►
From YouTube: EIPIP Meeting #8
A
A
B
C
A
No
problem,
all
right:
we're
on
agenda
item
number
two
now
moving
EFI
to
its
own,
a
IP
and
reference
that
an
EIP
one.
If
I
remember
correctly,
the
idea
behind
this
is
not
to
have
too
much
stuff
an
EIP
one.
So
we
did
and
also
to
allow
for
quicker
iteration
on
the
EFI
process
and
Evette
are
separated
from
what
would
be
I
guess
the
hard
fork
process
versus
the
EIP
one
processes,
it
would
be,
that's
EFI
would
be
an
it
Sony,
IP
I
think
this
also
was
something
James
had
brought
up
before.
C
Memory
is
we
were.
We
were
undecided
which
direction
we
wanted
to
take,
and
we
kind
of
talked
about
both
and
then
didn't
ultimately
come
to
a
conclusion
like
what,
whether
it's
have
more
information
in
the
IP
one
and
have
bare-bones
registration
in
if
I
or
having
more
information
in
the
EFI
EIP
and
have
that
one
evolve
into
the
iCard
for
coordination
process.
That
is,
is
yet
to
be
determined
and
leave
and
push
more
information
into
that
EIP.
D
D
What
is
the
name
two
three
three
or
something
like
that?
The
formal
process
of
hard
work
there's
nothing
like
that,
and
we
try
to
exactly
describe
the
the
hard
work
process
in
that
document
and
not
in
the
IP
one,
but
I
think
it
at
some
point
later.
He
was
on
the
opinion
that
it's
just
bad
to
have
them
separate
and
should
be
combined
into
a
single
one,
yeah
I'm,
not
sure.
If
any
of
this
makes
any
sense
or
is
useful
I
just
wanted
to
give
like
you
know
some,
some
look
back.
A
C
E
B
So
I
didn't
get
through
the
survey.
Last
time.
I
just
got
through
one
item:
an
updated
I
sling
it
out
to
every
a
IP
author
that
had
three
IP
and
final,
which
means
the
survey
kind
of
has
like
a
little
sampling
bias.
Cuz
I
didn't
send
it
out
to
ones
that
only
have
it
in
draft,
but
that's
okay,
I
think
so.
B
A
B
The
survey
should
be
finalized
within
a
week
or
two
so
by
the
next
meeting.
It
should
be
final,
but
the
answers
fit
in
pretty
much
the
same
categories
as
they
did
from
the
previous
time
when
the
longest
released.
Those
categories
are
formalizing
decision
making
and
then
something
that
called
throughput
we're
just
like
the
capacity
to
push
a
piece
to
completion
and
then
the
last
one
is
clarity,
there's
a
lot
of
ones
like
small
suggestions
that
all
make
the
process
a
little
clearer,
such
as
adding
use
cases
through
ie,
ip's
figuring
out.
B
B
This
is
making
first
addressing
those
that
addressing
the
throughput
and
then
addressing
Hardy
lost,
or
we
can
get
them
all
at
once
or
we
do
the
easier
ones
which
it's,
the
clarity
ones,
just
kind
of
like
simplicity,
to
see
IP
one
and
then
do
onboarding
or
throughput
and
then
do
the
higher
order
changes
or
we
can
just
see
them
all
at
once.
I.
B
If
we
were
going
about
today's
meeting,
today's
meetings
mostly
focused
on
decision
making,
which
is
the
genetics
heard
today.
So
if
we
were
to
do
the
smaller
ones
might
end
up
changing
it.
If
we
had
enough
change
the
shrinking
process,
so
I
think
doing
our
order,
ones
will
be
like
we
said
the
beer
pieces
in
place.
First,
that
makes
sense
all.
A
B
A
E
E
It's
the
brainstorming
document,
so
I
think
we
can
use
that
as
a
reference
and
prioritize
our
work
coming
at
what
we
would
want
to
do,
and
yes,
I
think
I
have
seen
that
thing
somewhere
too,
like
making
it
the
the
separation
of
the
IP
process
and
the
heart
for
coordination.
I
guess
it's
a
agenda
item
number
five.
A
A
B
F
B
C
A
A
G
Yeah
I
think
on
that
point,
like
you
know,
we
just
mentioned
say
trying
to
get
trying
to
get
mix,
Johnson's
opinion
and-
and
he
can't
come
to
these
calls
so
I
feel
like
in
general.
