
just
coming
in
from
authors
where
they
don't
really
care
about
the
readability
of
their
AIP
and
so
they'll
just
do
whatever
they
feel
like
doing
so.
I
just
think
that,
like
the
rigid
system,
we
have
is
kind
of
the
best,
the
worst
best
thing
that
we've
come
up
with
right
now,.
E
Wait
a
minute
for
centuries
in
the
publishing
world.
You
have
appendices
that
that's
where
you
put
stuff
that
doesn't
you
know
it
doesn't
fully
fit
the
flow
of
the
document.
It's
not
the
usual
format.
It's.
D
B
D
E
D
I
I
feel
like
we
use,
we
use
Link.
We
try
to
link
to
things
that
don't
fit
the
format
like
generally
my
experience
appendices
have
things
like
something
that
fits
outside
of
like
The
Narrative
of
that
document,
so
it
might
be.
Oh,
you
refer
to
some
hash
function
here
in
the
appendix
you
can
read
exactly
how
that
hash
function
is
implemented
or
something
of
that
sort
and
for
that
or
just
use
hyperlinks,
but.
D
F
E
D
E
D
E
C
D
B
And
then
I
think
you're
proposing
that
this
section
will
be
one-off
exception.
What
ad
hoc
approved
if
I,
do
I
understand
it
correctly,
I'm.
E
B
E
Can
I
partly
reacting
to
my
experience
of
of
the
death
of
2315.,
which
was
probably
the
right
decision,
given
that
it
motivated
eof
but
was
personally
very
painful
and
part
of
the
pain?
Was
that
appeared
that
a
lot
of
people
on
that
call?
Some
of
them
had
never
read
the
EIP
and
a
lot
of
them
apparently
had
read
nothing
but
the
EIP,
despite
the
links
to
other
things,
to
do
so,
to
the
extent
that
you
can't
get
everything
important
in
the
EIP
you're
really
making
it
difficult.
E
You
know,
we've
got
a
hard
link
policy
and
then
a
hard
format,
and
then
it's
like
we'll
put
it
somewhere
else,
but
where
do
I
put
it
that
I
can
link
to
it
and
will
people
bother
following
the
link?
If
you
have
an
appendix
you
give
it
a
name?
You
just
say
you
can
add
some
name
sections
at
the
end:
I
just
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
seeing
that
the
huge
objection
here,
yeah
it
yeah
dot,
I'm,
not
seeing
it,
creates
a
whole
lot
of
X
of
extra
work.
I.
E
F
Think
the
the
opposite
is
probably
the
bigger
problem
where
you
end
up
with
motivation
and
rationale
in
this
third
section,
and
we
have
to
tell
people
to
move
it
into
where
it's
supposed
to
be.
But
I
mean
it
I,
guess
I'm
not
as
opposed
to
a
generic
section
as
I
am
to
a
privacy
consideration
section,
but
I
I
don't
want
to
give
authors
more
freedom
because,
like
it's
already
hard
enough,
keeping
them
consistent
like
as
it
is
we're.
E
D
B
I
think
I
think
that's
that's
I
that
that's
not
the
case.
We
have
seen
Nick
Johnson
move
to
eip-e-n-s-I-p.
We
have
seen
fallbian
moving
to
use
locksco
IPS
without
updating
71725
we've.
B
We
have
seen
Dan,
Findlay
and
and
Rick
Mall
complaining
about
EIP
process
that
make
it
very
hard
to
drop
the
IPS
and
giving
people
more
freedom
gives
us
more
authors.
B
Basically,
it's
very
hard,
there's,
always
a
spectrum
of
authors
who
are
here
to
contribute
to
eips
who
are
not
here
to
contribute
to
you
who
have
to
do
EIP
here
anyway,
but
as
a
standard
body
I
feel
that
we're
here
to
serve
the
authors
and
and
not
there
to
kind
of
think
that
how
how
to
make
it
only
easier
for
the
formats
and
that's
why
it's
I'm,
proposing
to
give
this
more
flexibility
and
I.
Do
understand
that
you
personally
don't
want
to
give
to
add
this.
B
That
are
the
considerations
and
and
Sam
doesn't
and
then
Greg
and
I
are
in
favor
I.
Think
we
can.
We
might
not
have
consensus
today,
but
we
can
see
how
the
consensus
can
can
move
forward
and
obviously
EIP
is
not
only
done
by
authors.
