►
From YouTube: EIPIP Meeting #6
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
B
A
Okay
sounds
good,
and
that
actually
is
the
first
agenda
item.
So
if
you
want
to
take
it
up,
we
don't
I
think
our
agenda
is
pretty
light
today,
yeah.
So
we
can
spend
a
good
amount
of
time
on
this.
If
you
want
to
just
walk
the
walk
us
through
it
and
a
lot
of
it,
we've
already
heard
before,
but
some
of
it
we
haven't
on
the
call
is
some
of
the
proposed
solution
and
the
skepticism
criticism
sections
specifically
so
I'll.
B
B
But
what
this
proposal
essentially,
is
it's
really
an
effort
to
like
make
the
EIP
content
on
the
github,
the
IPS
sub-domain,
just
more
discoverable
and
more
accessible
so
like
what
are
ways
that
we
can
increase
exposure
and
awareness
from
people
inside
and
outside
of
the
theorem
ecosystem
and
just
like
educate
them,
get
them
engaged
with
the
EIP
process.
So
this
proposal
isn't
to
change
anything
about
the
process
itself.
It's
really
just
a
change
to
the
public
website
that
would
display
these
existing
IPs.
B
So
I
attached
this
proposal
or
it's
in
the
agenda.
We
can
walk
through
it
in
its
entirety
if
people
would
like
or
we
could
kind
of
leave
it
to
asynchronous
feedback.
I
encourage
anyone
who
has
input
to
go
ahead
and
comment
in
this
notion
document.
It
should
be
publicly
accessible
to
comment,
but
essentially
at
a
high
level.
What
I
tried
to
lay
out
was
here's
like
the
problem
statement,
which,
hopefully,
like
everyone
agrees
upon
as
like
hey.
B
It
would
be
a
beneficial
thing
to
get
more
exposure
and
increased
discoverability
of
this
great
content
and
these
standards
that
the
community
has
developed
from
the
people
I've
spoken
to
like
within
the
EIP
editing
process
and
who
have
managed
the
repo
in
the
past.
It
does
seem
like
there
just
hasn't,
been
much
capacity
to
focus
on
this
or
like
making
general
improvements
to
the
site,
so
the
opportunity
I
saw
was.
How
can
we?
B
So
what
this
proposal
essentially
puts
out
there
is
like
hey:
one
option
could
be
if
the
main
goal
is
to
improve,
like
the
search
rankings
of
this
EIP
content,
to
actually
migrate.
All
that
content
from
the
existing
sub
domain
to
a
subdirectory
on
a
theorem,
org
and
I
lay
out
some
of
the
reasons
like
why
I
and
some
others
think
that
would
be
beneficial.
B
C
In
the
problem,
section
I
don't
know
if
it's
worth
putting
this
explicitly
or
not.
The
the
site
itself
is
also
very
difficult
to
discovery.
C
Unless
you
have
back
information
about
where
it
would
be
beforehand
and
then
even
then,
you
have
to
scroll
through
the
site
all
the
way
to
the
bottom.
If
it's,
if
it's
in
draft
or
active-
and
you
have
to
know
that
in
advance,
there's
not
a
way
to
navigate
the
IP
is
easily
from
within
the
site
itself.
B
Yeah
just
make
a
note
of
that
yeah,
and
you
know
I
think,
like
with
this
problem
statement
and
proposed
solutions
like
there's,
definitely
alternative
ways
to
try
to
address
this,
which,
as
of
now
yeah
I,
haven't
really
outlined
in
the
proposal
and
I'd
be
happy
to
because
to
me
it's
like
two
main
pieces.
James
you
just
touched
on.
B
Google
does
tend
to
treat
subdomains
as
like
independent
entities
which,
as
we've
discussed
like,
can
be
good
for
certain
things
and
bad
for
others.
In
my
mind,
it's
like
bad
for
SEO
rankings,
where
we
have
this
incredibly
old
and
authoritative,
powerful
domain
at
theorum
org
that
we
could
leverage
to
help
like
give
this
content
a
boost
in
a
sense
of
like
having
those
pages
on
the
site
being
able
to
link
to
those
internally
and
index.
Those
as
part
of
the
main
domain
I
think
could
potentially
like
really
boost
this
content
in
search
results.
