►
From YouTube: EIPIP Meeting #2
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
C
C
C
D
D
D
B
B
C
A
B
B
B
A
C
B
B
B
Just
and
just
to
clarify
for
me
and
then
what
he's
listening
afterwards-
and
this
is
a
very
much
a
meeting
of
coming
together
about
ideas
and
and
proposing
things,
this
isn't
proposals
or
official
ones.
All
of
those
will
go
through
its
own
kind
of
a
IPP
IP
and
we
just
want
to
accelerate
discussion
around
them.
So
we
can
have
a
little
bit
more
momentum
to
implement.
B
B
So
going
into
EIP
one,
there
is
kind
of
a
lot
going
on
and
then
just
thinking
in
in
general.
What
is
my
experience
over
the
last?
While
is
the
important
information
in
AIP
repository
is
sort
of
all
over
the
place.
So
if
I
want
to
find,
if
I
want
to
look
at
the
hard
fork,
I
have
to
go
into
here
and
stew,
the
hard
fork
many
IP,
and
then
that
tells
me
information
about
it.
B
C
B
C
B
C
Yeah
one
of
the
ones
I
have
is
ready
to
push
to
abandoned
and
so
I
just
wondering
we're
curious
about
that.
B
Yes,
so
that
that
one
of
the
reasons
I
think
that's
not,
there
is
because
part
of
what
part
of
what
happens
with
any
IP
is
we
have.
We
should
Mart
also
mark
that
as
something
to
put
in
and
I
think
I
have
a
way
to
integrate
that
or
a
way
to
make
it.
So
more
of
us
can
keep,
can
update
that
information
in
a
timely,
more
organized
manner,
because
the
reason
why
stuff
like
that
falls
out
is
because
the
only
people
that
can
edit
this
text
is
the
IP
editors
and
then
these
authors.
B
At
the
same
time,
all
that
information
is
really
important
for
people
who
are
approaching
the
EIP
and
the
repository.
So
they
can
understand,
what's
going
on
at
a
quick
glance,
so
that
currently
there
isn't
a
good
way
to
handle
information
like
that.
I
would
say
it's
it's
kind
of
like
meta
information
about
the
EIP
itself
and
there
isn't
an
easy
way
to
update
it
without
relying
on
the
authors
who
aren't
doing
it,
you
so
that's
kind
of
what
we'll
get
back
to
that
as
if
there's
any
other
comments
or
questions
what
people
are
going
through.
B
A
B
B
Nice
lucky
that
came
that's
so
fast
so
in
in
the
EIP
text
for
the
eligibility
conclusion
when
I
went
to
provide
it
out.
I
just
wrote
this
list
here.
Yeah
is
like
a
registry
of
the
eligible
II
I
piece,
and
people
who
are
authors
are
able
to
edit
that
when
I
was
writing,
it
I
realized.
No
one
has
any
clue
what
any
of
that
means
or
what
the
whole
process
is.
B
A
B
A
I
agree
with
that
I
think
I
still
think
we
should
probably
merge
this
sooner
than
later,
because
right
now
we
don't
have
like
a
hard
for
command
list
to
point
people
to
you
and
that's
been
like
a
problem
like
I.
Don't
know,
I
talked
with,
like
the
EEA,
for
example,
and
they're
like
oh,
what
eats
are
being
considered
and
I
basically
send
them
to
your
PR,
so
I
think
I
agree.
It's
not
perfect.
A
Yeah
I,
guess
yeah
I
think
if
we
merge
this
because
everything
GI
q1
is
probably
like.
Okay
take
weeks,
if
not
months,
that's
been
my
experience
trying
to
get
like
small
pr's
in
it.
So
if
it's
like
a
significant
refactor
I,
don't
think
like
it's
gonna
be
done
in
a
matter
of
days
or
weeks.
So
it's
probably
good
to
just
have
this
list
that
we
keep
in
the
meantime,
yeah.
B
I
agree
and
I
think
the
reason
I
saw
I
saw
your
Nolan
law
Oracle
all
Chordettes,
about
this
discussion,
URL
being
the
the
barrier.
So,
yes,
we
should
dis
include
included
as
far
as
like
administration
stuff.
We
should
do
this
soon
talking
about
how
do
we
improve
the
process
process
of
the
process?