I
strongly
believe
that
the
stake
the
major
stakeholders
are
actually
authors
and
adopters.
So
how
about
we
summarize
what
our
each
believe?
B
Individual
beliefs
are
and
then
put
it
out
there
for
authors
and
other
stakeholders
to
come
in
I,
don't
think
we
should
be
dictators
or
dictator
groups
and
in
this
space
and
if
no
one
starts
authoring,
AIP
or
adopting
eips,
then
basically
rendering
EIP
programs
worthless.
So
how?
How
do
you
like
that?
We
just
put
down
what
we
believed
so
far
and
see
in
the
don't
active
with
other
people's
inputs?
Can
we
kind
of
converge
into
consensus
and
it's
okay
to
to
to
take
a
longer
discussion?
C
A
To
interrupt
here,
I
think
we
are
completely
moving
into
a
different
direction.
We
need
to
come
back
on
the
track,
so
we
can
probably
take
a
look
on
to
the
other
issues
or
the
topics
that
we
have.
We
are
here
to
discuss,
but
just
for
this
particular
topic,
it
is
obviously
clear
that
we
do
not
have
a
consensus.
We
do
have
four
or
four
editors
on
call
and
half
of
them
are
in
favor
and
half
of
them
are
strongly
not
in
favor,
but
the
proposal
I
mean
we
do
have
option
of
appendices
here.
A
People
are
thinking
of
what
can
be
in
section
that
can
probably
provide
authors.
This
option
to
write
this
but
I
believe
when
we
are
talking
about
standard.
The
flexibility
should
also
have
a
limit
to
it,
and
we
cannot
say
that
we
are
like
distracting
authors,
because
the
number
of
proposals
every
month
we
get
is
a
way
more
than
it
was
earlier,
and
the
numbers
of
proposals
that
dies
in
stagnant
status
is
like
a
really
huge
number.
A
So
we
really
do
not
have
to
have
a
lot
of
proposals
just
getting
in
for
the
purposes
of
editors,
to
keep
on
reviewing
with
a
lot
of
sections
added
and,
if
needed
on
case,
to
case
basis.
This
can
be
like
you
know,
addressed
I
would
highly
recommend
discussing
this
issue
further
in
the
issue
itself,
because
we
do
not
have
a
clear
consensus
on
this
call
and
yeah
any
any
final
comment.
C
A
On
to
the
next
one,
I
think
that
is
the
best
option
to
move
on
here.
I
think.
The
next
topic
that
we
have
is
about
customizable
editors,
it's
proposed
by
Panda
Peep,
and
it's
a
proposal
for
enhancement.
It
says
that
in
EIP
review
bot.
Currently
there
are
predefined
editors
group
depending
on
the
type
and
category,
and
he
is
trying
to
propose
a
stop
cap
solution
before
implementing
tags
that
we
have
a
slightly
more
customizable
editor
list
for
peer
reviewers,
wonder
what
people
think
about
it.
A
I
think
the
next
number
I
mean
like
the
next,
not
exactly
the
next
one.
There.
A
Proposal
that
is
coming
up
for
ABC,
so
the
number
is
six
five,
seven
five.
If
we
can
probably
take
a
look,
there,
I
think
both
are
kind
of
interrelated,
and
it's
also
suggesting
of
an
intermediary
EIP
role
here,
not
exactly
what
bot
would
be
doing
but
kind
of
a
role
that
can
be
useful
if
they
are
not
completely
editor.
I'm.
Sorry,
if
I
have
mixed
two
things.
Please
correct
me
over
here.
E
E
Is
is
this
am
I
muted
or
not?
Is
this
really
needed?
I
thought
GitHub
already
made
it
possible
for
any
given
EIP
to
you
know,
Market
that
that
you
know
any
particular
person's
approval
was
needed
to
to
move
it
forward
in
the
system.
So.
F
So
that's
what
so
the
EP
review
bot
kind
of
handles
that
for
us
yeah,
it's
dumb.
You
can't
like,
like
you,
can't
request
Greg
as
a
reviewer,
because
you're
I
don't
think
you
have
right
access
to
the
repository.
No.
E
F
A
A
E
A
Can
wait,
we
can
wait
for
the
proposal
to
provide
provide
them
more
context
of
The
Proposal
I,
see
comment
from
couple
of
editors
saying
like
what
this
exactly
would
look
like,
and
what
is
the
proposal?