B
A
Yeah
I
agree
with
that
heavily
I
think
that
I'm
starting
to
get
really
strong
feelings
that
moving
the
site
and
with
moving
the
site,
improving
the
bot
and
the
website
or
top
priorities,
because,
like
you
just
mentioned
James,
without
doing
that,
we
can't
make
interative
changes
to
EIP
one
or
the
structure
of
the
documents,
because
they
can't
be
updated
on
the
side
and
there's
not
search
functionality
and
a
few
other
things.
So
it's
kind
of
like
yeah.
A
It's
it's
exactly
what
you
said
and
I'm
looking
I
looked
through
the
solution
and
the
skepticism
criticism
and
I
mean,
if
you
look
at
it
really
all
we're
doing
is
moving
the
EIP
before
aetherium
dot,
org
and
moving
it
after
aetherium
org,
with
the
benefit
of
a
lot
of
SEO
and
also
well.
It's
mainly
the
SEO
I'm
focused
on
because
I
think
we
do
need
more
visibility
for
looking
up
be
IPS
on
something
like
etherium
org,
and
it's
not
a
case
of
like
trying
to
separate
the
two
entities
because
we
already
have
it.
A
E
is
a
theorem,
org
and
I.
Think
the
only
people
who
have
these
illusions
of
if
it's
a
blank,
etherium
org
being
completely
separate
or
people
who
are
really
in
the
ecosystem
and
what
what
this
is
for
is
for
people
in
and
outside
of
the
ecosystem.
So
doing
a
theory,
org
/e
IPS
is
not
going
to
make
a
huge
difference.
I,
don't
think
as
far
as
like
making
it
illegitimate.
So
I,
don't
like
that
argument
very
much,
even
if
other
sites
like
seem
to
tend
away
from
that
for
standards
like
very
big
professional
standards
sites.
A
This
is
a
blockchain
standard
site
and
it's
like
bitcoins
bits
or
you
know,
pythons
it's
it's
it's
like
made
after
Bitcoin
standards
and
python
standards
in
which
the
Python
URL
is
Python,
org,
slash,
peps,
I,
think
so
all
that
to
say
I
think
we
should
do
it
and
the
only
other
thing
would
be
yeah
they're
just
going
through
each
criticism.
I
guess
I
can
just
do
that.
Real,
quick
for
my
opinion
on
it
and
then
Sam
just
stopped
me.
If
you
have
a
different
one,
I
think
you've
already
written
down.
Yours
though
yeah
one.
B
Quick
point
I'd
make
Hudson
just
to
James
your
your
comment
on,
like
actual
changes
to
the
EIP
process,
being
blocked
by
the
Korean
tea
I
piece.
A
is
like
once
again
this
specific
proposal,
at
least
like
really
isn't
making
any
changes
to
like
the
process
itself
or
really,
even
to
like
the
structure
of
the
application
itself.
It
would
just
be
like
to
start
mirroring
one
page
to
a
theorem,
org,
so
I
think
what
I'm
trying
to
say
is
like
maybe
those
two
things
could
be
solved
independently
like
if
there
is
something
about
the
current
structure.
B
That's
blocking
changes
to
the
EIP
process
like
we
might
be
able
to
address
that
and
try
to
solve
that
without
this
entire
proposal,
or
maybe
it
will
make
sense
to
change
as
part
of
this
proposal.
It
would
help
me
to
understand
like
what
the
specific
issues
are
about
the
current
site
that
are
blocking
you,
but
just
to
say
that
those
those
changes
may
be
able
to
be
made
in
isolation.
I.
A
Consider
them
more
together
and
the
only
reason
for
that
is
usually
things
aren't.
Usually
you
can
do
things
in
isolation,
it's
good
to
separate,
but
the
bot
actually
talks
to
or
I
should
say.
The
webserver
looks
at
the
e
ip's
repo
and
does
updates
based
on
that,
so
the
bot
is
in
a
way
communicating
with
the
web
server,
even
though
it's
not
bought
to
server
its
server
to
bot.
