►
From YouTube: EIPIP Meeting 60
Description
Agenda: https://github.com/ethereum-cat-herders/EIPIP/issues/153
A
Welcome
everyone
to
eipip
meeting
60..
We
have
pretty
packed
agenda
this
time
before
we
get
into
the
usual
discussion.
The
first
item.
Actually,
the
item
number
zero
here
is
about
the
travis
ci
issue,
as
we
know
that
there
is
an
ongoing
issue
that
was
reported
yesterday
by
mica,
and
we
have
communicated
it
to
team
the
ethereum
devops
team.
It
was
reported
that
it
is
fixed,
but
apparently
it
wasn't.
A
I
know
panda
p
created
a
pull
request,
which
is
kind
of
related,
so
anyone
from
here
may
would
like
to
provide
a
summary
and
where
we
are
on
the
resolution.
B
A
Well,
that's
good,
because
when
I
was
interacting
with
the
team,
they
reported
to
me
something
similar
to
that
and
their
last
response
was.
It
looks
like
when
it
cancelled,
someone
was
removed.
That
needs
to
be
re-added.
So
if
I
understand
correctly,
it
was
travis
that
was
accidentally
removed
when
you
were
trying
to
fix
the
issue.
C
My
god
not
accidentally
removed,
it
was
moved
intentionally,
and
why
do
you
think
that
it's
still
being
required,
like
I'm
looking
at
apr
here,
and
I
don't
see
travis
in
the
required
checks
list.
D
E
F
C
I
don't
know
it's
in
the
web
hooks,
so
if
you're
gonna
wear
hooks,
you
can
see
notify
travis
ci.
I
think
that
is
how
it
is
finding
that
there
is
a
travis
ci
connection
like
that's
how
github
is
noticing.
G
C
E
F
E
F
C
Intentionally
or
not,
it's
gone
so
let's
go
refresh
the
pages.
C
Okay,
I'm
kicking
kicking.
This
52-42
see
if
this
still
asks
for
travis.
B
Well
commit
something
else
before
it:
rechecks.
C
I
don't
think
we
need
to
just
we
need
to
fix
travis
like
we
should
just
get
rid
of
it,
and
so
we
need
to
figure
out
how
to
actually
get
rid
of
travis,
and
then
we
can
just
iterate
on
the
github
actions.
If
there's
problems
with
it.
A
So
would
there
be
anything
required
for
devops
team
to
maybe
look
into
it,
or
is
it
something
that
can
be
done
by
the
admin
access
that
we
have
within
the
team.
A
So,
moving
on
to
the
first
item
listed
here
for
today's
discussion,
that
is
regarding
all
eips
that
don't
conform
to
the
current
standards.
Basically,
this
is
related
to
a
new
linting
part
which
is
under
progress.
A
H
Yeah
sure
so
it's
covers
everything
that
eep
v
does,
but
it
has
better
line,
reporting
information
and
a
few
other
checks,
I'm
just
finishing
up
like
a
github
action
for
it
and
we
should
be
able
to
get
rid
of
ep
and
add
this.
Instead
yeah,
that's
got
it.
H
Oh
about
like
yeah,
we're
going
with
the
files
that
changed
in
a
particular
pr.
That's
the
the
easiest!
Well,
it's
not
the
easiest,
but
it's
it's
not
too
bad
to
implement
and
that's,
I
think,
what
micah
wanted.
So
it
works
out.
A
Awesome.
Thank
you.
We
are
moving
pretty
fast
on
items
today
so
far.
Okay.
Moving
on
to
the
item
number
two,
oh
yeah,
please,
anyway,.
C
A
All
right
moving
to
item
number
two
that
is
about
moving
proposals
and
absence
of
author,
like
this
is
a
known
issue
that
sometimes
authors
are
not
around
to
push
the
proposal.
We
created
the
stagnant
part
to
mark
them
as
a
stagnant
and
wait
for
the
author
to
come
back
if
they
would
like
to
pursue
with
that
particular
proposal.
A
However,
in
some
cases
there
are
new
people
who
are
interested
to
pursue
that
proposal.
They
reached
us
on
ech
discord
to
learn
about
the
process
as
how
they
can
be
added
to
the
proposal
and
champion
the
proposal.
Micah
responded
to
that.
That
was
good.
I
believe
it
is
helpful
too,
for
a
few
authors
to
be
added,
but
I
have
a
follow-up
question
on
that.
C
So,
are
you
saying
if
the
author
of
a
stagnant
eip
wants
to
permanently
terminate
it?
How
do
they
do
that?
Is
that
what
you're
asking
for
the
first
question?
Oh.
A
No,
no,
I'm
sorry!
That
is
not
my
question.
Let
me
try
to
rephrase
it
if
there
is
a
proposal
which
is
in
stagnant
status,
but
an
author
of
another
proposal
who
is
using
this
first
proposal,
as
requires
for
his
new
proposal,
wants
to
pursue
the
old
proposal,
bring
it
out
of
a
stagnant
and
they're,
not
getting
any
response.
One
solution
that
was
suggested
that
that
was
suggested
was
create
a
new
proposal.
It
is
fine,
but
how
do
we
make
sure
that
the
proposal
which
was
left
in
its
statement
is
never
moved
ahead?.
C
That
be
a
problem
like
people
tend
to
want
to
collaborate,
and
so
I'm
not
too
worried
about
this.
But
if,
like
you
had
one
person
that
couldn't
reach
the
original
author,
and
so
they
decided
to
spin
up
a
copy
and
push
that
forward
through
and
they
they're
now
the
author
and
it's
totally
fine.