Sorry
Greg,
if
I
interrupted,
please
go.
E
C
A
Yeah,
probably
panda
is
looking
into
a
lot
of
changes
around
bots,
so
yeah,
it's
related
to
GitHub
processes.
My
understanding
as
well.
E
So
the
important
thing
is
just
making
it
possible
to
to
get
reviewers
for
particular
proposals
in
so
we
don't
have
to
be
trying
to
bring
in
bringing
in
more
editors
in
general
when
for
any
given
ERC,
there
might
be
very
few
people
who
are
actually
interested
and
for
any
given
person
who
might
want
to
edit.
There
might
be
very
few
erc's
that
they're
actually
interested
in.
A
Right
right,
all
right,
moving
ahead
with
the
next
one,
which
is
upgrade
to
men,
renovate
from
tip
and
Bot
I,
already
see
some
comments
here
from
one
of
the
editor
The
Proposal
here
is
to
allow
opening
PRS
to
upgrade
CI
components
and
provide
some
more
information
on
what
changed.
Anyone
particularly
have
strong
opinion
about.
It
looks
like
it's
another
enhancement
proposal.
F
A
Know
I
mean
it's
good
that
these
issues
are
mentioned
here
and
we
are
also
bringing
it
up
in
the
meeting.
So
people
who
may
have
concern
who
may
have
thoughts
or
maybe
even
some
suggestions
for
a
better
enhancement.
They
can
come
forward
and
probably
add
their
thoughts
here.
So
yeah
I
think
it's
a
good
one
that
it
is
being
created
as
an
issue
to
be
discussed
in
the
meeting
all
right.
Moving
on
to
the
next
section
discussion
continued
from
the
earlier
meeting.
A
Okay
in
the
last
meeting
we
discussed
about
RSS
feed
looks
like
a
lot
of
conversation
happened
after
that
and
currently,
when
I
checked
last,
it
was
approved
by
Panda
I.
Wonder
any
editor
has
any
strong
opinion
on
this
one,
or
can
we
go
ahead
and
merge
this
PR.
A
B
E
It
doesn't
matter
anymore,
not
immediately,
but
over
the
next
over
the
next
month,
or
so.
I'll
probably
need
to
be
backing
out
of
this,
because
a
startup
I've
been
working
on
has
has
gotten
funding
and.
E
Congratulations:
I
was
talking
to
Puja
before
we
came
on
it's
a
project
involving
a
dam
in
Paraguay,
it's
the
second
biggest
Hydro
facility
in
the
world,
and
it
makes
more
electricity
and
anybody
knows
what
to
do
with,
and
so
we're
probably
going
to
use
the
ethereum
blockchain,
plus
some
new
blockchain,
like
technology,
we've
added
to
set
up
a
computational
Marketplace
to
usefully
suck
up
that
power
because
their
legislature
does
doesn't
want
the
power
used
for
Bitcoin
mining
and
it's
so
it's
going
to
be
really
cool.
E
A
Well,
congratulations,
Greg
and
just
just
to
answer
a
Victor's
question:
Victor
I
think
this
is
the
like.
The
axis
is
attributed
whenever
a
written
needs
that
that
is
there.
Whoever
is
actively
editing.
They
have
these
exercises.
So
probably
it's
better
managed
right
now
and
as
Greg
mentioned,
that
he
is
totally
fine
with
it.
So
yeah
I
think
we
can
move
on.
A
The
next
one
here
is
again
yeah
deep
contributor.
He
cannot
join
the
meeting
because
he
lives
in
Australia.
He
said
that,
unfortunately,
it's
not
possible
for
me
to
join,
but
he
requested
to
take
a
look
at
comment
6575
and
he
is
Keen
to
give
this
a
trial.
Erc
editor
run
I
wonder
what
people
think
about
this
proposal.
F
I'm
fine
with
doing
a
trial
period,
getting
them
to
do,
like
maybe,
let's
say
30
days
of
editing
and
then
when
they
run
into
other
editors.
Just
get
them
to
note
the
comments
and
make
sure
they're
doing
good
work.
And
then,
if
they
are,
then
we
can
add
them
as
an
editor.
A
I
think
so,
but
curious
to
do
this
trial
period
other
than
notification
that
he
or
she
is
engaged
in
this
trial.
Editing
does
the
individual
need
any
kind
of
special
permission,
access
or
anything
in
general.