A
A
A
Does
that
make
sense,
I
assume
it's
better
to
yeah
the
bot
Mike,
the
bot
grades,
not
all
of
them,
but
like
a
set
of
one
or
two
or
three
priorities,
one
of
them
being
documentation
and
then
get
a
few
people
helping
on
it
and
then
move
it
over
after
a
couple
of
those
priorities
are
set
so
that
we
have
something
we
can
work
with
very
fresh
on
the
other
side
when
we
move
it.
So
this
is.
A
B
A
Let's
have
a
separate
call
for
sure
and
take
notes.
We
might
even
stream
it
just
so
that
people
have
an
understanding
of
what
we
changed
before
and
after
it
for
transparency
reasons
and
then
Williams
said,
couldn't
we
just
modify
the
existing
subdomain
I'm,
not
sure
why
we
need
a
new
domain
specifically
if
we
just
put
in
the
work
on
the
existing
AIP
subdomain,
what
wouldn't
work
so
I
think
you
might
have
missed
it.
While
you
were
logged
off
William,
but
it's
the
SEO,
it's
not
returning
as
many
hits
and
I'm,
not
an
SEO
guys.
B
It's
it's
a
good
point
and
worth
reiterating
and
like
what
I
tried
to
outline
at
the
beginning
is
like
what
this
proposal
really
tries
to
dress
is
like
two
separate
things
is
like
one
is
like
potential
UI
and
UX
improvements
on
the
site.
Number
two
is
exposure
of
the
content,
primarily
through
SEO,
so
like
for
a
number
two
to
happen
to
get
the
SEO
benefits
from
my
understanding,
and
you
know,
I've
been
out
of
like
the
hardcore
SEO
game
for
a
couple
years
now,
but
it
was
my
career
for
a
few
different
years
and
I.
B
B
I
think
one
of
the
reasons
I
mentioned
in
my
proposal
as
like
a
reason
or
like
an
additional
benefit
of
migrating,
is
that
on
a
theorem
org,
we
already
have
a
lot
of
like
functionality
in
place
that
we
could
leverage
and
essentially
reuse
such
as
Site
Search,
so
that
we
wouldn't
have
to
re-implement
it
in
a
separate
codebase.
We
would
just
move
the
content
onto
a
theorem
org,
and
then
we
would
just
get
Site
Search
and
like
table
of
content
features
out
of
the
box.
B
A
That's
very
intertwined
both
the
bots
and
the
website
migration.
It's
not
so
intertwined
that
it
couldn't
be
done
separately,
but,
like
I,
said
earlier,
it
it's
a
waste
of
time.
If
it's,
if
it's
done
separately,
yeah
a
william
said,
in
other
words,
subdomains
have
a
harder
time
in
SEO
yeah.
If
it's
blank
aetherium
org,
that's
worse
than
aetherium
org,
slash
blank.
A
D
A
Okay,
so
what
I
want
is
an
action
item
I
want
to
work
directly
with
Sam
and
James,
but
mostly
with
Sam
James,
only
for
the
necessary
explanations
to
Sam
about
how
the
bot,
how
the
bot
updates
stuff
and
the
blockers
we
have,
but
before
the
next
meeting,
I
want
to
get
a
new
notion
document
going,
which
is
a
plan,
a
proposed
plan
for
what
changes
need
to
be
made
and
a
timeline
of
when
to
make
them.
That's
real
rough
that
we
can.
A
You
know,
change
nothing
official,
but,
and
then
also
like
get
some
ideas
early
on
about
funding
and
just
getting
this
done.
Cuz.
If
we
get
this
done
in
the
next
couple
months,
while
we're
making
decisions
and
on
the
backend
of
how
to
change
the
IP
one
and
other
stuff
in
there,
then
we
can
quickly
just
do
all
those
changes.
A
We
can
quickly
do
all
those
changes
later
after
the
merge
and
the
migrations
done,
or
even
you
know
at
the
end,
at
the
same
time,
so
that
we
have
this
huge
package
to
present
the
community
of
here's,
the
updated
here's.
What
the
updated
e
ip's
that
we
are,
the
updated
e
IP
one
plus
the
updated
domain,
plus
the
updated
bot
plus
the
updated
site
by
William
already
left
so
yeah
I
think
something
like
that
would
be
really
valuable
and
maybe
not
all
those
things
at
once.