We
should
try
and
move
if
we're
moving
the
hard
for
coordination
process
like
out
of
the
EIP
process,
then
trying
to
see
what
are
things
we
can
do
to
make
both
those
process
less
because
it
feels
like
it's
probably
easier
for
the
EITS
than
the
hard
for
coordination.
G
Just
so
it's
I,
guess,
yeah,
more
inclusive
and
also
it's
things
tend
to
be
much
clearer
and
right
thing:
they're
not
calls
like
it's
easier
to
figure
out.
You
know
what
was
actually
said.
This
table
explicitly
and
just
a
search
for
stuff,
whereas
calls
are
quite
hard
for
all
those
things
yeah,
so
I,
yeah
I
think
like
as
we
kind
of
move
these
processes,
we
should
really
try
and
figure
out
how
we
can
make
them
more.
Async
yeah.
B
A
Right
and
I
actually
worked
with
them
or
really
he
took
he
took
he
took
lead
on
this,
but
he
made
a
zoo
lip
and
I
joined.
It.
I
haven't
seen
any
progress
on
that
and
I've
been
pretty
loud
about
my
feedback.
That
I
don't
think
we
could
get
people
to
move
to
zoo
lip
just
because
everybody's
either
on
get
her
discord
so
getting
a
whole
new
tool
involved
would
be
a
lot
of
friction,
not
impossible.
That
a
lot
of
friction
I
think.
A
E
Yeah
in
EAB
one,
it
is
mentioned
as
a
recommendation
that
you
create
a
post
at
each
position
and
it
is
highly
recommended
to
create
a
post
at
magician,
and
you
can
also
share
it
at
Reddit
and
Twitter
and
other
places.
We
might
just
want
to
work
with
the
words
there.
Instead
of
recommendation
like
we
might
want
to
come
up
with
word
that
can
make
it
more
as
a
process
instead
of
giving
the
freedom
over
there,
maybe
I
mean
that's.
My
team
I
agree.
A
Okay,
the
next
one
is
separation
of
the
EIP
process
from
heart
for
coordination,
and
we
have
ax
ax
c
IP
status,
model
and
I.
Think
James
I
think
you
just
posted
yours
down
in
the
comments
right
or
is
that
a
different
item?
Yeah
okay,
so
in
the
comments
of
the
call
of
the
agenda,
is
James's
model
and
then
xx
models
here.
So
can
we
have
someone
kind
of
give
an
overview
of
what
these
two
things
are?
I
think
the
stemmed
from
a
conversation
within
the
chat.
D
So
I
think
my
perspective
is
pretty
much
in
line
with
a
lot
of
the
concepts
which
have
been
brought
up
on
this
call
and
I
guess
brought
up
earlier,
but
discussed
on
this
call,
so
my
ideal
flow
would
decouple
this
hard
work
management
or
any
questions
related
to
that
and
my
flow
only
is
concerned.
Okay,
there's
one
exception,
but
it's
it's
mostly
concerned
with
the
standardization
of
the
specification
text
which
in
the
IP
is
there
there
aren't
that
many
major
changes
to
you
had
things
are
happening
today.
There
is
only
basically
one
major
change.
D
Is
that
review
step
so
right
now
the
the
problem
I'm
seeing
is
that
we
have
a
draft
and
then
we
have
a
last
call
and
Blasco
supposed
to
be
there.
The
final
version
were
not
many
I
mean
only
maybe
tiny
typo
changes
are
expected
in
the
last
call,
but
nothing
major
and
there's
nothing
in
between
and
I
heard
it
from
from
different
people
and
I
mean
even
from
myself.
D
Well,
okay,
a
bunch
of
people
I
talk
to
you
expressed
that
they
would
be
looking
for
some
kind
of
a
status
where
a
draft
is
at
a
point
that
external
reviewers
are
invited.
So
that's
basically
the
review
stage
that
the
draft
cut
to
a
kind
of
a
stable
position.
The
the
author's
expect
external
professionals
to
look
at
the
draft,
or
you
know
the
proposal
and
give
feedback,
and
the
last
call
is
just
in
last
version
of
this
review
state
when
everybody
is
like
pretty
happy
I
think
that's
the
the
only
real
change
in
it.
D
D
I
do
understand
that
the
abandoned
name
as
it
is
some
people
might
not
be
happy
with
the
name
itself,
which
may
be
understandable,
I'm,
not
sure
if
it's
worth
having
two
statuses
like
patron
and
abandoned,
but
I
think
that
with
drone
SS
status
might
be
a
better
name
and
for
those
so
with
drone
I
think
people
are
happy
who,
on
the
own
accord,
want
to
get
get
any
IP
patron.