It's?
How
do
we
get
this
information
into
everyone?
A
B
B
This
con,
like
a
another
list,
so
something
extending
this
is
by
going
back
to
Louisa.
We
don't
have
a
good
way
of
seeing
some
of
this
import
met
information
and
we
don't
have
a
good
way
of
editing
it
as
a
community
or
a
good
process,
for
it
is
to
have
like
another
registry
IP,
which
is
just
people
who
can
edit
a
certain
part
like
call
I
call
them
I'm,
thinking
of
them
as
a
IP
maintainer,
and
their
goal
was
just
to
maintain
the
repository
and
keep
information
up
to
date.
B
Was
probably
a
lot
of
words
so
I'll
get
into
like
a
more
kind
of
concrete
example
of
what
I
mean
so
going
back
to
Istanbul
I
made
this
Google
document
that
tracked,
like
the
more
fine-grained
process
that
the
EIP
was
going
through
as
a
way
just
to
figure
out
where
we
were
on
each
one,
so
we
could
know
which
ones
we
need
to
work
on,
because
there
was
something
like
35
that
was
that
was
that
applied,
and
then
how
do
we
go
from
35
to
the
fork
was
just
a
big
mystery.
Did.
B
B
That
table.
That's!
Okay,
if
you
don't
accept,
if
you
don't
really
I,
didn't
it's
just
stuff,
that
would
be
nice
to
track
specifically
about
any
IP
that
an
author
doesn't
need
to
because
I
wasn't
the
author
of
these
any
of
these
e
IP
ease,
so
oh
I
guess
I'll
just
make
it
bigger
yeah!
Well,
let's
do
this,
so
is
there
a
PR?
Was
it
formatted
correctly
has
been
reviewed
and
merged?
B
Is
there
a
reference
client
testing
plan
reviewed
on
the
El
Cortez
called
last
call
like
all
of
those
things
an
author
doesn't
need
to
do
and
an
e
IP
editor
doesn't
need
to
track
either,
but
it's
good
to
track
and
it
could
show
the
progress
of
the
IP
itself.
So
how
do
we
make
it?
So
this
kind
of
information
can
be
tracked,
and
my
solution
to
that
is
to
have
a
list
like
a
group
of
people
like
us
and
I
assume.
B
B
If
I
go
to
DMV
to
get
my
driver's
license,
I
have
this
form
then
I
fill
out.
That
has
all
this
information
and
if
you
think,
of
an
EIP
kind
of
like
this
form
and
having
questions
that
need
to
be
answered,
and
then
the
specification
is
like
that.
That's
all
done
by
the
authors,
but
there's
also
this
part
of
the
form
that
is
the
office
use
only
and
they
are
the
author.
Doesn't
edit
this
the
people
at
the
counter
or
whatever,
when
they're
doing
stuff
does
so.
B
B
Would
be
handled
by
the
EIP
bot
so
currently,
if
I
make
a
if
I'm
an
author
on
the
IP
and
I
make
a
PR
to
the
to
the
yeah
repository
the
the
EIP
Auto
merge
bot
checks
that
I'm
only
editing
stuff
within
that
I'm,
an
author
too,
and
if
it's
true
they'll
just
merge
it,
it
doesn't
need
any
permission
from
an
editor.
It
doesn't
need
anything
else
because
I'm
an
author
I'm
enlisted
as
an
author
on
that
page,
then
I
can
edit
that
EIP
it
gets
Auto
murder.
B
So
you
could
do
a
similar
check,
we're
in
the
bottom
footer
any.
If
someone
submits
a
PR
that
edits
the
tracking
footer
a
check.
Are
you
a
user
in
this
registry
of
yep
EW,
maintainer
Zoar,
whatever
we
want
think
about
calling
them,
and
if
it's
true,
then
it
can
just
accept
it,
and
no
one
else
needs
to
make
any
other
things.
That.
F
B
You
wouldn't
be
able
to
edit
any
other
parts
of
the
EIP.
That's
super
cool,
so
you
have
this.
You
have
this
little
part
of
the
form
here
and
as
long
as
you're
living
in
that
form,
we
could
make
it
whatever
we
want.
It
could
be
pretty
I
want
to
be
able
to
make
it
kind
of
a
updatable
not
like
get
us
into
a
certain
format,
but
just
have
it
a
and
my
thing,
the
first
thing
I
would
think
would
be
nice.