A
Maybe
it
needs
to
be
more
iterative
that
I'm
talking
about
so
will
need
help,
brainstorming
but
put
me
as
lead
on
that
and
then
I'll
get
help
around
me.
Whoever
wants
to
attend
those
meetings
and
brainstorm
with
me
and
get
it
a
maybe
a
seperate
telegram,
chat
and
yeah.
So
that's
all
I
have
about
this
topic.
Any
last
words
Sam
that
sounded
threatening
anyone
else
have
a
comment.
B
A
Once
we
make
a
so
you
have
the
proposal
to
do
it
once
we
make
the
proposal
for
how
we're
doing
it,
we
can
put
both
proposals
in
an
issue
and
also
elaborate
on
that
issue,
on
Twitter
on
the
etherium
org
account
and
across
some
communities
too,
like
the
all
core,
Deb's
getter
and
just
say
we're
wanting
to
do
this,
or
some
of
us
are
wanting
to
do
this,
and
we've
been
talking
a
few
meetings
about
this
here.
The
notes
here
are
the
two
proposals.
We
want
feedback
or
opposition
if
there
is
any.
C
E
E
The
idea
was
like
if
we
keep
it
up
dating
on
the
EIP
one,
then
next
time
the
process
change
and
we
edit
EAP
one
the
process
for
the
last
upgrade
will
get
lost.
So
I
was
thinking
if
we
can
add
it
into
the
matter.
If
of
that
particular
upgrade,
people
can
always
find,
and
this
thing
will
be
restored
forever.
E
C
E
That
time
I
meant
like,
for
example,
in
Istanbul
Istanbul.
We
did
the
schedule
based
upgrade
so
with
the
process
that
we
follow.
It
can
be.
You
know,
case
study
for
people
coming
up
in
future
and
trying
to
understand
how
we
did
that
thing.
So
my
idea
was
to
save
the
information
about
that.
This
time
we
are
doing
like
we
are,
including
EFI
into
into
the
process
and
doing
an
EIP
centric.
So
I
was
hoping
to
have
this
mentioned,
at
least
in
the
meta,
a
for
bullying,
so
that
people
should
know
that
this
was.
E
E
Was
thinking
about
at
this
point
of
time
we
are
doing
a
lot
of
experiment,
so
there
may
be
a
point
when
we
would
like
to
analyze
all
these
data
and
see
which
one
was
the
most
successful
upgrade
for
us
or
the
process
for
the
upgrade
that
we
should
be
following.
So
if
we
have
this
kind
of
data
available
to
get
analyzed
at
one
point
of
time,
that
would
be
helpful,
but
if
we
keep
on
losing
it,
it'll
be
difficult
to
collect
back.
A
I
think
it's
great
a
great
idea
to
collect
that
data,
that
that
historical
perspective,
so
that
we
can
improve
upon
it
I'm
skeptical
that
should
be
in
the
IP
one
in
any
capacity,
because
what
e
IP
one
is
is
the
purpose
of
the
IP
one
in
my
opinion,
and
how
its
kind
of
been
described
in
the
readme
is.
A
If
you
are
someone
who
wants
to
make
a
change
to
a
theory
'm-
and
you
want
a
succinct
guide
on
how
to
do
that,
what
the
different
types
are,
what
you
have
to
do
to
accomplish
that
and
who
reviews
them?
You
go
to
e
IP
one.
If
we
start
putting
stuff
about
hard
Forks
in
there,
specifically
I
think
that
would
be
make
it
bulkier.
A
It
would
also
detract
from
the
purpose
of
the
IP
one,
which
is
just
for
people
who
are
writing
e
IP
s,
because
if
you're
writing
in
the
IP,
you
don't
care
how
quarry
ip's
are
processed
I,
think
it's
a
good
idea
to
have
it
in
the
meta
EIP
put
potentially,
but
that
also
introduces
some
opinion
and
non
technical
material.
So
those
are
my
two
comments
so
far.
E
Basically,
this
motivation
section
is
available
in
almost
every
IP
only
it
is
missing
in
the
meta
EAP,
so
I
understand.
If
people
have
like
the
reservation
with
the
word
motivation,
because
it
is
actually
not
the
motivation
but
as
the
process
that
we
are
trying
to
document
in
that,
which
is
that,
actually
the
non-technical
part
of
it.