B
What's
our
well
I
think
the
app
that's
the
name,
I
guess
mentioned
that
he's
only
interested
in
signing
numbers
and
not
kind
of
generally
editing.
The
content
is
that
the
case
or
do
I
understand
I.
D
Think
we
talked
about
it
at
the
last.
Call
that
if
all
he
wants
to
do
is
assign
numbers,
that's
not
really
something.
We
would
be
open
to
accepting
right
now,
but
if
he
wants
to
generally
edit-
and
it's
only
like
30
minutes
an
hour
a
week,
then
that's
something
that
we
would
be
interested
in
trialing.
F
He
said
about
30
minutes
a
day
and
could
do
you
know
number
assignment
guidance
on
how
to
comply
with
the
automation,
typos,
but
not
technical
stuff,
which
sounds
right.
C
B
Generally,
you
can,
you
can
start
editing
and
then-
and
you
can
read
to
your
review
feedback
and
I-
would
love
to
see
yeah
the
the
work
and
work
for
more
with
with
lithium,
to
be
able
to
comment
on
this.
As
from
the
reviewing
side
yeah,
it's
not
I,
don't
think
we
need
a
official
kind
of
trial
kind
of
thing
you
can
we
can.
We
should
promote
a
idea
that
anyone
can
come
in
and
provide
a
review.
Help
will
provide
editorial
support
like
this.
B
This
should
not
be
filled
that
they
have
to
ask
for
permission
for
us
to
do
that
so
long
as
they
are
providing
useful
feedback,
they
can
always
contribute
that
and
then
yeah
so
I,
don't
think
they
actually
need
any
program
or
approval
from
this
group
and
then
obviously,
which
it's
our
job,
to
kind
of
identify
those
who
are
doing
really
good
and
active
and
to
invite
them
onto
the
the
editor
groups
and
to
be
an
official
and
bear
some
Duty.
After,
like
the
responsibility
yeah
afterwards,.
A
Generally,
I
agree
what
you
are
suggesting
here:
Victor,
like
anybody,
can
do
these
things,
but
I
really
appreciate
this
individual
notifying
us,
because
when
someone
is
making
a
special
notification
of
that,
then
there
are
more
eyes
to
what's
there.
You
know
review
comments
and
everything
else.
Probably
he
has
in
mind
I,
don't
know
for
sure
like.
Maybe
he
wanted
to
be
an
editor
in
future,
which
is
which
would
be
good
for
us
and
having
this
notification
is
helpful,
but
definitely
it
is
open
for
anyone
to
come
and
provide
feedback.
C
A
So
all
right,
I
and
I
think
from
this
meeting
we
can
obviously
communicate
it
to
the
individual
that
he
should
be
good
to
go.
And
let's
start
this
30
days
trial
period
from
here
on.
A
E
A
Thank
you.
The
next
one
here
is
ethereum
magician
discussion
of
criteria
of
advanced
EIP
status,
a
straw
man
proposal,
I,
think
we
also
discussed
this
in
the
past,
but
I
guess
it
was
requested
again
for
today's
discussion
by
Victor
yeah
Victor.
We
have
10
minutes
if
we
can
quickly
like
have
a
small
intro
for
the
past
and
what
changed
since
then
to
have
it
discussed
in
the
in
this
meeting.
B
Yeah
I
just
want
to
share
a
light
on
this
strawman
discussion.
Maybe
people
are
not
like
fully
agreed,
but
I
just
want
to
kick
off.
Some
discussion
about
equipment,
I,
usually
I,
get
asked
by
authors.
Is
that
what
is
needed
for
advancing
to
the
to
the
next
status
of
the
VIPs?
B
And
it's
pretty
subjective
up
until
this
point,
and
we
see
people
saying
like
oh,
we
need
to
wait
more
time
or
we
need
to
have
more
good
quality
but
like
what
is
an
or
or
good
activities
on
using
on
on
on
foreign
that
it
might
be
helpful
for
us
to
kind
of
formalize
what
is
like,
and
so
that's
why
I
put
down
this
proposal
to
kick
off
the
discussion
and
just
want
to
get
it
out
of
the
temperature
in
the
room
and
see
if
it's
either
something
that
we
couldn't
explore
or
not
in
favor
at
all
or
like,
maybe
not
so
soon,
and
we
should
discuss
it
like
come
back
six
months
later,.