It's
like
an
EFI
tracker
or
last
call
we
can
that
stuff.
B
C
Yeah
sometimes
because
I've
made
a
change
to
EIP
3
in
my
own
Fork
repository
and
I
wanted
to
show
you
the
direction
I
was
pushed
pushing,
but
but
yeah
would
now
be
a
good
time
to
look
at
something
like
that
cuz.
This
is
exactly
the
kind
of
stuff
I
need
to
know.
Cuz
the
author
I
contacted
the
author.
When
I
had
his
name
sit
here,
but
anyway
I
contact
him.
He
says
yeah
that,
let's
close
that
one
down
he
was,
and
he
was
happy
that
I
was
willing
to
help
with
that.
C
So
and
and
so
I
have
a
pull
request
ready
to
submit,
but
I
wanted
to
show
you
guys
and
make
sure
I'm
doing
the
right
pull
request
are
doing
the
right
process
or
whatever.
B
Because
the
the
problem
you're
running
into
is
kind
of
part
of
one
of
the
things
I
want
to
help
solve
right
and
again,
this
is
all
just.
This
is
all
ideas
for
us
to
this,
isn't
a
hey!
Let's
do
this!
It's
a
I
want
us
to
think
and
talk
about
it
and
discuss
right
to
decide.
So
you
updating
the
status
you're,
not
able
to
actually
do
that,
because
you
have
to
do
the
PR
and
then
get
someone
to
approve
the
change
which,
in
the
case,
that
a
change
is.
C
B
B
B
B
C
C
B
C
Of
course,
I'm
just
practicing
on
my
own
fork
until
I
can
get
it
and
see.
I
added
that
you
can
see
I
changed
the
the
status
is
to
abandon
that's
one
change
in
made
and
then
I
added
that
abandoned
statement.
Since
it
isn't
Martin.
That's
it's
gonna.
Do
this
pull
request,
but
but
anyway,
I
was
just
thinking
along
lines,
but
make
that
set.
I'm,
probably
sure
I
need
to
do
it's
different
than
that,
but
so.
B
B
Like
it
would
be
perfect
to
have
something
like
this,
where
we
could
say:
oh
yeah,
this
is
the
substantiation
for
something
that
happened
and
just
put
it
in
the
put
it
in
the
the
footer
for
right.
Even
managing
it
that'd
be
perfect,
it
wouldn't
fit
in
the
abstract,
but
it
should
go
somewhere.
That's
it's
good
to.
E
B
F
Sort
of
like
a
moving
forward
thing
so
I'll
just
sort
of
throw
it
out
and
I'll
see
if
this
is
constructive
for
conversation
or
if
you'd
rather
move
on
to
what
you
were
saying.
There
was
some
talk
before
about
the
difficulties
of
making
changes
to
IP
one
itself.
I
was
wondering
if
it's
useful,
to
make
a
distinction
between
historically
IPS
and
future.
He
IPS
as
in.
If
you
were
going
to
change
the
IP
template
I
guess
for
the
future
as
an
only
free
ip's
after
whatever
would
that
make
it
easier?
B
The
intersection
of
where
it
so
on
one
hand,
it
doesn't
really
matter
at
all,
because
the
github
file
is
a
github
file
is
a
github
file
and
it
could
be
whatever
it
wants.
So
you
could,
you
could
reorder
and
do
everything
completely
different
where
there
are
some
limiting
factors
is
the
bot
they
the
Jekyll
program
or
whatever
that
creates.
The
website
is
looking
for
certain
things
and
expects
a
certain
format,
and
if
it
doesn't
get
that
it
breaks,
yeah.
C
B
F
F
A
I
think,
for
that
part,
it's
kind
of
hard
by
design
like
I
think
it
should
be
hard
and
especially
going
forward,
because
what
you're
saying,
if
you're
changing
you
know
the
way
it
works
for
future,
eats
you're
kind
of
changing.
What's
like
the
rough
consensus
on
the
theory
I'm
about,
you
know
how
we
actually
make
changes,
which
is
a
pretty
big
deal.