They
happy
with
the
status
of
a
drone
and
for
those
cases
where
any
IP
is
just
not
looked
after
anymore.
D
A
D
A
D
Network,
no,
no!
No,
this.
This
flow
only
considers
the
state
stability
of
the
given
the
IP
text.
So
the
specification
final
means
that
no
change
to
the
specification
can
have
them,
except
of
maybe
error
that
changes
so
typos
or
you
know
special
section,
listening
box
it
in
the
spec,
but
there's
no
change
possible
to
rules
defined
in
that
given
spec.
D
So
if
you
want
to
translate
this
into
a
hard
work
process
on
top,
then
what
would
happen
is
when
I
guess
I
guess.
The
EAP
centric
process
is
what
this
would
facilitate.
So
under
the
EIP
centric
process,
the
di
P's
go
through
different
stages
of
maturity
and
when
they
reach
a
stage
of
final,
and
they
that
means
that
everybody
involved
with
that
VIP
is
happy,
is
tested.
It
should
work,
nobody
expects
any
changes
and
for
hard
Forks.
D
Only
finally,
IP
should
be
considered,
and
then,
if,
during
this
hard
working
process,
which
may
be
a
separate
review
process,
I'm
not
sure,
but
if
there
will
be
a
separate
review
process
during
hard
work,
adoptions
and
somebody
discovers
there's
some
major
issue
with
the
given
e
IP,
then
the
e
IP
text.
It
should
not
be
changed
because
it
is
final,
but
it
is
possible
to
create
a
new
version
of
it
under
a
new
number,
which
has
the
changes
proposed
at
that
point.
Does.
A
G
Yeah
and
I
really
like
the
idea
of
this
like
state
which,
which
calls
for
a
broader
community
review,
because
we've
seen
so
many
instances
in
the
past,
where,
like
people,
basically
don't
look
at
an
e
but
build
it's
already
scheduled
for
a
hard
fort.
And
then
you
get
like
a
flood
of
comments.
So
if
we
can
and
at
the
same
time,
I
agree
it's
it's
kind
of
unrealistic
to
expect
everybody
to
look
at
all
the
drafts.
So
yeah
I'm
strongly
in
favor
of
a
status
like
that.
I.
E
Have
two
or
three
comments,
or
maybe
questions
one
is
about
this
active
so
like
do
we
need
to
keep
active
after
review,
or
should
we
put
it
like,
maybe
after
the
last
con,
because
I
think
any
IP,
even
if
it
is
active
forever,
I
mean
it's
not
designed
to
be
completed
at
any
point
of
time,
it
should
be
given
a
proper
visibility
and
that
can
be
attained
when,
when
or
maybe
when
they
are
put
in
the
last
call
the
14
days-
duration,
that
is
there
that's
for
the
visibility.
An
RSS
feed
is
also
there.
E
So
that's
kind
of
one
thing
about
active.
The
second
thing:
I,
like
the
idea
of
withdrawn
and
abundant,
and
as
exit
mentioned,
that
withdrawn
is
more
suitable
word
foot,
the
abundant
status
that
we
have
as
of
now
I
understand
that
abandoned
was
introduced
just
a
year
back
I
mean
like
last
year
in
May
itself.
It
was
introduced,
but
it
qualifies
both
the
status
one
which
is
like
the
EIP,
has
not
been
progressing
for
a
while.
E
It
is
abandoned
in
a
way
that
the
EAP
or
third,
the
original
author
did
not
worry
to
move
it
forward
and
second,
when
VIP
water
decides
to
withdraw
it,
because
even
if
the
status
are
the
explanation
mentioned
in
the
document,
it
says
that
it
is.
The
abundant
is
the
no
longer
pursued
by
the
original
author
in
any
of
the
cases
like
whether
it,
whether
they
don't
have
time
interest
or
whether
it
is
not
the
right
direction
to
move.
So
those
were
two
things
and
one
last
thing
about
final
and
accepted
I.
E
Think
as
per
the
current
EAP
one,
the
one
difference
between
accepted
and
the
final
state
is
accepted.
It's
still
the
accepted
of
the
EIP
for
a
heartful
upgrade
process
and
any
IP
is
considered
to
be
an
final
if
it
is
implemented
by
some
clients
and
the
status
can
be
changed
only
after
the
upgrade
or
adoption.
C
About
your
first
well,
first
I
very
much
support
or
like
that,
the
way
this
flow
goes
and
it
fits
really
well
with
how
I
wish
things
have
would
go.