But
then,
if
later
you
know
like
a
year
later
or
something
the
other
guy
comes
back
and
wants
to
push
his
stagnant
through
we'll
let
him
the
editors
almost
certainly
will
tell
him
hey.
Someone
else
is
already
pursuing
this.
C
Maybe
you
should
work
with
them
and
again
historically,
we've
always
gotten
people
to
work
together,
and
so
I'm
not
too
worried
about
the
situation.
But
theoretically,
if
they
wanted,
they
could
run
that
proposal
totally
separate
and
even
if
they're
identical,
we'd
allow
it,
presumably
just
as
a
matter
of
process.
But
again
I
would
strongly
encourage
anyone
in
that
situation
to
work
together
rather
than.
A
That
is
a
good
resolution,
probably
for
the
stagnant
status
yeah
victor,
I
see
your
hand
raised.
I
Yeah
I've
seen
some
of
the
stagnant
proposals
were
actually
already
implemented
and
widely
adopted
and,
for
example,
like
some
of
the
ones
that
it
was
proposal
proposed
by
open
zeppelin.
I'm
curious,
like
for
the
editor
group,
one
thoughts
on
this
type
of
stagnant
draft.
It's
basically
the
original
author
created
an
erc
proposal
and
then
also
use
it
in
some
of
the
their
own
tools
and
now
get
widely
adopted.
They
don't
might.
They
might
not
have
time
to
finalize
it,
but
it
actually.
C
These
so
we've
had
this
club
a
number
of
times
in
the
past
and
what
I
usually
tell
people
is
you
have
a
few
options,
one
if
you
don't
have
the
time
to
update
it,
but
someone
else
does
then
you
can
just
add
them
as
an
author,
and
all
you
have
to
do
in
that
case
is
just
a
single
approval.
It's
like
so
let's
say
you
have
person
a
has
created
an
e
eip
and
it
goes
to
stagnant
and
person
b
would
like
to
see
that
go
to
final.
C
So
there's
someone
out
there
person
b
can
submit
a
pr
that
moves
it
out
of
stagnant
and
adds
themselves
as
an
author
and
then
the
original
author
person
a
can
then
just
approve
that
and
then
from
then
on
person
b
can
take
the
proposal
all
the
way
through
to
final
and
that's
one
option
and
that's
the
one
I
generally
recommend
like
if
you've
got
a
situation
where
an
author
doesn't
have
time
or
doesn't
care
to
push
it
through,
but
someone
else
does
I
generally
encourage
that
one,
because
it's
it's
the
smoothest
and
cleanest
path
forward.
C
The
other
option
is,
as
mentioned
before,
you
can
spin
up
a
competing
proposal.
That's
basically
identical,
but
actually
with
the
only
changes,
the
author
and
then
push
that
one
through
again,
I
it's
much
better.
If
you
can
just
get
the
original
author
to
sign
off
on
adding
you
as
a
co-author
and
then
you
push
it
through,
but
if
they
just
absolutely
can't
be
reached,
which
happens,
sometimes
people
like
disappear
entirely
from
the
world.
It
seems
in
that
situation,
then
yeah
you'd
have
to
spin
up
a
competing
proposal
and
push
it
through.
A
There
is
this
one
particular
situation
which
is
similar
to
what
victor
was
trying
to
explain
here,
except
the
case
here
is
the
proposal
is
not
in
stagnant,
though
it
should
have
been
because
it
is
very
old
proposal,
but
we
we
tried
to
reach
out
to
author
in
between
and
he
made
certain
efforts
to
maybe
push,
but
he
again
stopped
and
then
now
there
is
another
proposal
2400
which
is
being
discussed
in
url
uri
meeting,
and
we
are
recommending
the
author
to
maybe
push
that
proposal,
because
that
seems
to
be
a
very
good
proposal,
which
is
actually
helpful
for
many
wallet
developers,
but
he
is
stuck
because
one
eip831
which
is
not
in
stagnant,
is
in
draft
status
and
author
is
not
approachable.
C
Solution,
so
the
solution,
if
the,
if
you
can't
get
a
hold
of
the
author,
would
be
to
spin
up
a
new
eip
and
then
depend
on
that
one
and
push
that
one
through
to
final.
So
so,
basically
you'd
say
hey.
I
like
this
idea.
But
again
the
thing
to
keep
in
mind
is
like
from
a
process
standpoint
eips
that
are
in
draft
or
stagnant
or
whatever
are
basically
ideas.
C
There
may
be
good
ideas
and
they're
on
their
on
track
to
eventually
become
like
an
actual
adopted
standard,
but
until
they
make
it
to
final
they're,
not
standard,
yet
they're
they're,
just
ideas
or
drafts
as
you
as
you
will
like
someone's
working
on
something
to
try
to
standardize
it,
but
because
they're
mutable
they're
not
really
good
for
being
standard.
You
want
something,
that's
immutable
to
be
a
standard.
You
don't
want
your
standard
changing
to
every
every
six
months.
C
When
you
know
an
author
happens
to
show
up
and
edit
things,
and
so
for
that
reason,
the
right
thing
to
do
here
is,
if
you're,
depending
on
something
that
is
draft,
and
it's
just
not
moving
forward
whatsoever,
and
you
can't
get
ahold
of
the
author,
you
can't
convince
them
to
add
you
as
a
co-author.
You
can't
get
them
to
update
it.
You
can't
get
them
push
it
through,
then
create
a
basically
copy.
The
ap
give
it
a
new
number
or
we'll
assign
a
new
number.