A
So
I
think
you
know
it's,
okay,
that
this
is
like,
not
the
quickest
process,
because
the
last
thing
you
want
is
for
this
to
change,
and
then
people
to
feel
like
you
know
they
didn't
have
a
say
in
it,
and
the
things
are
happening
behind
closed
doors.
So
I
think
we
should
really
try
and
make
everything
explicit
and
give
like
time
for
people
to
comment
and
give
feedback
yeah.
So
I
don't
think.
That's
like
particularly
a
bad
thing.
One
thing
I've
been
thinking
about
this.
A
You
know
it
seems
like
the
process
for
quarry
IPs
and
other
AI
pieces
is
like
very
different
and
how
we
make
that
more
explicit,
like
we
already
have
kind
of
the
efi.
You
know
process
and
we
probably
don't
want
the
efi
process
for
non-core
a
IPS
and
and
if
that's
the
case,
it's
like,
we
probably
need
just
a
better
or
a
clearer
separation
between
quarry,
IPS
and
non-core,
where
we
probably
leave
the
process
for
non
quarry.
Ips
unchanged.
A
B
Yes
and
going
something
else,
I
remember
you
saying
earlier:
Tim
was
like
the
the
EIP
process
as
far
as
the
chords
and
coming
to
decisions
and
then
making
them
actually
works
pretty
well.
What
is
lacking
is
the
EIP
repository
it
lacks
significantly,
so
it
doesn't
follow
very
well
the
decisions
that
are
made
and
when
they're
made
or
what
the
consensus.
B
A
The
yes,
okay
yeah,
that
I
agree,
yeah
and
and
and
I
like
your
idea
around
like
yeah.
This
sort
of
office
use
only
part
like
that:
I
100%,
support,
I,
think
and
so
I
think
yeah.
Those
are
like
two
different
danger:
I
think
the
process
tracking
we
we
probably
should
try
to
get
done
as
quickly
as
possible,
because
it's
not
really
doing
much
except
just
providing
more
visibility.
A
E
E
E
That
was
the
first
example
and
I
have
another
example,
but
I
don't
find
it
out
and
I'm
just
wanted
to
say
this
way.
There
is
a
sort
of
VI
people
are
also
outside
of
the
court
of
course
here
for
various
reason,
because
it
involved
like
advanced
math,
where
you
involve
skill
set
that
mind
recording,
may
not
have,
and
those
one
should
have
a
processor
that
needs
to
be
a
better
discuss
and
and
and
and
and
define
in,
if,
if
I
mean
I
figure,
I
will
maybe
discuss
it
in
more
specific
cases
with
visually.
B
That
would
be
good
examples
of
stuff
that
would
be
great
to
fit
into
a
section
in
the
IP
wand.
Everything
we
could
have
linked
in
the
table
of
contents,
but
some
some
help.
I
would
really
look
forward
to
your
help
on
that
and
clarifying
some
of
those
fully
and
then
getting
some
language
that
that
the
court
has
to
agree
with,
because
I
can
say
on
the
other
side
of
the
blade
to
be
having
helped
get
that
through
and.
E
I'm
not
blaming
and
then
blaming
the
blade
to
be
he
worked.
I
mean
the
probably
break
to
be
that
I
feel
if
he
was
have
been
bitter
dislike.
Only
one
of
the
I
think
he's
it's
out
of
the
scope
of
today,
but
I
have
like
a
discussion
for
the
what
people,
what
the
the
champion
of
the
IP
should
be
doing
for
the
time
out
of
scope,
but
in
the
pace
of
like
to
be
yes
I,
wonder
I
think
there
was
something
wrong
here
in
the
sorry
Jeff
well.
A
I
think
yeah.
One
thing
I
just
want
to
add
to
your
currently
with
I.
How
do
you
%
agree
with
like
eeap's
that
are
very
technical
and
and
and
the
problem
with
the
process
right
now?
Is
they
get
treated
very
differently?
So,
like
take
specific
examples,
you
look
at
like
eat
1962,
which
is
being
proposed
now.
You
know,
there's
a
lot
of
concern
by
developers.
It's
like
you
know.
A
We
might
not
be
able
to
evaluate
it
properly
because
it's
kind
of
advanced
crypto
and
it
seems
like
there's
I,
would
say,
there's
like
general
consensus,
but
there's
like
some
consensus
around
okay.