The
part
about
having
review
after
or
having
active
after
last
call
like
thinking
about
how
I've
approached
the
writing
the
EFI
one
I
would
I
would
like
it
to
be.
A
My
comment
against
that
would
be.
The
purpose
of
last
call
is
to
make
it
into
that
RSS
feed,
so
people
know
that
there
needs
to
be.
It
needs
to
be
looked
at,
even
though
at
that
point
there
should
only
be
minor
changes.
There's
the
possibility
that
a
last
call
can
bring
up
major
technical
changes.
As
my
understanding
yeah.
C
D
D
But
one
comment
on
active
itself:
I
think
active
is
like
a
strange
kind
and
yeah
I'm,
not
even
sure
the
only
so
originally
it
was
only
used
for
EIP
one
just
a
signal
that
the
IP
one
is
can
be
changed.
So
it's
never
final
and
that
I
think
active
was
extended
to
to
the
idea
of
using
for
registries
and
the
only
one
right
now
is
EFI.
D
But
there
was
a
discussion
to
maybe
have
a
chain
ID
registry,
but
it
never
materialized,
but
I'm
not
sure
what
would
be
the
right
process
for
forgetting
to
active
I
think
we
should
rather
describe
the
limited
set
of
circumstances
of
what
kind
of
VIP
can
become
active
and
I
would
really
just
say.
The
CIP
one
and
registries
are
the
only
ones
and
I
mean
I
wish.
We
wouldn't
have
like
special
ways
in
this
graph,
but
active
is
one
special
kind,
I'm,
not
sure
we
can
get
rid
of
it.
Yeah.
A
E
The
reason
why
I
was
thinking
it
to
be
after
the
last
call,
or
maybe
the
next
stage,
a
state
after
the
last
call
is
because,
as
for
the
current
ie
IP
one,
it
says
that
some
of
the
I
mean
other
than
a
IP
one.
No
other
a
IP
at
this
moment
is
in
this
state
acting.
So
if,
in
future,
if
we
come
up
with
some
informational
and
process,
CIP
is
just
like
the
efi
that
we
are
talking
about.
E
E
At
this
point
of
time,
we
have
only
one
AIP
EAP
one,
so
that
is
there
and
I
am
not
sure
what
the
process
was
followed
at
that
time.
But
if,
in
future
we
want
to
come
up
with
another
other
informational,
a
IPS
or
the
process
key
IPS
to
be
provided
the
status
of
active,
at
least
they
should
follow
the
initial
process
of
an
EIP
and
last
call
maybe
providing
more
visibility,
but
I'm,
not
sure
if
there
is
RSS
for
every
other
state.
So
that
can
be
there.
D
Think
your
reasoning
makes
sense,
but
I
would
put
a
country
reasoning.
So
there's
no
particular
reason
I
put
active
there.
I
think
I,
just
put
it
there
somehow,
but
I
have
a
counter
reasoning
after
we
have
explained
this,
why
it
may
make
sense
to
stay
there.
So
last
call
in
the
regular
flow
last
call
is
the
last
step
after
you
expect
it
to
make
final,
and
the
reason
for
last
call
is
that
you
really
want
to
get
it
right,
because
once
something
gets
to
final,
you
cannot
make
any
changes
to
it.
D
C
A
C
C
A
Okay,
I
like
that
idea
that
each
one
has
its
own
process
as
long
as
that
process
is
defined
in
the
EIP
itself
so
like.
If
you
have
the
chain
ID
e
IP,
you
can
have
a
little
blurb
in
there.
That
just
says,
like
a
process
section
or
I,
don't
want
to
make
a
whole
new
section
of
any
IP,
though,
but
basically
somewhere
and
in
the
end
the
IP
say.
This
is
how
it's
updated.
Basically,
I.
E
A
A
F
I'm,
just
generally
not
seen
I
mean
I,
get
I'm
kind
of
an
outsider
and
don't
really
understand
all
the
court
have
stuff
but
I'm
not
seeing
any
decisions
level
to
sit,
and
it
sounds
like
all
the
stuff
your
guy
is
talking
about.
Is
we
don't
make
decisions
anywhere
in
this
stuff?
Where
do
we
make
decisions?
F
A
That's
a
good
question
and
my
answer
would
be
the
reason
we're
separating
out
the
decision-making
processes
is
because
there
are
so
many
and
it's
very
dependent
on
the
track
and
type
of
the
IP
that
we're
separating
them
out
right
now.