C
C
Like
I
mean
people
did
this
with
the
erc20
and
it
was
a
mess
like
people
started
implementing
the
erc20
when
it
was
in
draft
and
then
what
ended
up
happening
is
the
roc
20
eventually
did
get
moved
to
final,
but
because
everybody
had
implemented
it
before,
while
it
was
still
in
draft
phase,
it
ended
up
with
a
bunch
of
problems
that
everybody
who
was
working
on
they
acknowledged
like
hey.
These
are
all
really
big
problems.
We
should
not
do
this.
C
This
is
a
bad
design,
but
because
everybody
went
out
and
adopted
it,
while
it
was
still
in
the
draft
phase,
we
just
had
that
we
ended
up
just
for
compatibility
reasons,
finalizing
it
as
in
its
bad
form
and
now
we're
stuck
with
terrible
erc20
tokens
everywhere
like
and
it
sucks
and
the
in
a
perfect
world.
People
will
wait
to
adopt
standards
until
they're,
actually
immutable
and
discussed,
and
people
have
worked
through
the
issues
they
won't
be.
Like
hey.
That's
a
good
idea
that
someone
just
had.
Let
me
go,
implement
my
entire
system.
C
On
top
of
it
like
they
would
stop
think
through
talk
about
it,
discuss,
iterate
and
then
eventually
build
systems
on
top
of
it.
Of
course,
we
don't
live
in
a
perfect
world
of
rainbows
and
ponies
and
so
sometimes
like
in
the
situation.
If
you've
got
a
bunch
of
people
implementing
this
thing,
even
if
it's
not
a
good
idea
like
as
as
design
like
it
has
design
flaws,
sometimes
it
is
necessary
to
push
it
through
with
those
design
claws,
and
in
this
case
you
could
do
that
as
a
separate
eip.
C
So
you
can
just
again
copy
the
ip
new
ap
number
new
author
push
it
through
to
final
with
all
of
its
warts
and
bugs,
and
everything
like
that,
just
so
you're
backwards
compatible
with
everybody
who
implemented
the
earlier
version.
It
sucks
I'm
not
a
fan
of
it,
but
it's
sometimes
necessary
yeah.
I
don't
have
a
great
answer
for
you.
There.
B
I'm
also
wondering
if
it
might
be
good
to
if,
if
any
eip
is
stagnant
for
a
certain
period
of
time,
say
the
arbitrary
six
months
chosen
earlier.
B
C
Yeah
we
we
talked
about
this
back
when
we
talked
about
you
know,
making
stagnant
a
thing.
I
think
the
general
concern
is.
Is
we're
really
loath
to
take
over
someone
else's
thing,
like
kind
of
without
their
permission,
which
is
why
you
know
we
won't
add
authors
against
the
authors
without
permission
from
the
author
and
because
sometimes
there
are
eips
that
someone
will
write
up.
A
draft
for
and
they'll
sit
on
for
six
months
and
they'll
come
back
and
and
work
on
it.
C
In
fact,
I
think
greg
here
has
a
couple
of
ips
that
you
know
went,
went
stagnant
for
a
while
and
then
he
came
back
worked
on
them
and
we're
I'm
very
hesitant
to
tell
people
hey.
You
have
six
months
to
to
get
this
done
or
iterate
or
we're
taking
it
from
you.
I'd
rather
just
say
hey,
you
know.
This
is
your
thing
you
can
work
on
it
take
your
time,
whatever
speed
that
is,
and
for
some
people
that's
slow.
C
Some
people
that's
very
fast,
and
if
someone
wants
to
try
to
race
you
they
can
do
a
competing
vip,
but
they
can't
take
yours.
So
I'm
hesitant
I'm
not
hardcore
against
it
like
if
everyone
else
here
says
yes,
we
should
definitely
allow
people
to
take
over
eips
after
some
time
period.
C
I
probably
won't
die
on
this
hill.
Just
my.
B
H
That's
just
putting
tim
as
an
author,
I
think
that's
the
the
standard,
how.
J
What
only
one
so
we
deal
with
the
case
by
case
the
creative
commons
license
is
so
loose
that
you
know,
there's
nothing
enforceable
there.
It's
just
etiquette
generally,
it's
you
add
yourself
as
an
author
and
you
keep
going
and
if
the
champion
doesn't
like
it
like
macaw
says
or
you
copy
huge
bits
of
it
and
start
over,
I
don't.
C
C
J
J
J
J
I've
got
a
pr
to
take
a
few
paragraphs
and
ideas
out
of
615
and
and
put
it
into
the
new
proposal,
and
we
may
or
may
not
do
that.
It's
people
cooperate
on
this
stuff.
It's
just
we're
worrying
way
too
much
and
stuff.
That
is
not
likely
to
happen
that
we
can
deal
with
when
it
happens.
J
A
I
may
disagree
a
little
bit
here,
because
I
think
we
have
created
a
lot
of
new
process
and
it
turned
out
to
be
helpful
for
managing
it.
But
again,
this
is
something
that
we
will
keep
coming
up
with
new
challenges
and
that
we
would
like
to
discuss
anyway.
I
see
victor.
Do
you
want
to
add
something
here.
I
Yeah,
I
I
so
I
I
want
to
say
that
I
I
feel
very
warm
and
and
careful
as
a
head
as
a
like
eip
author,
seeing
this
whole
group
of
editors
being
very
kind
not
to
take
people's
eip
numbers
and
trying
to
be
nice
and
and
not
not
like
influenced
or
like
missing
things
over
people's
will.
But
I,
as
a
eip
author,
I've
sometimes
come
to
the
situation
where,
like
I
might
be
busy
in
the
future
and
might
not
even
be
connected
in
some
way.