If
you
have
two
different
implementations
and
they
kind
of
give
out
the
same
things,
that's
probably
good
enough
and
not
it
would
be
nice.
It's
not
here.
A
We're
gonna
get
it,
whereas
if
you
look
at
Prague
pal
right
because
it
had
this
added
element
of
like
you
know
political
contentiousness,
it's
like
you
won't
even
get
discussed
unless
there's
an
audit,
even
though
you
know
it
had
a
working
test
net
and
whatnot,
and
it
felt
like
it
kind
of
had
a
higher
technical
burden
because
of
its
like
political
implications
and
and
and
a
lot
of
people
on
the
corners
call.
You
know
felt
like
the
auditor
is
just
kind
of
a
distraction
to
push
the
can
down
the
road
and
so
yeah
III
agree.
A
There's
probably
a
lot
of
value
in
trying
to
get.
You
know
what
yeah.
What's
like
the
the
rigor
we
demand
for
each
and
and-
and
you
know
like
recently
also
when
Rich
Dudley
came
on
the
call,
he
wasn't
sure
for
1559
right
like
what
is
the
sort
of
rigor
that
we
should
demand
for
a
change
like
that
which
is
not
maybe
as
technical
but
has
like
wide-ranging
economic
implications
and
I.
A
E
A
And
we
need,
but
we
need
to
find,
what's
like
the
right
level
of
you
know
like
do
we
so,
to
put
it
bluntly
right,
do
we
expect
any
sort
of
major
eat
like
that
to
pull
in?
You
know
ten
to
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
for
an
audit
right,
whether
it's
a
technical
audit
and
economic
on
it?
And
if
so,
you
know,
we
should
make
that
clear
and-
and
you
know
the
downside
is
it
obviously
discouraged?
Is
anybody
who
can't
afford
or
can't
raise
those
funds
to
propose
like
such.
E
An
EP
there
is
something
rated
I
think
there
is
other
ways
to
to
make
it.
It
also,
in
my
opinion,
depend
on
the
on
the
sophistication
and
the
and
they,
on
the
other
eye
in
persistence,
one
that
can
be
implemented
by
the
client
like
when,
when
Eva
can
be
defined
and
or
made
by
the
client,
like
beg
to
be
probably
doesn't
require,
or
not
it's
that
long,
because
it's
if
it's
broken,
then
it's
I
mean
the
client
knows
what
to
do
it's.
There
is
their
job.
E
You
seen
some
extent
and
I
said
job
I
mean
like
it's
Airy.
They
know
how
to
react
to
that
for
IP,
like
Prague
pal,
for
you
free
right
there
if
something's
wrong,
for
whatever
reason
it
happens
to
be
there,
either
an
attack
vector
somewhere
and
and
independently
of
the
particular
aspect.
Then
what
should
they
do?
E
And
that
is
the
sort
of
a
process
we
need
to
put
in
place
to
to
to
allow
for
either
to
act
like
to
stay,
to
have
a
clear
path
to
acceptation
and
also
a
fast
path
to
to
withdraw,
because
I
think
that
is
I
most
likely.
The
biggest
burden
for
me
for
many
VIP
browser
I
think
the
fast
no
is
better
than
languish.
Yes,
so
maybe
yeah.
B
Also
agree:
if
there
was
some
sort
of
expectations,
I
mean
it's
a
it's
a
healthy
relationship
with
people
like
if
there
is
expectations
at
the
time
things
go
way
better
versus
doing
stuff
and
then
figuring
out.
Oh
I
was
wrong
about
that
when
the
entire
time
both
people
wanted
to
do
what
was
right,
they
were
just
doing
what
they
knew.
B
B
E
B
B
Yeah,
so
as
far
as
stuff
that
I
was
gonna
present
today,
it's
really
kind
of
those
three
things:
reorganizing
yeah,
yeah
I,
wanted
to
being
the
canonical
place
for
everything,
informational,
pushing
all
of
the
permission,
things
that
need
to
be
edited
on
two
different
registry
IPS,
another
one
that
would
be
nice
would
be
doing
a
registry
for
e
IP
numbers.
So
we
have
analogical
numbering
system.
B
I,
think
that
kind
of
system
is
pretty
extensive,
extendable
and
also
approachable
for
people
doing
the
system
adding
adding
in
like
starting
this
idea
of
what
is
it
that
a
IPA
editors
don't
need
to
do
that?