So
this
is
the
what
we're
getting
right
now
is
the
EIP
flow
separate
from
the
decision-making
process,
because
for
quarry
IPS
we
have
the
efi
sub
e,
IP
or
I
should
say:
registry
e,
IP
style
that
determines
things
like
the
core
dev
call.
A
Besides
what
quarry
IPS
go
into
different
statuses,
yet
for
e
rc
we
have
different
rules
for
that,
one,
so
the
whole
how
our
decisions
made.
If
we
tried
to
combine
them,
it
would
make
this
graph
absolutely
crazy
and
so
we're
keeping
that
separate
right
now
and
we
may
not
even
change
how
things
are
decided
right
now,
unless
they
really
need
to
be
decided
differently,
which
we
haven't
even
started.
Thinking
about.
B
Another
another
comment
on
that:
one
of
the
frustrations
among
a
lot
of
people
that
I
was
seeing
was
the
politics
in
the
AP
process.
It's
kind
of
difficult
to
understand
him
by
that,
but
I
think
one
way
to
facilitate
that
frustration
was
to
isolate
the
politics,
part
of
it
from
the
EAP
process
itself,
so
put
it
in
its
own
section,
where
it's
addressed,
formerly
versus
in
putting
it
in
Sangha
within
the
EPI
process,
and
that
would
be
separating
it
out
into
its
own
process
yeah
as
a
lot
as
far
as
the
decision-making
process.
F
C
C
F
So,
in
other
words,
we're
explicitly
separating
that
decision
from
this
and
there's
gonna
be
some
other
process.
That
would
tell
so,
in
other
words,
prog
power
would
be
in
final,
but
there
would
be
some
other
status
system
graph
for
decision-making
system
which
would
show
it
hasn't
been
eligible
for
inclusion
or
has
been
removed
for
eligible
or
something
like
that.
Whatever.
E
I
think
this
is
more
of
a
point
that
we
are
trying
to
separate
the
hardwork
process
and
the
EIP
process.
So
it
is
good
in
the
EIP
process.
The
status
is
final,
but
it
may
not
be
going
too
hard
for
maybe
or
may
not
be
going.
That
is
going
to
be
a
separate
process.
So,
as
James
mentioned,
that
the
profile
should
be
I
mean,
like
maybe
fitting,
into
the
final
status.
So
that
may
be
good
from
the
ei
B's
point
of
view.
A
C
Yeah,
the
this
stem
from
the
conversation
of
inactive
versus,
abandoned
and
sort
of
things
and
I've
had
some
time
to
think
about
it
since,
and
the
graph
is
the
same
other
than
that
it
has
an
initial
status
for
being
inactive
and
the
reason
I
would
add.
That
is
what
I'd
like
to
have
added
to
the
EIP
bot
or
whatever
is
if
a
certain
amount
of
time
has
passed
and
no
one
has
touched
an
EIP,
that's
in
draft
or
in
review.
C
It
should
be
marked
as
something
saying
that
it's
not
being
worked
on
right
now,
so
the
community
knows,
what's
kind
of
active,
being
looked
at
not
active
as
the
yappi
status
but
actively
being
developed
or
has
been
kind
of
left
by
the
wayside.
So
inactive
would
be
a
status
for
if
the
robot
applies
the
status
and
then
withdrawn
would
be
for
when
people
just
apply
rough
rick
remove
an
EIP
for
consideration
and
the
reasoning
I
think
that's
important.
Is
it
signals
why
it's
in
the
state?
C
D
C
D
And
I
think
it's
it's
a
great
idea
even
went
back
when
we
discussed
it,
but
lately
I
started
to
maybe
come
to
a
different
opinion
from
a
technical
standpoint.
I
mean
just
going
back
in
in
general
I'm,
not
the
happiest
at
the
VIP
number
assignment
is
attached
to
the
pro
request
number
or
the
issue
number,
which
is
the
same
because
it's
just
so
inflated
as
people
try
to
especially
people
who
are
not
familiar
with
git.
D
They
struggle
with
git
and
and
try
to
submit
a
change
which
grows
into
like
15,
different
peers
and
stuff
is
just
getting
inflated
and
I
wonder
you
know.
If
you
purely
I
mean
it
yeah,
you
haven't
clarified
and
I.
Don't
think
anyone
would
fully
know
what
would
be.
How
would
it
be
determined
that
something
is
is
connected?
If
we
purely
look
at
the
I
mean
what
the
pot
could
look
at
is
really.