I
Let's
say
a
car
hit
me,
and
I
wonder
I
I
I
wonder
if,
if
we
can
have
a
middle
ground,
let's
say
find
a
a
check
box
in
the
template
to
begin
with,
saying
like
if
I
enacted
on
this
vip
for
the
for
for
longer
than
six
months
or
a
year,
then
you
don't
have
to
add
an
editor's
editor
as
as
the
author,
but
like
I'm,
giving
authors
editors
the
approval
to
allow
other
people
to
step
up
if
they
shown
sufficient
significant
interest.
I
wonder
if
that's
something
you
can
you
want
to
consider.
C
I
think
the
the
jokes
I
made
earlier
about
making
tim
a
co-author
is
something
along.
Those
lines
actually
does
work,
and
so
in
the
past,
for
example,
peter
from
the
guest
team
had
some
eips,
he
had
authored,
but
he
was
frustrated
with
the
ip
process
and
didn't
want
to
push
through
the
final,
and
so
he
just
all
he
did
was
approve
the
pr
to
add
tim
as
a
co-author,
and
then
tim
took
everything
through
the
final,
and
so
one
can
imagine
kind
of.
C
I
would
love
it
if
someone
takes
them
over.
In
fact,
I
actively
advocate
yes,
we
should
standardize
tim
in
eip1.
In
fact
now
some
of
my
ap
statement
eips,
I
actively
advocate
in
multiple
forums
and
whatnot.
Please
someone
take
this
over
and
so
being
able
to
have
that
apply.
Even
after
you
know,
I'm
hit
by
a
car
would
be
nice,
and
so
I
don't
need
to
actually
be
around
to
approve.
Whoever
does
decide
to
take
over.
C
Yeah
in
favor
of
the
idea,
I
don't
have
any
problem
with
the
idea
how
to
integrate
that
into
a
process.
I'm
a
little
less
clear.
I
think
that's
the
only
thing
I
was
having
some
sort
of
placeholder
author,
that's
kind
of
well
known
as
if
this
author
is
in
your
author
line.
It
means
that
if
your
eip
goes
stagnant,
someone
can
take
it
over
and
you're.
Okay
with
it.
C
So
the
problem
is,
we
don't
know
if
the
author
is
dead
or
just
taking
hiatus
or.
J
If
we
really
can't
find
the
author,
if
we
can't
find
the
author
or
have
reason
to
believe
the
authors
potentially
going
to
cut
you
know,
just
don't
take
the
author's
number
without
permission.
Unless
we
know
the
author's
gone
and
in
some
consensus
just
go,
you
know
john's
gonna,
take
it
over
and
keep
the
same
number.
That's
that's
what
the
dead
person
would
have
wanted.
Whatever
y'all
will
deal
with
the
tragedy
when
it
happens
right.
J
C
For
all
women,
for
all
we
know
this
tragedy
may
have
happened
several
times.
There
are
many
eips
that
have
authors
that
have
disappeared
off
the
street.
I
don't
know
where
they're
at
they're,
possibly
dead
and
it's
very
possible.
They
would
have
liked
someone
to
take
over
their
thing
after
they're
gone
and
that's
what.
J
J
C
C
We've
got
a
handful,
I'd
say
less
than
a
dozen,
maybe,
but
that
order
of
magnitude.
So,
like
you
know,
okay,
that's
a
lot.
How
many
are
erc's?
How
many
are
core?
I
think
mostly
ercs.
There
are
a
couple
of
core
eips.
I
think
that
have
disappeared,
but
I
think
those
ones
have
been
since
handled
like
past.
The
ideas
are
more
delicate.
J
I
just
don't:
we
need
to
work
with
those
particular
people.
We
don't
need
to
chat
with
each
other
about
a
general
policy.
We
really
need
it's
work,
but
we
need
to
work
with
the
people
to
come
up
with
the
best
resolution
for
each
situation,
but
I
would
say
that
the
general
preference
is,
you
know,
add
yourself
as
an
author
to
a
new
eip.
J
I
think
the
president's
long
been
since
said
that
other
than
the
primary
author
other
people
are
simply
needing
knowledge
for
their
contribution.
They
may
or
may
not
still
support
the
eip.
In
some
cases
they
oppose
eip,
but
don't
want
to
have
their
name
removed
so
just
take
it
over
and
give
it
a
new
number.
And
if
that
creates
some
confusion
it
we
can
deal
with
that.
That's
a
preference
and
we
can
go.
C
J
C
So
I
mean
yes,
what
you
just
described
would
work
I
feel
like
like.
If
that's
our
process,
I'm
fine
with
that,
it
feels
like
the
process
would
be
simpler
if
we
just
had
a
placeholder
author
that
the
person
can
put
in
rather
than
requiring,
the
person
show
up
the
ap
meeting
and
bring
it
up,
and
you
know
no,
I'm
just
saying.
J
When
a
person
asks
you
know,
we
say:
have
you
tried
hard
to
find
the
author,
and
if
the
answer
is
yes
and
there
can't
be
a
hard
and
fast
rule
there,
it's
always
an
option
to
just
take
a
proposal.
Add
yourself
as
author
under
a
new
number,
that's
the
preferred
option.
If
you
can't
find
the
author
and
if
the
author
doesn't
want,
if
the
new
author
doesn't
want
to
do
it
for
some
reason,
we
consider
those
reasons.
I
don't
think
there's
many
cases
of
that.
You
know
for
many
reasons.
C
So
I
think
one
thing
you
could
do
victor
to
bypass
this
whole
debate
that
greg
and
I
are
having
would
be
add
several
other
people
and
as
long
as
you
guys
aren't
all
on
the
same
plane.
At
the
same
time,
when
it
crashes,
someone
will
still
be
around
to
approve
someone
else
taking
it
over,
and
you
can
add
you
know
some
people
that
you
know
will
support
a
future
takeover
if
you
disappear
and.