But
for
the
sake
of
history,
we
can
have
it
and
I,
don't
see
any
downside
of
that
having
it
in
there.
E
C
See
one
downside
from
including,
and
as
far
as
having
the
information
available
for
people
who
are
trying
to
study
the
EIP
process
or
improve
it,
it
would
be
a
little
bit
more
digging,
but
there's
plenty
of
blog
posts
and
things
that
are
available
about
around
the
time
of
the
fork.
That
would
have
even
more
meta
information
about
the
decision
process.
F
The
IP
is,
the
motivation
is
basically
the
list
of
eeap's
that
are
included
in
their
heart
Fork
right.
It's
like
we're
saying
you
know.
Why
do
you
have
this
upgrade
well
to
implement
these
things
that
are
listed
here
and
and-
and
you
can't
really
have
a-
why
that's
like
more
elaborate
than
that,
because
then
people
will
start
disagreeing
on
it.
It
just
becomes
like
a
place
for
like
political.
You
know,
argumentation,
so
I
I,
don't
know.
I
I
agree.
F
It's
odd
that
they're
like
a
bit
different
but
I,
think
the
the
cost
of
making
em
similar
is
high
and
I'm
not
sure
what
the
value
is,
especially
because
most
of
these
things
are
just
like
technical
upgrades
right.
We
look
at
the
Berlin.
It's
like
the
motivation
is
to
add
wood,
BLS,
12,
381,
pre-compiled
I
mean
I,
don't
know
I'm.
It
feels
odd
to
like
added
motivation
for
that
I.
E
Get
the
idea
of
you
know
that
using
the
term
motivation
over
there,
that's
why
I
mentioned
that
if
we
would
want
to
use
it
with
the
term
of
process
or
something
maybe
I
mean,
like
my
my
basic
concern
here
was
like
we
would
want
to
save
the
information
about
the
process,
because
the
last
time
what
we
did
for
Istanbul
I
mean
I,
saw
a
lot
of
effort
in
James
it's
a
sheet
and
the
process
that
we
followed.
E
It
was
scheduled
based
at
what
time
I
mean
how
many
weeks
but
required
for
this,
and
that
it
was
everything
was
there,
but
we
can't
see
I
mean,
of
course,
if
we
keep
on
checking
on
that,
we
will
be
able
to
find
it
somewhere
or
the
other
I
thought
it
would
be
a
good
idea
to
keep
it
somewhere
in
the
in
the
meta
EEP,
maybe
with
a
different
heading.
If
motivation
is
contradicting
the
thought
of
it,.
C
Your
head,
James
I,
would
say
even
with
a
dip
at
different
heading,
there's
a
coordination
cost
to
having
that
information
there,
and
that,
and
that
is
that
it
would
be
great
if
everything
that's
on
the
EIP
repo
agrees
and
shows
the
current
understanding
of
what
we're
doing
for
the
process.
And
if,
if
we
have
certain
pieces
showing
historical
information
about
what
did
happen
it,
it
is
a
place
for
people
to
disagree
about
what
is
or
shouldn't
happen
and
pointing
say
like
oh
well,
for
this
last
one.
A
Think
that
I
think
we
need
this
data
somewhere,
which
is
exactly
what
Paige
is
talking
about.
I
think
it
needs
to
be
somewhere,
cuz
I,
don't
I,
don't
want
people
to
have
to
go
digging
for
it,
especially
as
times
change
and
as
we
improve,
and
we
have
to
re
explain
to
people
over
and
over
again,
but
I
almost
feel
like
post-mortems,
that
the
cat
herders
right
might
be
a
better
location
and
might
be
something
that
people
can
turn
to
and
say.
A
Oh
this
is
this
is
an
opinion
piece
by
the
cat
herders
rather
than
this
is
something
because
I
mean
we.
We
try
to
keep
non-technical
an
opinion
out
of
the
EIP
s,
except
for
e
IP
1,
so
e
IP
s
should
be
technical
documents,
with
technical
note
of
that
motivation,
implementation,
security
considerations,
etc
and
meta
AIPS
were
created
by
Alex
Perez
Aussie
to
document
what
went
into
a
hard
fork
at
what
block
and
which
e
ip's
went
in
and
should
not
to
make
it
too
complicated.