When
was
the
file
last
fortified?
D
That's
the
only
thing
the
bot
could
really
look
at,
and
that
only
means
that
if
somebody
just
creates
a
PR
and
changes
a
single
letter
or
changes
whitespace,
just
that's
a
new
new
space
somewhere
in
the
file,
then
it's
it's
active
again.
Wouldn't
this.
You
know
this
automatic
process
of
marking
them
inactive
based
on
like
last
change
date.
Wouldn't
that
really
just
become
like
erasing
to
people
submitting
PRS
to
just
change
something,
so
it
becomes
active
again
and
we
just
keep
inflating
the
numbers.
D
C
So
the
inflating
the
numbers-
one-
is
definitely
an
issue
and
I'm
wondering
if
that
suggests
that
that's
something
that
should
be
solved
first
before
happening
and
I
can
like
it's
some
way
of
deciding
the
IP
numbers
that
won't
be
inflated
by
the
PR
could
solve
that.
The
as
far
as
the
editing
goes.
If
an
author
is
the
one
who
is
going
back
in
and
making
the
change,
then
I
think
that
means
it's
still
like
having
that
bump
happen.
C
As
long
as
the
the
the
explosion
of
PR
numbers
isn't
is
solved
by
some
other
thing
that
we
discussed
at
some
point,
then
I
don't
mind.
If
an
author
comes
in
and
just
changes,
one
thing
to
make
sure
that
it
stays
in
review,
because
that
means
that
he's
looking
at
the
room
that
he's
actively
looking
at
the
repository
and
a
lot
of
them
I
think
would
just
fall
to
inactive
and
then
no
one
and
only
authors
really
can
make
an
edit
or
EIP
editors
and
any
IP
editor
wouldn't
have
a
reason
to
keep
it
active.
A
A
An
outside
viewer
they
can
accuse
someone
of
being
like
lazy
with
their
EIP.
They
could
say
that
that
person
didn't
care
when
really
it
was
withdrawn
because
of
reasons
so
like
if
I
see
the
status
withdrawn
and
I'm
like
well.
What
happened
here?
I
can
email
that
person
because
their
emails
in
the
header
and
say
why
did
you
decide
to
withdraw
the
CIP
rather
than
if
it's
abandoned,
I
can
say?
Well,
I,
don't
know
if
I
should
email
them,
their
email
might
not
even
be
active
anymore
for
the
CIP.
A
D
They're
only
in
the
best
solution
or
even
in
happy
one,
we
have
I
think
the
decision,
URL
and
notes
and
feels
like
that
which
are
not
utilized
but
I
wish
they
would
be,
and
on
the
same
note
you
know
we
could
have
and
many
other
like
specification
processes
outside
of
it.
You
make
use
of
such
extra
fields,
so
they
don't
try
to
inflate
the
number
of
statuses.
Rather
they
they
describe.
D
You
know
in
text
what
was
the
reason
so
as
an
example,
if
we
would
have
just
a
single
veteran
status,
which
signals
both
patron
by
the
author
and
with
drone
by
inactivity,
we
could
still
have
a
field
which
properly
I
mean.
Eventually
it
would
be
nice.
It
would
be
some
kind
of
a
URL
to
the
decision
text,
which
explains
why
it
happened.
But
initially
we
could
just
have
the
text
say.
D
This
was
which
oh
no
automatically
by
the
box
on
this
date
or
it
could
state
the
reason
from
the
author
IVA
drawn
this
because
I
don't
think
it's
a
good
idea
anymore.
Wouldn't
that
be
a
better
solution
than
just
having
two
status
fields,
which
I
mean
they
do
explain.
A
bit
of
the
story,
but
they
don't
explain
everything.
That's.
A
That's
good
I
would,
like
more
of
the
story
explained
so
you're,
saying
just
to
make
sure
I
understand
your
suggestion.
The
bot
itself
would
do
a
PR
on
the
EIP
if
it
gets
abandoned,
and
it
says
this
was
abandoned
on
this
date.
Otherwise,
if
it's
withdrawn,
one
of
this
step
needs
to
be
the
author
saying
why
it's
withdrawn
right,
yeah.
E
There
is
one
more
thing
here
mentioned
in
the
EIP:
one
is
about
transferring
the
EIP
Russia
I
mean
that
is
related
to
abundant
static
I.
Think
it's
the
further
explanation
of
that.
In
that
it
mentions
that
the
transfer
of
this
ownership
can
happen
in
two
circumstances.
The
one
is
can
be
written
in
trap.
Can
we
just
finish
the
previous
yeah
yeah
sure
I
mean
I
was
just
trying
to
come
up
to
your
point.
Only
I
mean
I
found
that
was
like
mention
in
the
yep.
You
went
so
please
go
ahead.
I'm,
sorry
to
interrupt.
D
A
D
This
field
called
resolution
on
EAP
one
it's
under
this
e
IP
header
preamble,
there's
requires
replaces
superseded
by
and
the
last
one
is
resolution
a
URL
pointing
to
the
resolution
of
the
CIP.
Now
this
is
not
used,
but
we
could
actually
make
use
of
this
and
say
that
for
every
every
vid
thrown
status
there
needs
to
be
a
resolution
field,
which
explains
why
it
became
patron
I.
B
Common
with
in
regards
to
the
PR
I
know
RFC
they
like
comparing
to
our
process.
They
have
once
the
once
the
standards
in
drafts.
They
have
a
timer
of
24
months,
that's
two
years
that
if
it's
not
pushed
to
four
hour
our
four-hour
process,
it
would
be
final
that
it
would
be
re
considered
whether
to
be
put
into
withdrawn
automatically
or
to
be
reopened
by
the
press
of
the
author
to
continued.
So
we
could
have
PR
based
on
not
the
last
time.
B
A
E
I
was
actually
thinking,
I
mean,
like
I,
was
more
towards
exec
up
in
Yin,
like
making
it
withdrawn
with
automated
bot
or
with
personal,
like
interest,
but
both
are
going
towards
the
same
place
like
one
thing
that
is
missing
here
is
as
per
VIP
one
if
an
EIP
is
in
the
status
of
abandoned
that
can
be
pursued.
If
we
want
like
that
is
not
I
cannot
find
it
in
either
of
the
diagram.
So
that
is
one
thing,
and
another
thing
is
like:
the
abandoned.
Vip
can
change
their
ownership,
and
this
can
occur
in
two
circumstances.
E
Number
one
when
otter
does
not
want
to
pursue
it
or
they
do
not
have
time
to
do
that
or
maybe
if
they
don't
agree
with
the
direction
it
is
moving.
So
I
think
it
is
fulfilling
all
the
criterias
and
just
because
it
is
done
by
Bo,
bought
and
done
by
person
having
two
status,
maybe
adding
too
much
to
EAP
one.
So
we
can
maybe
broaden
the
definition
of
one
and
make
it
like
withdrawn,
slash,
abandoned
or
inactive,
or
whatever
we
choose.
So
I
was
going
more
towards
having
one
status
with
a
broader
explanation.
A
E
D
Mean
I'm
personally
just
a
bit
worried
and
in
you
know,
having
more
more
sit
assist
and
then
we
definitely
need
there
was
the
only
reason
I
argued,
maybe
against
having
patron
independent
separately,
because
we
are
trying
to
just
reduce
the
number
of
these
different
statuses
and
if
we
could
make
use
of
the
resolution
field
to
actually
explain
why
that
happened.
I
think
that
may
be
much
better,
because
no
more
reasoning
can
be
put
there
than
what
the
status
on
its
own
can
explain
and
I.
D
Think
that
the
because,
if
we
make
use
of
this
resolution
field,
then
we
don't
even
need
the
the
inactive
status,
because
the
resolution
could
just
say
in
case
of
it's
turned
inactive.
The
resolution
could
say
this
has
been
turned
in
active
by
the
bots,
because
there
was
no
activity
for
two
years
or
whatever.
C
D
I
think
your
your
reason
makes
a
lot
of
sense,
but
I
would
say
it
would
be
possible
to
maybe
display
the
resolution
on
that
list
on
the
page.
I'm,
not
hundred
percent
sure
I
mean
technically
definitely
could
be
displayed,
but
maybe
it
would
be
too
long,
I'm
not
sure,
but
I
would
again.
Maybe
just
ask
the
question:
who
is
the
target
audience
to?
D
Why
would
anybody
if
they
see
like
a
lot
of
patron
versus
inactive?
Why
would
they
care
I?
Think
it's
really
up
to
the
altar
to
if
they
see
their
stuff
turn
padrone
by
the
bot,
its
stay
responsibility
to
you
to
act
on
that
and
I
mean?
Does
it
really
matter
to
to
people
watching
the
the
website?
Where
is
something
was
turned
in
active
or
withdrawn,
I.
C
C
So
one
kind
of
controversial
example
was
it
would
that
I
think
illustrates
this
a
little
bit
better,
like
that
block
rewards
the
IP
that
I
wrote
forever
ago.
