►
From YouTube: EIPIP Meeting 80
Description
Agenda: https://github.com/ethereum-cat-herders/EIPIP/issues/229
A
B
A
B
A
D
I'm
not
sure
I'm
I'm
totally
on
board
with
the
exact
wording.
That's
there
right
now,
but
we'll
we'll
hammer
it
out
in
the
pr.
D
C
D
A
In
my
mind,
having
girl
like
uniform
rule
would
be
ideal
instead
of
having
it
opt
in,
because
opt-in
will
require
some
Editor
to
obviously
chime
in
and
provide
an
EAP
number,
and
it
can
be
confusing
for
new
Authors,
so
yeah.
Either
we
go
by
editors,
providing
numbers
or
maybe
activate
the
part
for
it.
A
D
D
Yeah
I
think
that's
supposed
to
allow
using
the
title
as
the
EIP
number
for
draft
eips.
D
God
Sam,
oh
in
the
pr
it
says,
Erp
editors
and
accounts
authorized
by
any
any
EIP
editor
can
decide
numbers
which
need
not
be
unsigned,
integers
and
I.
Think
that's
specifically
what
Justin
was
asking
about.
Yeah.
E
A
Well,
I
think
that
is
the
major
item
for
discussion
today.
The
next
one
is
also
about
the
EAP
bot
issuing
number.
So
the
current
status
is
the
part,
is
of
Sam
or
is
it
still
active.
A
Okay,
if
there's
nothing
more
to
add
on
it,
we
can
probably
move
on
to
the
item
number
two,
which
is
discussion
continued
from
the
earlier
meetings.
A
I
have
added
only
one
issue
here
which
was
related
to
EIP
5507.
It
looked
like
the
date
which
is
mentioned
in
the
document
is
not
correctly
reflecting
on
the
website.
Last
date,.
A
So
does
panda
need
to
maybe
take
a
look
at
it
or
it's
some
bug
I'm,
not
sure
of
that.
A
D
Yeah,
that
might
be
a
GitHub
Pages
issue,
I'm,
not
sure.
B
A
It's
called
and
they
are
reflecting
ly.
This
particular
proposal
had
an
issue.
Okay,
I'll
create
an
issue
for
that.
Okay
and
that's
it
on
major
side
of
it.
Since
this
is
third
me
only
we
have
three
eips
added
as
draft
one
is
informational.
Eip,
which
is
Network
upgrade
activation
trigger
added
by
the
number
is
6953.
It
talks
about
all
the
upgrades
and
the
activation
block
and
time
for
those
there
are
two
more
erc's
6808
and
6809.
A
A
Okay,
Victor
yeah.
D
F
Yeah
so
hi
this
is
Victor
and
since
there's
no
more
antenna
item,
I
want
to
ask
if
there's
any
updates
on
Our
intention
to
build
our
groups.
So
the
context
is
set
recently
I'm
trying
to
work
on
a
proposal
that
brings
ERC
authors
and
developers
together
in
a
regular
meeting
and
would
like
to
kind
of
basically
gauge
people's
interests
by
their
possible
work.
Groups
and
I
do
know
that
I
think
the
same.
F
Is
it
you
that,
in
in
the
in
a
big
list
of
the
reviewers
you
actually
three
people
into
work
groups?
Is
that
a
good
way
to
think
of
how
what
groups
are
divided
and
then?
Is
that
a
good
way
to
kind
of
put
people
in
the
bracket
in
the
future?
And
actually
we
have
a
way
of
recognizing
work
groups
in
a
more
consistent
way?
I
can
follow
up.
F
D
D
Don't
think
we
want
to
commit
the
time
for
it,
but
if
that's
something
you're
interested
in
doing
I
think
go
for
it,
and
if
you
want
to
use
that
big
list
of
peer
reviewers
is
like
a
starting
point
like
just
to
message,
people
and
see
if
they're
interested
in
participating,
I
think
that
that'd
be
great
because,
like
the
way
I
was
doing
it
like
assigning
a
peer
reviewer
didn't
work
very
well.
So.
F
Yeah
understood
I
I
think
I
am
going
to
like
learn
that
and
ex.
Maybe
the
approach
is
to
actually
put
people
who
happen
to
be
have
capacity
for
a
particular
peer
review,
reviewing
in
a
certain
time
in
the
room
and
then
have
the
author,
explain
it
to
them
so
that
they
can
have
some
life
explanation
and
back
and
forth
discussion
and
then
it
based.
Hopefully
that
trigger
is
more
interest
in
the
asynchronized
on
Thresh
on
on
Forum
discussion
as
well.
D
Yeah
yeah
and
there
is
the
the
nft
working
group
that
I
think
it's
anit
has
organized.
A
F
And
I'll
just
pop
put
the
proposal
here
so
that
your
editors
could
also
be
informed
of
this.
This
proposal
and
make
suggestions
are
very
well
content.
We
also
look
forward
to
your
participation
if
you're
interested
or
have
capacity,
it
doesn't
have
to
be
a
kind
of
long-term
commitment.
It
can
be
sporadic
and
ad
hoc
whenever
you
have
time.