So
that
I
think
that's.
C
A
C
E
A
So
in
doing
that,
we
might
need
to
further
specify
what
an
informational
AIP
is
because
I
don't
know
if
it
completely
well,
because
in
an
informational
AIP
according
to
EIP,
one
is
more
of
like
it's
a
guideline
or
well.
It
does
say
information
I
thought
it
would
say
announcement
so
yeah.
It
would
fit
in
an
informational,
EIP.
C
F
E
Yeah
I
was
about
to
email
you
for
that.
So
I
have
one
more
question
here
before
we
move
on
so
the
process
that
we
are
currently
following
here
for
the
efi
and
the
VIP
centric
so
where
we
are
getting
at,
should
we
go
ahead
and
add
that
to
in
EAP
one
or
should
that
be
documented
as
an
informational,
AIP
somewhere
for
this
Berlin.
E
Because
this
is
exactly
what
I'm
trying
to
achieve
here
is,
like
you
know,
a
proper
place
for
documenting
the
process.
Istanbul
is
passed
so
if
we
will
add
it
in
the
post-mortem
of
that,
that
is
quite
good.
Quite
okay,
but
Berlin
is
coming
up
and
we
may
be
seeing
more
future
upgrades.
So
we
should
have
a
you
know,
decided
place,
I'm,
okay,
with
keeping
it
anywhere,
but
that
should
be
the
place
where
we
can
refer
people
to
go
ahead
and
check
what
we
did.
A
There
are
two
paths:
I
can
see
us
taking
on
this.
The
current
because
there's
a
lot
of
rules
that
are
involved
and
are
there's
beginning
to
be
a
lot
of
rules.
What
it
used
to
be.
Is
you
take
it
to
the
core
devs
they
decide
it's
going
in,
and
then
we
have
that
complicated
non
documented
process.
Now
it's
we
have
EFI
and
we
have
champions
with
specific
edicts,
and
we
have
you
know
the
core
devs
deal
with
this
stuff
and
not
this
other
stuff.
A
They
deal
with
technical
and
not
political
and
we're
working
on
that
problem
too,
and
putting
that
all
on
a
IP
one
I'm,
always
just
trying
to
I.
Have
this
like
protection
of
e
IP
one
to
not
make
it
too
much
information
so
that
people
are
turned
off
to
the
process
or
too
much
information
so
that
people,
you
know
most
people
who
read
any
IP
are
going
to
be
reading
it
for
ERC's,
because
we
really
get
stuck
in
this
Corey
IP
stuff,
but
really
most
e
IP
Zuri
are
seized.
So
maybe.
F
E
C
A
little
bit
I'm
I'm
not
like
staunch
on
this,
the
the
and
I
know
I,
don't
have
the
the
vision
of
the
IP
one
totally
and
totally,
but
I've
liked
the
idea
of
expanding
it
and
making
it
more
usable
like
adding
it
be
the
single
source
of
truth
for
the
etherium
governance
in
general
and
all
those
things
and
you're
right
in
that
I
am
way
too
much
in
the
core.
The
IP,
so
then
I
over
do
that
stuff.
I
wish
there
was
someone
out
there
that
was
kind
of
doing
the
same
thing,
but
for
ERC.
C
So
we
don't
exactly
have
that
at
the
moment.
But
if
we
like
I
added
in
that
table
of
contents
and
I,
think
there's
ways
of
expanding
it,
even
if
it
got
large
that
it
could
be
quickly
not
navigatable
for
people
I
just
start
to
worry
that
I
worry
comes
in
like
two
forms:
one
is
finding
the
right.
Information
at
the
right
time
can
be
difficult
for
people
so
having
having
it.
Oh
well,
the
to
get
the
information
for
this.
You
actually
have
to
go
over
there
and
have
them
go
over
there.
C
If
it's
linked
in
the
EIP
one
that
that
kind
of
mitigates
that
a
bit-
but
it
still
is
a
little
bit
harder
to
find
and
then
the
other
one
is
decision
making
processes
around
things
like
the
hard
Forks
stuff
or
efi
I.
Should
we
have
the
same
process
for
changing
the
IPSec
truck
model,
be
the
same
process
for
changing
the
IP
one.