I
Tim's
question:
why
not
just
make
copy
of
it?
I
I
feel
like
for
just
speaking
of
myself
or
whoever
cares
about
the
content
of
the
efu
more
than
the
num.
I
The
the
glorious
number
I
think
authors
can
can
care
more
about,
can
can
be
less
caring
about
like
someone
else
taking
the
number
rather
than
like
people
just
make
make
a
copy
and
claim
themselves
as
they
author,
even
though
that
cc0
definitely
is
not
like
restricting
that,
and
they
know
that,
but
authors
I
think
care
about
their
work
being
used
or
not
so
in
respecting
that.
I
I
think
it's
it's
slightly
better
for
from
me
as
a
personal
feeling
that
if
I
can
just
sign
off
and
say,
hey,
I'm
okay,
someone
take
off,
and
then
but
I
also,
I
also
wonder
if
it's
a
good
idea
to
just
put
some
render
editor
as
a
placeholder
author
because
of
the
the
title
of
author
actually
mean
something
for
people
like
you,
you
guys
are
all
authors
yourself
as
well
right
when
you
put
the
author
in
the
in
the
subject
of
the
of
the
paper,
it
really
means
something.
I
So
maybe
either
we
can
say
have
a
separate
like
a
trusted
editor
or
something
like
that.
That
has
the
approval
of
of
of
to
to
edit
and
and
remove
authors
if
they
need
to
or
we
can
just.
I
think
for
me.
It's
simply
just
like
a
check
box
that
I'm
signing.
I
And
editor
group
to
to
to
have
someone
else
take
off
if
they
see
fit.
So
I
I
can.
I
can
further
pursue
this
idea
by
making
a
prepare
pr
of
a
template
and
an
eip1,
and
we
can.
I
don't
want
to
like
hijack
too
much
time
of
this
meeting,
which
puja
says
already
very
packed,
but
I
I
I
appreciate
you
guys-
or
he
listened
to
me
on
this
idea.
C
Yeah
so
as
far
as
further
discussion
oftentimes,
just
creating
a
pr
against
the
ip1
is
a
good
way
to
incentive,
incite
discussion
so
make
your
proposed
change
and
then
all
of
the
editors
will
pile
on
and
say
whether
you
like,
we
don't
like
it
and
then
eventually
it'll
get
rejected
or
approved,
and
this
works
particularly
well.
C
If
it's
a
very
simple
change
like
if
you
want
to
add
a
line
to
the
header
or
something
the
effort
there,
you
know
is
very
low
to
for
you
to
do
create
that
pr
and
then
it
gives
us
a
place
to
discuss
and
iterate.
So
if
you're
up
for-
and
you
want
to
continue
this
discussion,
I'd
say
that
probably
the
next
step.
C
B
A
I
I
wanted
to
quickly
respond
to
one
point
of
direct,
which
I
find
a
little
fair
here
like
we
should
not
allow
any
other
author
to
take
their
eip
number
once
they
have
submitted
and
has
been
merged
as
draft
in
the
eip
repository,
which
I
think
is
not
going
to
be
a
case
in
any
case,
because
if
someone
is
trying
to
rewrite
the
eip,
that
would
not
contain
the
same
history
because
they
that
is
not
being
merged
on
the
same
number.
So
anyway,
they
would
be
getting
a
new
number
so
yeah.
A
I
think
that
would
resolve
the
main
issue
and
otherwise
I
believe
we
have
a
handful
of
other
solutions
to
deal
with
certain
situation
in
here.
A
So
I
wanted
to
check
on
this
issue,
because
the
author
reached
out
to
me
like
what
would
be
the
next
best
step,
so
I'm
gonna
suggest
him
to
maybe
come
up
with
the
own
proposal
and
try
to
push
that
proposal
in
order
to
push
the
original
proposal.
He
wanted
to
move
it
towards
final.
A
A
So
in
the
past
few
meetings
we
discussed
about
the
core
eip
process,
which
we
may
expect
after
the
march,
and
I
was
talking
to
an
act
who
is
currently
leading
the
nfd
working
group
and
she
is
also
looking
into
some
of
the
erc
is
related
to
nft
and
she
is
concerned
about
the
process
on
that.
I
would
like
you
to
maybe
share
about
your
thoughts
concern
on
this
topic,
and
then
we
can
probably
discuss
how
do
we
see
it.
G
Okay,
thank
you
so
much
for
giving
me
a
word
so
regarding
the
ip
ip
template,
I
just
share
it
to
the
agenda
document.
The
cmd
document,
which
I
discussed
the
with
greg
on
like
how
we
should
do
like
what
kind
of
template
we
should
have
for
magicians
forum
in
order,
so
people
can
share
an
ip
still
farm
but
without
complicating
copy
pasting,
the
full
eyepiece
itself.
G
G
I
can
post
link
here
as
well
and
so
yeah.
So
that's
the
template,
so
others
will
have
easier
job
or
like
it
should
be
like
easier
to
share
a
piece
on
the
farm,
and
so
it
can
be
discussed
and
that's
pretty
much
it.
I
mean.
We've
been
also
talking
with
some
people
in
the
nft
standard
working
group
regarding
the
ip40,
4007
or
49,
or
something
I
think-
and
there
has
been
many
comments
regarding
that,
but
I
push
it
to
the
outer,
so
they
maybe
edit.
G
The
ip
tiles
and
add
more
texts
in
a
different
languages-
and
I
mean
there
are
like
bunch
of
links
which
I
can
share
later
on,
but
that's
probably
on
ib
outers
itself
and
that's
pretty
much
what
I
wanted
to
share.