A
group
of
us
could
do
and
manage
which
is
kind
of
around
this
idea
of
any
IP
process,
tracking
flavor,
which
is
like
the
Foreign
Office
use,
only
par
and
and
if
that's
the
right
way
to
go
or
if
that's
kind
of
something
we
agree
on.
How
do
we
put?
B
B
A
Think
so
I
agree.
Yet
this
all
looks
good.
One
thing,
maybe
like
a
fourth
idea,
but
that
we
should
start
discussing
is
how
do
we
add
more
AIP
editors
and
I
know?
This
has
been
like
brought
up
again
and
kind
of
dropped
a
bunch
of
times,
but
it
feels
like
something
where
you
know
we
have
this
huge
backlogs
of
VIPs
and
it
you
know,
and
it's
you
know
the
people
we
have
are
kind
of
overworked
to
do
that.
A
At
the
same
time,
there's
a
pretty
high
bar
that
you
need
for
to
give
access
to
those
people.
So
it's
not
an
easy
question
either,
but
like
yeah,
what's
like
a
process,
we
can
have
to
add
a
IP
editors
that
you
know,
but
that
makes
sure
that
the
people
who
end
up
being
there
don't
like
abuse
that
privilege
how.
A
A
If
you're
in
community
members,
which
should
be
fair,
I,
don't
think
it's
a
bad
criteria
right,
like
I,
think
you
know
it's
probably
something
you
only
want
to
have
people
who've
been
part
of
it
community
for
a
long
time,
but
we
have
it
like
added
like
a
second
or
a
third
wave
of
editors.
A
And
yeah,
looking
at
that
list
right
like
people
like
vitalik,
obviously
don't
have
time
to
to
do
this
right.
It's
you
know
not
saying
he
should
be
removed
per
se,
but,
like
he
just
doesn't
contribute
as
an
editor,
which
makes
sense,
and
so
it's
like
yeah.
How
can
we
not
a
growth
list?
None
of
those
people.
A
It
seems
to
have
the
time
to
do
it,
to
be
honest,
yeah,
exactly
right
and
to
be
fair,
some
of
them
do
and
and
it's
great
that
they
do
but
like
yeah,
we
should
find
a
way
to
help
them
and
at
the
same
time
we
should
still
keep
you
know
a
very,
very
high
bar
for
people
to
be
added
to
that
list
and
how
you
make
that
explicit.
This
is
hard.
C
C
Idea
for
how
to
do
that
kind
of
stuff
at
Canon,
ours
are
we
algorithm.
We
have
what's
called
a
peer
ranking
expert
system
where
peers
can
rank
each
other,
and
so
that
gives
you
a
quantitative
measure
of
their
rank
in
the
community
and
that
could
possibly
we
could
set
something
like
that
up
where
everyone
could
vote
people
and
then
the
peers
rank
each
other.
And
then
you
get
a
quantitative
score,
and
if
you
meet
a
certain
bar,
then
you
can
become
an
editor
just
an
idea.
I.
E
E
Of
those
are
sort
of
a
mechanism,
because
ranking
people
for
section
for
not
technical
from
thing
that
are
sort
of
abstract,
is
like
something
I'm
not
very
comfortable
with,
but
I
wonder
if
the
EF
would
have
like
some
sort
of
like
some
funding
to
pay.
For,
like
this
more
tests
like
having
I'm
sure
we
could
find
people
if
they
were
meaning
they
were
paid
for,
like
even
not
a
lot
of
money,
but
just
something
to
contribute
for
their
their
effort
and
I.
Think
we'd.
A
Probably
find
that
other
people
unpaid,
if
we
had
a
clear
list
of
criteria
of
what,
what
they
want
right,
I'm
a
bit
cautious
of
adding
like
a
tool
or
like
a
dependency
in
this
process,
I
feel
like
it
has
to
be.
Had
a
half.
You
know
explicit
criteria,
half
rough
consensus,
probably
from
the
current
VIP
editors.
B
B
Finding
people
that
then
really
are
active,
I
kind
of
say
it
another
way.