B
So
the
outcome
is
that
we
identify
the
specific
need
for
erc's
interface,
Network
and
core,
like
core,
already
have
a
a
very
defined
way
to
finalize
right.
But
what
about
other
things?
Do
we
just
let
people
move
it
to
final?
B
Or
can
we
say
that
you
will
have
to
have
this
discussion
and
implementations
to
move
to
final?
If,
if
we
want
to
have
any
quality
control
that
is
not
arbitrary
by
subjective
matter
in
in
additives
heart,
but
also
a
kind
of
but
but
have
a
concrete
bar
of
quality
Central,
that's
basically
the
idea.
The.
D
B
B
Is
that
a
good
understanding
and
good
consensus
I
think
so
cool?
Then
the
next
step
is
what
type
of
guidelines
that
we
that
we
think
in
and
this
one
is
like
a
storm
and
discussion.
Stroman
proposal
to
see,
if
you
have
suggestions
to
advise
to
change.
F
B
That's
true,
that's
totally
true
and
then
I
think.
That's
why
I
feel
that
Matt's
comments
on
that's
make
it
a
guideline
not
just
like.
This
is
how
you
do
and
then
you
advance,
so
we
there's
still.
We
can
still
give
them
like
visually
or
we
should
still
review
them
anyway,
right
but
I'm
in
favor
of
and
if
you
don't
have
implementations
like
it's
not
useful,
like
I.
B
Think
last
call
or
Finals
should
pretty
much
kind
of
guideline
that
you
you
should
at
least
have
yourself
and
then
one
other
which
we
might
not
be
able
to
verify.
But
at
least
implementations.
B
Like
we
both
agree
that
it's
possible
to
do
civil
attack
by
creating
implementation
by
themselves,
multiple
ones,
but
when
I'm,
if
I'm
not
clear,
is
that
well
I
think
that
if
no
one's,
if
no
implementation
or
no
two
implementations,
that
is,
that
is
not
seeing
a
good
use
of
a
stand.
A
good
place
for
a
standard
to
be
in
yeah.
F
Like
I
I
think
if
we
had
a
guideline
like
that,
I
would
have
a
much
easier
time
telling
people.
No.
You
can't
standardize
this,
because
you
have
no
one
interested
in
it
and,
like
I,
would
like
to
do
that
more
often,
I'm,
just
not
entirely
sure
that
this
is
a
strong
enough
like
rule
to
to
stand
those
decisions
on
but
yeah.
We
can
definitely
talk
about
it.
Some
more
just
remind
me
to
take
a
look
hunt
Discord
at
some
point
and
I'll
I'll
write
up
my
thoughts
on
it.
B
A
All
right,
let's
move
on
now,
I
just
wanted
to
make
a
quick
mention
of
this
PR
six,
five,
seven,
five
I
think
that
needs
to
be
merged.
This
is
already
in
proposal
form
to
just
get
that
editor
added,
and
we
have
like
a
three
four
minutes.
Left
I,
don't
know
Jose.
If
you
would
like
to
quickly
give
a
update
about
the
issue
that,
as
mentioned
here,
do
we
have
any
progress
or
we
have
merged
it
where
we
are
at.
F
It
yeah,
of
course
it
looks
like
it's
still
failing
CI,
but
yeah
I
can
take
another
look.
A
Right
and
that's
great,
thank
you
and
I
think
that's
mostly
all,
except
for
this
eaps
insight
for
eips
inside
I
have
added
all
details
in
the
hack
MD
as
well
as
the
website
is
showing
all
correct
data.
We
do
have
five
final
eips.
There
are
eight
proposals
in
last
call
for
in
review
and
there
are
21
stagnant
proposals
and
nine
proposals
are
added
as
draft.
Please
take
a
look
on
either
on
the
website
or
on
the
hack
MD
to
follow
the
details.
A
Proposals
in
last
call
if
you
have
any
thoughts
on
those
proposals,
please
go
ahead
and
make
sure
that
you
add
your
comment
in
the
discussion
thread.
So
author
can
maybe
take
a
look
before
it
is
moved
towards
a
final
PR.
So
that's
all
for
today's
discussion
and
I
know
many
people
have
to
jump
off.
This
call
for
the
next
meeting.
Thank
you.
Everyone
for
joining
us
today
hope
to
see
you
again
in
two
weeks
at
1400,
UTC
have
a
good
one.
Everyone
thanks.