A
That
last
question:
we
need
to
figure
out
how
to
change
the
IP
one
before
it
can
be
answered.
The
rest
of
your
question
statements,
I,
would
say
it
works
to
be
in
an
informational,
IP.
That's
set
to
active
status
because
the
IP
one
does
say
that
some
informational
and
process
a
I
piece
such
as
the
IP
one,
maybe
an
active
status,
so
they're
never
meant
to
be
completed.
A
So
we
would
literally
have
it
be
a
IP
and
then
whatever
number
is
the
one
for
how
champions
and
efi
and
whatever
we
call
that
umbrella
process
is
four
four
four
core
developer
decisions
and
an
accord
EV
meeting
etc
can
be
that
e
IP
and
it
can
keep
that
number
forever.
And
if
we
change
it,
we
just
do
a
pull
request
and
you
know
get
consensus
on
the
pull
request
which
we
can
do
easily
with
the
core
devs
to
agree
with
the
process,
and
then
it
gets
changed.
C
And
then
from
me,
I
guess:
if
we
made
an
EFI
informational,
EIP
and
then
I
was
an
author
on
it,
then
pretty
much
I
can
write
it.
Yeah
I,
don't
know
like
if
that's
the
goal
or
not
to
go
what
which
is
to
go
off
or
visit
if
I.
If
I
was
an
author
on
a
meta
AIP
that
described
the
semi
official
efi
process
in
like
and
how
that
all
that
works
and
I
said
really.
I
have
like
the
capacity
to
do
that.
A
It's
a
meta
maybe,
but
this
would
be
informational,
so
it
doesn't
have
to
be
followed.
But
it's
something
to
put
down,
and
in
this
case,
if
you're
writing
it
you're
the
best
person
to
write
it
as
a
hard
fork
manager.
So
it's
not
a
it's
I
mean
once
we
have
it
for
in
last
call
anyone
can
come
in
and
anyone
can
come
in
and
have
objections
and
make
changes
and
discuss
with
you
but
I.
A
Just
the
reality
is
we
can't
we
can't
overly
focus
on
the
centralization
or
decentralization
aspect,
because
at
the
end
of
the
day,
if
no
one's
gonna
argue
with
you,
no
one's
gonna
argue
with
you,
and
so
we
don't
need
to
be
taking
steps
to
put
to
force
something
into
the
process.
We
need
to
give
every
opportunity
for
people
to
do
that,
but
we
don't
need
to
it's
like
openly
solicited
hardcore.
Okay,.
A
Exactly
there
isn't,
there
isn't
a
way
to
upgrade.
There
isn't
a
way
spoken
to
upgrade
active
VIPs,
not
any
IP
one.
So
how
like-
and
this
is
going
to
get
confusing
wording-
there
is
not
a
way
to
upgrade
active
II
I
he's
such
as
EIP
one,
so
the
way
to
upgrade
a
IP
one
is
specifically
set
on
precedence
alone
and
not
on
a
process.
A
A
C
C
G
C
G
The
idea
was,
we
already
have
a
process
for
putting
things
into
last
call,
so
the
idea
of
so
the
proposal
was
any
change
would
be
made
in
CID,
so
any
IP
which
didn't
go
through
the
IEP
process
and
once
it's
accepted
that
that
change
can
be
put
inside
the
active
VIP,
it's
referencing,
that's
the
simplified
version
of
it.
I.
C
I
would
argue
for
a
simpler
version:
yeah,
it's
no
I,
you're
you're
on
the
right
track.
I
would
do
it
just
a
little
bit
differently,
and
this
is
something
I've
been
thinking.
I
wanted
to
talk
about
today.
So
as
far
as
editing
activity
IPS,
including
e
IP,
one
getting
public
feedback
and
making
sure
any
changes
are
are
are
known
by
the
community,
which
currently
has
been
the
last
call
RSS
RSS
feed,
but
I
think
it
would
be
useful.
C
C
A
C
Some
Twitter
bot
or
RSS
feed
as
right
now
you
can't
make
a
the
only
way
to
trigger
the
RSS
feed
is
for
the
status
of
an
EIP
to
go
into
last
call
which,
if
I
made
a
pull
request
so
that
wasn't
adding
an
EIP.