What
we
don't
want
to
have
happen
is
create
a
system
that
finds
the
best
dpip
editor,
but
then
never
shows
up
by
being
qualified
and
technically
wanting
to
do
it
and
also
doing
it
are
three
sides
of
a
Venn
diagram
that
all
yeah.
A
How
do
you
so
puja
I
know,
like
you
mentioned,
like
an
X
I
in
the
comment
which
probably
is
technically
qualified
enough
and
whatnot,
but
then
it's
like.
Is
it
the
best
use
of
that
person's
time?
Right
like
what's
the
Venn
diagram
of
like
the
person,
could
be
writing
code
to
contribute
the
etherium
or
approving
eeap's
and
other
people
who
are
just
like
technical,
technical
enough
to
do
the
each
part?
And
it's
maybe
not
like
that
big
of
an
opportunity
cost
for
them
to
actually
be
doing
this
work
guys.
E
B
A
B
B
So
I
think
there's
kind
of
parallel
things
that
can
happen
if
we
can
take
some
of
the
stuff
and
put
it
into
this
things
that
that
maintainer
x'
can
do
or
like
the
office
use
only
form
things
that
need
to
be
tracked.
There
can
be
done
by
them,
so
we're
offloading
what
we
can
from
the
IP
editors
to
find
what
the
IP
editors
do
then
define
by
what
the
bar
is
for
any
IP
editor.
B
This
is
sounding
like
another
group
is
forming
more
like
a
group
idea
around
defining
this,
then,
through
a
system,
more
people
participating
in
lists
in
like
the
prostrating,
Peter,
footer
or
being
a
maintainer,
you
can
see
someone's
being
active.
Then
it's
pretty
easy
to
see.
Oh
yeah,
this
person,
if
he
was
an
editor
great.
B
A
Yeah
III
think
that's
probably
just
doing
a
better
job.
You
know
like
the
CIP
editor
responsibility
is
kind
of
buried
within
the
IP
one.
So
it's
like.
How
do
we
find
it
like
me,
and
the
cat
herders
can
probably
help
with
this
and
I
know,
I,
think,
William
and
Brent
if
I
recall
correctly
had
done
a
bit
of
this
was
like
yeah.
How
do
we
just
make
it
clear
what
people
should
be
doing
and
and
can
do
and
just
yeah
market
that
only.
A
B
Like
so
maybe
we
can
reach
out
to
frequent
EIP
submitters
like
Alexi
to
check
they
would
be
interested
Alexi
to
me
would
be
one
of
those
individuals
that
needs
to
not
be
an
EIP
editor.
It
could
be,
but
as
far
as
time
goes-
and
this
is
just
such
a
hard
thing,
because
the
bar
high
means
you're
a
high
contributing
member
there's.
F
F
Of
like
people
are
randomly
picked
to
be
jurors
in
court
cases
in
America,
so
there's
an
old
famous
line
that
anybody's
smart
enough
to
serve
jury
duty
is
smart
enough
to
get
out
of
a
I
mean
I
sort
of
feel
like
this
is
a
similar
kind
of
paradox.
Anyone
good
enough
to
be
any
IP
editor
is
necessarily
going
to
have
demands
on
their
time.
It's
just
trying
to
figure
out
exactly
where
to
find
a
good
equilibrium
in
that
chaos.
C
F
F
F
B
Someone
to
program
the
bot
I,
misunderstood,
I
thought
you
said
you
had
someone.
Oh
there
is
someone
that
Hudson
and
but
I
don't
know
who
he
don't
remember,
who
he
is
and
I
don't
know
what
level
he's
involved
but
I.
Remember
him
saying
there
was
a
web
developer
that
was
interested
in
participating
so
that
person
could
do
it
it's
figuring
out.
Is
it
possible,
through
the
system
that
I
described
technically
and
then,
if
it's
possible
kind
of
get
it
done
at
the
same
time
make
sure
everyone's
ok
with
it?
F
Okay,
so
I
mean
I,
so
basically
what
we
need
to
do
now
or
I've
get
I
get.
It
sounds
like
this
is
mainly
things
that
you
yourself
are
doing.
James
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
we
need
to
find
someone
who's,
good
bike
who
can
handle
the
the
code
for
the
bot
to
see
if
this
is
even
realistic
and
you
want
to
simultaneously
try
and
propose
to
the
core
devs,
the
various
like
change
ideas
going
on
now,
yeah.