I'm
going
to
start
going
with
you
guys
for
the
hacking
document.
A
Thank
you
just
to
provide
some
more
context
here.
It
was
reported
to
the
group
that
sometimes
when
we
are
recommending
people
to
create
an
issue
thread
on
fellowship
of
ethereum
magician,
they
are
pasting
the
entire
content
of
eip,
and
that's
why
this
is
a
proposed
template
which
we
are
hoping
to
have
it
on
fellowship
of
athenian
magicians.
So
they
get
the
guideline
of
how
they
should
initiate
a
discussion
on
that
forum
and
do
not
end
up
pasting
the
entire
proposal,
so
that
was
on
it.
A
Coming
back
to
the
point
that
we
were
trying
to
bring
it
here
about
the
eip
process,
my
general
understanding
is
the
eip
process
after
the
merge
will
not
be
affected
for
erc
or
any
other
category
of
proposals
other
than
the
core
eip,
which
we
will
be
probably
discussing
in
this
meeting
today
or
if,
if
we
get
time
yeah
any
other
different
thought
do,
do
we
see
any
changes
coming
up
for
erc
category
proposal
in
future?
Considering
the
present
proposals
that
we
have
on
table.
C
C
Oh,
but
if
they,
if
they're
starting
with
no
aap-
and
they
just
have
an
idea
and
they
want
to
iterate-
then
I
think
like
greg
said,
the
full
ap
is
fine
or
partially
ap.
I
would
also
be
okay
with
pretty
much
anything.
So,
oh
basically,
my
stance
is
is,
if
you
guys
think
this
would
be
useful.
I
have
no
problem
with
it.
J
C
Have
we
verified
that
we
can
that
discourse
does
support
templated
topics
like?
Can
we
actually
create
a
template
that
integrates
with
this
course.
C
Having
having
a
template
that
is
just
like
a
file
somewhere,
I'm
my
concern
would
just
be
that
no
one
would
look
at
it
like.
We
already
have
this
problem
with
the
ip1
right.
No
one
actually
looks
to
eap
one,
they
generally
just
copy
another
eip,
and
so,
if
they
happen
to
copy
an
old
eap
that
doesn't
match
the
current
format,
then
they
use
that
if
they
copy
a
new
ap,
they
use
that
if
fem
or
discourse
supports
like
when
you
click
the
new
button,
it
asks
you
hey.
Do
you
want
to
use
this
template?
C
Then
people
might
actually
use
it
and
it's
probably
worth
it.
It
might
be
worth
the
effort
to
give
some
give
authors
like
a
hint
hey.
This
is
a
good
template
to
use,
give
it
a
try,
whereas
if
we
can't
actually
do
that,
then
I
would
be
hesitant
to
spend
time.
You
know
designing
and
polishing
a
template
if
no
one
ends
up
using
it.
I
I
think
it's
from
an
author
perspective,
most
authors
only
have
one
or
two
proposals
like
the
majority
of
them
other
than
them
being
very
familiar
with
the
process,
so
yeah.
So.
I
Lintor
is
the
lean
tool
or
the
travis,
which
you
discussed
just
now
to
to
help
guide
people
so
that
they
can
automatically
be
reminded
of
using
them
or
make
sure
they
conform.
J
C
If
I
had
to
imagine
my
ideal
scenario,
it
would
be
when
you're
on
the
discourse
forums,
you
click
new
and
it
asks
you
like
for
the
one
of
the
first
things
to
ask.
You
is
like
what
topic
you
want
to
do
until
you
choose
eip
discussion
and
then,
when
you
chose
the
eip
discussion
again,
this
is
ideal
world.
I
don't
think
it's
possible
when
you
chose
that
I
would
say
hey.
Would
you
like
to
use
this
template
or
would
you
like
to
freeform
and
the
user
can
choose?
J
So
you
click
new,
a
very
simple
bit
of
markdown
gets
dropped
in,
like
you
know,
here's
the
summary
and
put
in
something
else
afterwards,
and
if
they
don't
like
it,
they
delete
it
and
keep
going
yeah.
Maybe
I'll
be
really
fine
with
that.
You
know
just
just
some
markdown,
with
some
advice
in
between
just
as
simple
as
possible,
but
useful,
it's
so
easy
to
just
delete
it
and
easy
enough
to
tell
them
that
they
have
every
right
to
delete
it.
C
Yeah,
if
that's
possible,
so
I
think
next
steps
is
someone
find
out.
Can
we
add
a
template
to
like
greg
described?
You
know
where
you,
when
you
click
new
it
pre-fills
some
stuff.
You
can
just
quickly
delete.
If
you
don't
like
it,
if
that's
possible,
then
someone
can
iterate
on
that.
If
that's
not
possible,
then
just
keep
in
mind
like
I
don't
want
to
say.
C
C
A
J
G
J
Want
a
button
that
says
new
eip
and
it
opens
up
the
topic
with
some
minimal
instructions
and
fill
in
the
blanks
and
the
author
can
take
it
from
there,
and
this
will
encourage
them
to
go,
read,
eip1
and
use
the
template
if
they
haven't
already.
I
like
that.
A
All
right,
we
have
just
10
minutes
left.
I
see
a
lot
of
issues
there
I
mean
like
the
topics
to
be
covered.
Let
me
try
to
bring
some
of
them
quickly.
Number
four
from
github
issue.
This
is
about
some
conflict
include
a
copy
of
rfc,
822
and
rfc2119.
I
have
added
the
issue
link
here.
Probably
there
are
some
discussion
I
guess,
initiated
by
panda
paper.
A
H
So
I'm
in
favor
of
adding
two
one,
one,
nine,
I'm
not
sure
if
we're
allowed
to
add
the
other
one.
H
Yeah
so
2119
explicitly
says,
distribution
of
this
memo
is
unlimited,
which,
according
to
their
faq,
means
that
you
can
just
redistribute
it.
However,
you
want,
whereas
the
other
one
I
think
was
822
or
something
like
that.
Doesn't
include
that
note,
so
they
don't
give
legal
guidance
on
whether
they're
allowed
to
we're
allowed
to
redistribute
it
or
not.
B
H
C
D
A
Cool
point
number
b
here
is
for
eip4907
that
has
inconsistencies
which
requires
ip721.
So
here
is
the
thing
in
the
proposal.
4907
that
has
been
moved
to
final.
It
suggests
that
it
requires
eip721
as
mandatory,
but
the
proposal
has
some
inconsistencies
with
the
required
proposal.
Seven
to
one,
I'm
dropping
the
link
to
the
proposal
here.
B
So
from
what
I
gather
the
thing
that's
similar
to
the
owner
of
in
erp
721
in
eip721,
owner
of,
if
token
id
doesn't
exist,
then
it
reverts,
but
in
the
this
eip4907
the
equivalent
for
effective
user
does
not
actually
refer.
It
just
returns.
The
zero
address
instead
and
and
basically
it'd,
be
nice
if
they
both
reverted.
B
C
Yeah,
so
if
it's
final
and
like
like
having
final
eips,
that
suck
is
pretty
normal
and
we
have
pretty
strict
policy
that
you
know
if
your
specification
is
final,
you've
not
changed
the
specification,
like
my
general
way,
to
phrase
this
is:
if
someone
implemented
the
eap
before
the
change,
it
must
still
be
completely
compliant
after
the
change
like
you
cannot
have
any
possible
implementation
that
becomes
non-compliant
due
to
this
change
and
if
understanding
correctly,
this
change
would
make
something
that
was
previously
compliant
now
non-compliant.
So
therefore
they
need
a
new
eip.
B
C
I
generally
prefer
people
go
through
the
process.
Draft
review.
Last
call
final,
though
I
also
don't
care
how
fast
I
go
through
that
process.
The
main
reason
is:
is
I
just
having
to
go
through
those
steps?
There
are
some
people
that
only
pay
attention
on
certain
steps,
and
so
you
skip
a
step.
You
skip
a
set
of
people
to
pay
attention
like,
for
example,
for
ercs.
C
But
again
it
can
be
quick
like
you
can
just
do,
submit
it
as
a
draft
get
it
merged
immediately,
submit
to
review
as
soon
as
that's
merged
merge
it
immediately
send
it
submit
it
as
last
call
merge
it
and
then
wait
for
two
weeks
and
submit
to
final,
like
I
don't
expect
anyone
to
take
a
certain
amount
of
time.
Besides,
the
last
call
step.
A
I
would
agree
that
is
generally
a
good
practice
here
to
start
from
draft
and
move
it
fast.
If
that
proposal
is
in
good
shape
and
people
are
accepting
it
the
way
it
is
probably,
I
can
add
that
as
a
comment.
So
if
the
user,
who
has
suggested
this
change-
or
has
pointed
it
out,
maybe
want
to
create
a
new
proposal,
point
number
c
4c
here
is
reference.
Implementation
aren't
linted
prior
checking
when
marked
as
final.
A
I
see
this
is
by
a
user
tim
top,
and
I
have
seen
some
comment
left
by
panda
pape.
Anyone
would
like
to
summarize,
or
is
there
any
final
decision
on
this
issue.
B
So
I
think
it's
still
very
much
debatable.
I
would
say
that
they
should
be
all
cc0
unless
there
is
a
good
reason
for
them
not
to
be,
for
example,
the
rfc's.
Obviously
we
can't
stick
it
cc0,
but
I'd
also
suggest
maybe
having
to
have
editor
approval
to
have
something
that
is
non
ccri.
C
So
on
this
157
issue,
there's
two
separate
things
one
is:
should
we
require
everything
to
be
a
certain
license
or
not
and
two
should
we
lint
people's
code,
I'm
pretty
against
linking
people's
code,
because
I
want
authors
to
have
autonomy
to
write
their
code,
how
they
want,
and
if
you
want
to
do,
curly
braces
on
next
line
with
you
know
vertical
alignment
and
using
spaces,
then
that's
your
choice
and
I
don't
want
to
try
to
enforce
on
anyone
else
any
particular.
C
This
is
mainly
because
I
don't
want
editors
to
be
taking
philosophical
positions
on
things
at
all
possible.
So
that's
the
one
thing
I'm
fairly
against
that
one.
The
licensing
one
is
more
separate,
more
complicated.
We
do
need
to
resolve
that
because
right
now
we
don't
have
consistency
and
we
should
decide.
You
know
what
licenses
are
people
allowed
to
include
as
part
of
their
eip?
H
H
Like
cc0,
isn't
even
an
osi
approved
license
so
yeah
it's
because
osi
is
dumb.
They
have
a
pretty
good
reason
for
it.
I
think
it
explicitly
does
not
grant
patents
where
you
know
the
unlicensed
or
some
of
the
other
cc0s
licenses
do
yeah.
C
We
don't
know
it
means
that
you
can
get
pen,
the
fear
is
patent
trolls.
So
someone
comes
in
licensed
something
with
cc0,
but
it
includes
a
patent
infringing
code
and
then
someone
else
will
then
use
that
code
because
it
stacy
zero
license
and
then
the
patent
troll
will
come,
show
up
and
sue
the
person
for
using
their
patented
stuff.
It's
the
most
ridiculous
thing
ever
and
the
fact
that
this
is
an
issue
in
the
world
makes
me
want
to
fast
forward
my
plans
to
murder
all
of
humanity.
I
Can
we
can
we
have
like
cc?
People
have
like
in
in
wikipedia
the
content
licenses
cc
by
shop
and
you
can
license
it
with
other
license,
so
you
people
can
cite
your
content
with
either
one
can
we
make
cc,
buy
as
one
required
license
and
and
then,
if
they
want
to
license
it
in
any
other
ways,
they
can
declare
that
we
also
license
it
under
other
forms.
So
if
you
know
you,
if
you
worry
about
patents,
we
happen
to
also
license
it
with
this.
This
license,
so
you
can
use
it
how's
that.
C
I
would
be
okay
with
that.
I
don't
think
that
addresses
the
problem.
That
people
have,
I
think
the
problem
people
have
is
they
want
to
include
in
their
assets
directory
code
that
is
already
code
that
someone
else
wrote
that
they
are
copying
as
part
of
their
eip.
Usually
it's
open
zeppelin
so
opens
up.
C
I
think
license
everything
they
do
is
mit,
and
so
they
want
to
copy
that
mit
code
drop
it
in
the
assets
directory
and
then
use
it
in
their
reference
implementation,
but
they
can't
re-license
that
as
cc0,
because
they
don't
have
the
rights
to
do
so.
I
C
People
can
definitely
lie,
and
we
just
assume
that
everybody's
telling
the
truth
in
this
case,
because
that
gives
us
legal
protection,
I
think,
is
the
general
idea
like
if,
if
someone
steals
someone
else's
code,
what's
in
the
github
repository,
then
a
patent
troll
comes
around
generally
the
person
who
put
it
there
is
the
person
who's
in
trouble
and
if
as
long
as
they
like,
if
they
claimed
that
this
is
non-patented,
but
it
was
that's
not
true,
then
they're,
the
ones
that
are
in
trouble
and
so
the
ultimately
like
we
just
need
them
from
a
legal
standpoint.
C
I
C
Yeah
and
that's
why
I
prefer
cc0
only
like
I
want
everything
like
I
want
to
say:
someone
goes
and
reads
an
eip,
and
that
includes
all
aspects
of
the
aap,
including
the
specification
section
and
the
assets
etc.
I
want
them
to
be
comfortable
that
they
can
use
that.
However,
they
want
like
they
don't
need
to
worry
the
fact
that
cc0
doesn't
give
patent
protection.
D
C
I
mean
so
I
spoke
with
lawyers
in
this
and
they
also
only
have
service
level
knowledge
of
this
stuff.
I
wouldn't
give
them
too
much
credit.
A
big
part
of
the
problem
is,
is
most
of
these
theoretical
cases
have
never
actually
been
tried
in
court,
and
so
everybody
is
guessing,
including
the
lawyers
and
the
lawyers.
C
I
guess
you
know
with
you
know,
presumably
history
and
background
and
knowledge
of
precedent
and
court
cases
and
how
courts
have
decided
in
the
past,
but
like
there's,
no
actual
strong
president
that
says
most
of
this
stuff,
the
patent
stuff,
I
think,
actually
has
been
tried
in
court,
and
so
that
is
concerning.
I
don't
know
if
anyone's
actually
patent
trolled
cc0
before,
but
people
have
patent
trolled
before
like.
That
is
a
thing
that
people
have
done.
J
J
I
don't
see
the
link
out
to
something
as
anything
like
the
same
force
as
actual
inclusion,
and
but
it
would
be
good
if
that
if
the
foundation
wanted
to
hire
a
lawyer
and
if
anything
ever
happened,
then
you
just
point
and
say
you
know
this.
This
lawyer
said
it
was
okay.
We
tried
to
do
the
right
thing
and
that
helps
otherwise.
A
So
if
I
have
to
maybe
put
it
for
the
not
writers,
do
we
have
any
consensus
on
this
or
we
are
still
continuing
discussion.
Okay,
then,
probably
I
will
add
it
to
the
next
meeting
and
try
to
see
what
more
for
and
against
points
do.
We
have
to
consider
yeah.
C
Think
there's
one
thing:
we
can
do:
let's
split
that
issue
or
suggest
to
tim
to
split
that
issue
into
two.
So
one
is
the
licensing
issue,
and
that
is
the
entire
discussion
separately
is:
should
we
lent
people's
code,
and
I
think
those
two
can
be
handled
in
isolation
for
each
other
and
they
may
have
very
different
resolutions.
A
Is
it
something
that
is
recommended
to
be
done
on
ef
devops
channel,
or
do
you
want
it
to
be
there
on
either
side.
C
He
has
so
right
now
he
has
on
ethereum
cat
herders
eipip.
He
has
an
issue.
Number
157
is
linked
from
the
agenda.
Apparently.
G
C
A
A
Okay,
fine,
definitely
I'm
gonna
add
this
as
what
we
have
taken
out
from
this
meeting
and
if
we
have
two
separate
issues
we
can
continue
discussing
on
that.
A
Well,
we
are
past
six
minutes
from
the
meeting
and
there
were
many
other
points
that
we
wanted
to
discuss.
I
hope
to
bring
them
up
in
the
next
meeting.
Thank
you
all
for
joining
us
today
and
yeah.
I
hope
to
see
you
in
two
weeks,
but
if
there
are
something
that
we
need
to
be
addressing
it
on
higher
priority,
we
can
probably
bring
into
eip
cat
hurdles,
so
eib
editors
channel
and
we
can
see
if
we
come
to
a
faster
solution
over
there.