If
it
was
inactive,
people
could
still
be
worried
that
it
might
resurrect,
but
if
I
had
it
in
withdrawn,
they
can
be
confident
that
I
have
withdrawn.
That
and
I
can
say
it's
because
of
feedback
from
the
community.
And
if
someone
that's.
D
Maybe
we
should
clarify
at
some
point
if
the
drone
can
be
resurrected
and
I
understood
that
any
kind
of
bit
wrong,
you
know
whether
it's
abandoned
with
drone
inactive,
whatever
it
can
be
resurrected
without
changing
the
number.
That's
question
or
topic
one,
but
the
the
second
comment
I
have
to
this
is
aren't
we
in
this
particular
example,
you
give
aren't
be
mixing
the
specification
process
with
the
hardwork
process,
so
why
does
it
matter
if
it's
via
drone
or
or
not
with
drone,
if
it's
not
considered
for
a
heart
for.
A
It's
not
mixing
the
processes,
necessarily
it's
more
people,
here's
what
the
community
would
say
so
I'm
this
scenario.
It
would
be
they'd,
be
up
in
arms
and
saying:
oh,
this
can
be
snuck
in
at
any
time
or
it
will
get
snuck
in
they're
doing
that
with
prog
power
right
now
and
I
know
that
it's
not
accurate.
A
What
they're
doing
but
they're
conflating
the
definition
of
EIP
one
for
their
own
narrative
and
if
we
can
make
it
a
little
bit
more
strict
it'll
make
it
harder
for
them
to
do
that,
because,
right
now
what
they're
saying
is
like
like,
for
instance,
there
was
a
PR
on
prog
how
the
other
day-
and
there
was
an
entire
reddit
thread
with
64
comments
that
said,
prog
cows
being
snuck
back
in
like
stuff
like
that,
that's
what
we
would
have
be
avoiding
by
saying
withdrawn,
because
withdrawn
is
like
and
people's
minds.
It
makes
more.
C
A
B
I
think,
even
though,
controversially,
if
he
can
be
in
final
and
that
just
means
the
specs
frozen
withdrawal
means
the
spec
isn't
being
developed
anymore.
So
I
was
kind
of
in
this
weird
limbo,
where
it's
not
frozen.
Yet
it's
it's
not
like
develop
matera
nuff
to
be
frozen,
but
it's
not
being
worked
on
to
be
made
final.
C
Like
enough
like
another
AIP
that
was
that
would
be
withdrawn,
was
Martin's
previous
EIP
I,
don't
remember
exactly
what
it
was,
but
but
the
proposal
of
gas
and
oil
soup
like
superseded
it
as
being
a
better
idea.
So
he
withdrew
that
EIP
and-
and
it
would
be
clear
to
the
community
that,
because
that
is
withdrawn
and
then
so,
why
would
someone
work
on
that
idea
again
if
something
is
inactive?
Well,
maybe
it's
it's
worth
kind
of
working
on
again.
D
A
D
A
A
D
A
Yeah,
that
makes
sense,
I'll
have
to
think
on
it
more
and
we're
kind
of
over
time.
So
this
is
a
good
thing
for
us
to
pick
up
on
next
time,
then
also
figure
out
the
other
two
also
go
over
the
other
items
on
the
agenda
for
next
time,
because
I
don't
want
to
keep
people
on
too
long,
but
this
was
a
really
good
discussion.
A
E
Just
one
thing
before
we
leave
one
point:
I
wanted
to
check
with
and
secure
like
in
this
vid
John
abandon
section.
There
is
nothing
going
back
to
the
draft,
but
as
per
the
definition,
if
people
would
want
to,
somebody
else
would
want
to
champion
any
other
di
P.
They
can
do
that.
So
is
that
something
like
missing,
or
is
that
not
going
to
be
in
veneer?
The
process
yeah.
D
I
think
I
hastily
put
this
one
together
by
just
reducing
my
old
versions,
but
in
all
versions,
I
had
all
the
DES
missing
directions,
so
what's
missing
here
is
that
from
last
call
you
could
go
back
to
review
and
I
think
from
bit
drone
and
abandoned.
You
could
go
back
to
draft,
but
yeah
I
mean
maybe
for
the
next
call.
All
of
these
charts
should
be
way
more
clarified
in
I.
Think
it
was
a
good
discussion
starter,
but
definitely
wasn't
like
the
in
the
final
version.
This
guy's
up.