It
was
editing
one
of
these
activities.
It
wouldn't
have
that
so
then
I
can't
trigger
the
RSS
feed.
A
No,
you
could
you
would
just
change
the
status
from
active
to
last
call
and
then
it
would
go
back
to
active
after
it's
either
confirmed
or
denied
that
the
new
changes
are
going
in.
That
would
still
trigger
the
RSS
feed
and
it
wouldn't
decouple
any
other
last
calls
from
active,
because
that
would
complicate
things.
In
my
opinion,
you.
C
A
A
No,
you
would
have
so
how
it
works
in
an
ER
C,
which
would
be
similar
to
act
2
an
act
of
e
IP.
Is
you
have
an
a
PR
that
initially
puts
your
data
out
there,
your
e
IP
and
it's
in
draft
mode.
As
long
as
it's
well-formed,
then
you
have
a
last
call
status,
so
it
goes
from
draft
to
last
call
and
then
to
final
and
then
from
there
unless
you're
changing
a
spelling
error.
It's
it's
superseded
after
that.
A
If
you
want
to
supersede
it,
so
that's
how
an
e
rc
would
work
for
an
active
VIP.
It's
actually
less
steps,
because
the
first
step
for
making
it
at
all
is
to
make
it
a
draft
and
then
active
or
no
draft
last
called
an
active.
And
then,
if
you
want
to
do
changes
to
it,
you
would
do
last
call
if
it's
if
it's
approved
and
then
active
again.
A
C
A
A
C
A
So
we
only
have
a
few
minutes
left
but
update
on
proposed
changes
to
e
IP.
One
I
think
we
can
skip
that
because
we've
been
going
over
that
off
and
on
today
and
we'll
need
to
recollect
our
thoughts
and
go
through
the
notes
and
kind
of
you
know
list
them
out
before
we
talk
about
them
again,
survey
on
the
EIP
process,
that
is,
oh,
we
already
have
a
form
cool
for
some
reason.
Oh
we
did.
We
made
this
before
I.
Remember
this
now.
G
E
G
A
How
simple
it
is
I
would
say:
I
would
say
that
we
need
something
so
that,
if
people
so
at
the
very
top,
we
need
to
talk
about
the
EIP
IP
process
and
say
this
is
where
you
can
go
for
more
info
and
it's
happening
right
now,
because
as
many
opportunities
as
we
can
take
to
say,
join
us,
we
need
to
do
that
because
otherwise
there's
going
to
be
this
implicit
just
stigma
around.
Oh,
you
did
this
without
the
community
and
all
this
other
stuff
that
can
very
easily
happen.
If
we
don't
push
this
everywhere,
all.
G
E
G
Sounds
good
any
other
final
thoughts,
final
comments
on
the
forum,
I.
A
E
No,
actually
that
was
supposed
to
be
here
only
in
the
summary
section,
but
in
the
last
meeting
we
discussed
about
two
major
topics
that
was
one
migration
of
the
IP
content
that
we
actually
covered,
and
the
second
was
the
motivation.
So
I
don't
think
we
do
have
much
action
item
over
there
from
the
last
meeting.
Ok.
B
B
That
I
know
like
the
tool
fatigue,
another
new
tool,
I
personally
like
notion
but
again
yeah,
happy
to
change
the
format
and
it
sounds
like
once.
We
do
have
a
more
firm
like
how-to
implementation
strategy.
We
do
plan
to
open
it
up
as
a
github
issue
in
the
EIP
repo
and
that
should
be
like
a
friendly
and
familiar
place
for
people
to
add
input.
Ok,
cool
thanks,
yeah.
D
Yeah
and
just
a
plug
for
canonize
err
here,
if
you
want
us
to
helps
because
if,
if
you
put
something
like
this
in
Canon
Iser,
then
everyone
who
supports
that
could
like
it's
like
a
petition.
People
can
sign
it
and
there's
also
a
place
for
people
with
a
different
point
of
view,
can
create
a
competing
camp
and
sign
that.
So
you
can
keep
track
of
that,
what
they
want
and
what's
required
to
get
them
on
board
and
track
when
they
jump
camp
and
get
on
board
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff.