►
From YouTube: EIPIP Meeting #1
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
B
A
C
A
I
think
processes
would
be
better
and
that's
what
I've
mostly
been
saying:
I've
gone
back
and
forth,
though,
so
we
have
that
with
that
out
of
the
way,
I
think
for
today's
meeting.
It's
not
gonna
be
super
long,
but
we
do
want
to
go
over
some
of
what
we
discussed
in
the
telegram
group
maybe
give
some
intros
for
everybody
figure
out
some
solid
next
steps.
A
What
the
cadence
of
the
meeting
should
be,
what
tools
we'll
be
using
because
I
had
a
few
in
mind,
mostly
Google
Docs,
related
tools
for
coming
up
with
group,
discussion
and
group
edits
on
certain
documents,
so
yeah
I'm
gonna,
pull
up
the
EIP
improvement
proposal,
EW
improvement
processes,
meeting
dock
telegram
and
look
through
that
a
little
bit
while
we
go
through
intros.
And
so
then
we
can
talk
about
some
of
what
was
been
discussed
in
there.
So
we'll
start
with
a
net.
B
D
E
F
G
A
A
Excellent
I
think
that's
everybody
as
people
come
in,
we
can
also
just
get
them
intro'd,
but
for
now,
let's
move
on
to
the
next
step,
which
is
kind
of
slowly
or
not,
slowly
necessarily
but
carefully,
defining
what
scope
we
want
to
actually
tackle
using
these
meetings
and
using
these
like
github
issues,
we're
gonna,
be
opening
and
just
to
be
clear.
This
isn't
a
dictatorship
of
meetings
to
change
everything.
A
It's
basically
a
way
for
discussion
to
happen
more
quickly
and
then
for
that
discussion
to
be
transferred
on
to
something
like
github
issues
or
a
theory
of
Magicians
forms,
or
something
like
that.
So
the
broader
community
can
participate
if
they're
not
able
to
participate
through.
These
calls
like
if
the
time
doesn't
line
up
or
they
don't
have
telegram
or
things
like
that.
We
want
this
to
be
very
open
and
accessible
to
everyone
who
wants
to
be
involved.
A
So
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
issues
that
we
have
with
the
e
IPS.
So
let's
go
ahead
and
start
voicing
some
of
those
and
then
from
that
we'll
just
go
around
and
start
saying.
You
know
kind
of
things
we
think
can
be
improved.
Some
things
we
don't
like
and
from
there
we
can
identify
the
most
urgent
places
to
address
so
examples
of
this
could
be
I'm
confused.
A
I
I
I
This
is
not
part
of
the
project.
You
have
a
scope
that
which
you
pointed
soon.
You
say
the
reason
why
we
can't
do
this
is
because
it's
a
let's
go
for
exactly
the
way
this
affects
us
practically
is
there's
a
lot
of
discussions
on
the
IP
one.
While
we're
having
this
meeting
and
we'd
like
to
know.
Why
are
we
doing
the
artsy's
at
all,
what
you
have
kids
at
all?
I
How
does
it
fit
into
changes
in
general,
and
so,
for
example,
when
the
scope
is
not
clear
for
this
project,
you
will
see
the
EIP
such
as
one
where
we
should
not
have
any
state
changes
that,
like
pros
like
the
protest,
the
IP.
So
do
we
want
to
have
that
in
our
discussion
here?
Is
that
out
of
scope
that
helps
define
you
know,
are
we
doing
this
to
track
the
ideas
that
are
out
there
or
are
we
just?
Is
this
a
not
is
just
purely
technical?
I
You
know,
we've
I,
think
and
I
think
this
has
changed.
So
in
the
past
the
IP
knees
were
about
what
changes
are
good
ideas.
Now
yeah
I
peas
are
more
like.
Let's
just
document
specifications
I
think
that's
more
where
we
are
today,
I
think,
there's
an
understanding
on
that,
but
I
don't
think
it's
written
down
so
I'd
like
it
to
be
written
down
clearway
that
everybody
agrees
on.
A
Another
one
that
kind
of
made
me
think
earlier
on
in
the
EIP
process.
In
the
beginning,
there
was
this
need
and
this
acceptance
of
the
vagueness
around
the
EIP
process
to
make
it
flexible
and
to
make
it
so
that
there
wasn't
like
this
really
harsh
handed.
A
This
is
how
things
are
gonna,
be
this
about
it,
and
we
do
want
to
keep
some
of
that
spirit
with
the
fact
that
there
can
be
multiple,
like
people
can
make
multiple
token
standards
and
even
though
one
of
them's
an
final,
if
someone
else
is
in
draft,
you
can
definitely
use
that
standard
and
stuff
like
that,
so
making
sure
to
avoid
words
and
statements
and
things
within
the
written
procedures
and
written
scope
of
work
for
any
IP.
That
would
dictate
it
to
be
the
like
ultimate
sounding,
like
The
Ultimates.
What's
what
am
I
looking
for.
A
Like
end-all-be-all,
for
all
of
the
different
IPS
that
could
be
submitted
is
probably
not
what
we
should
be
going
for
in
my
opinion,
but
is
something
that
I
think
people
expect
out
of
the
process.
So
I
agree
that
writing
down
project
scope
would
be
a
good
idea
who's.
Next,
who
wants
to
say
something
else.
C
When
we
started
this
discussion
initially
about
the
improvement
process,
so
we
have
kind
of
discussed
and
attracted
something
here
in
the
telegram
group
about
the
layout
how
we
should
be
going
ahead
in
the
sense
like
when
we
are
talking
about
improvement
process.
We
need
to
consider
about
the
issues
that
we
are
facing
at
the
time,
the
problems
that
we
need
to
identify
first
in
order
to
actually
be
able
to
solve
it
with
the
improvement
process.
So
if
we
can
go
through
this
document,
we
have
we
are
trying
to
define
the
problem.
A
K
Hey
guys
so
yeah,
my
name
is
Bob.
Samwell
I
was
previously
at
the
foundation.
The
consensus
been
involved
with
the
their
own
community
for
four
and
a
half
years
now,
I'm.
Now
the
executive
director
at
the
etherium
classic
cooperative
as
well
so
yeah,
very
interested
in
the
IPP
process
backing
that
standards.
K
A
We
can
kind
of
shuffle
through
those
between
now
and
the
next
meeting
and
I'll
organize
them
in
a
document
using
telegram
as
a
kind
of
a
way
to
organize
participation.
And
then
the
next
meeting
have
like
a
clear
list
of
priorities,
or
at
least
something
we
can
finalize
is
a
list
of
priorities
for
this
subgroup.
A
F
Yeah,
just
the
further
that,
under
the
existing
IP
is
the
one
that
so
still
I'm
having
a
defined
archive
kind
of
timeline,
for
which
II
IPS
would
then
be
archived
and
out
of
the
whole
mess
which
would
have
to
be
cleaned
up.
Incrementally
would
be
cool
like
six
month
to
nine
month
time,
we're
at
the
AIP
has
been
left
or
there's
no
progress
that
he
gets
archived
I.
A
C
D
Mentioned
about
defining
scope
or
making
rules,
or
anything
like
that,
just
my
belief
is
that
consensus
can
override
everything,
including
blockchain
state
and
everything.
If
you
can
demonstrate
and
prove
that
everyone
agrees
that
we
should
do
something
it
should
be
done,
and
so
anyway,
just
to
comment
so.
A
A
Where
that
might
be
something
we
want,
and
so
I
don't
know
how
much
we
should
focus
as
a
priority
on
what
is
defined
as
consensus.
But
that
doesn't
mean
we
shouldn't
put
the
tools
out
there
to
make
sure
that
people
know
about
them
and
can
utilize
them
and
maybe
give
suggest
new
suggestions
and
the
template
to
say:
hey
here's
some
things
that
are
available
for
you
like
reach
out
to
Twitter,
to
Reddit
use
different
tools
to
like
assess
your
your
community
consensus
of
who's
using
the
tools
and
things
like
that.
K
A
Not
resolved
yes,
so
because
of
the
fact
that,
like
that,
no
one
really
does
the
decline
option
very
much.
We
just
kind
of
lose
track
or
lose
sight
of
where
any
ip's
been
and
there's
no
archive
mode
that
we
would
probably
want
to
create
I
mean
there's
in
the
hundreds,
if
not
a
thousand
or
more.
If
someone
has
the
page
pulled
up,
they
could
answer
because
I
have
my
full
screen
recording
on
so
I
can't
pull
it
up.
I
We
have,
we
have
hundreds
of
quote
draft
and
then
de-facto
draft,
like
they
pretty
specified
in
an
issue
but
just
not
committed
as
a
file
as
a
draft.
So
I
would
say
hundreds
in
the
past
three
months
we're
looking
at
dozens,
so
they're
active
in
the
past
three
months.
I
mean
we've
got
ones
from
years
ago,
but
are
still
getting
comments,
but
actually
specifying
the
past
few
months
or
just
dozens,
because.
K
K
The
stuff
is,
never
gonna
go
through
right,
it's
it's,
it's
not
sufficient
quality
or
it's
just
a
stupid
idea,
but
you've
got
this
sort
of
balance
between
not
wanting
to
like
throw
away
people's
work,
but
also
knowing
you
know
that
it's
not
helpful
to
have
it.
There
I
mean
I.
Guess
it's
a
little
bit
like
the
problem
that
you
have
in
general
when
open
source
projects
have
sort
of
like
rejecting
pull
requests
right.
K
I
To
comments
on
that
we
are,
we
are
starting
as
a
community
project
and
we're
working
into
an
enterprise
size
project
so
to
benchmark
against
some
other
projects.
I
just
want
to
put
these
two
notes
out
there.
If
you're
interested
you
can
read
up
on
it,
one
of
them
is
vs
code,
which
is
the
most
popular
project
on
github.
If
anybody's
ever
opened
at
issue
on
vs
code.
I
How
does
it
put
it
on
the
table
and
we
have
I
think
that's
gonna
be
solved
a
second
one,
and
maybe
this
is
an
issue
for
our
brainstorming.
Here
is
the
swift
evolution
project
on
this
is
where
the
idea
for
last
call
came
from
on
swift
evolution
is
made
by
Apple,
then
a
very
innovative
language.
They
have
specifications
and
proposals
to
change
it.
David
I
think
it's
a
very
good
process
and
it
gets
a
lot
of
active
review.
I
A
That's
some
good
comments.
I
would
also
say
that
I
think
we
need
to
probably
reach
out
to
bitcoins
the
cash
and
aetherium
classic
to
see
how
their
policies
and
their
structures
are
different
than
ours.
Since
the
II
IPS
initially
came
from
the
Bitcoin
improvement
proposals,
which
initially
came
from
the
Python
environment
proposals
or
its
PE
Peas
I
forgot
what
it
stood
for,
but
it's
kind
of
has
a
history
of
itself
and
each
group
I
think
iterates
differently
on
doing
it
with
different
ideas.
So
getting
an
understanding
of
what
they're
doing
differently.
I
L
I
A
D
Just
another
comment
again
trying
to
make
red
tape
and
rules
and
what's
in
scope
and
what's
out
of
scope,
what
really
needs
to
happen
is
everything
needs
to
be
prioritized?
What
stop?
What
are
the
top
ten
things
on
the
list
and
we
work
on
those,
and
so,
if
you
can
find
the
entire
community,
for
example,
we
could
create
a
topic
where
you
rank
all
of
the
e
IPS,
and
everyone
can
say
this
is
my
top,
most
importantly,
IP
top
ten
and
so
on,
and
then
you
can
find
out
the
entire
community.
D
These
are
the
top
ten
and
then,
if
someone
has
an
issue,
that's
real
old.
It's
been
hanging
around
that
in
a
new
technology
that
makes
that
possible.
Then
then
they
can
start
recruiting,
can
rise
up
in
popularity
and
lower
down
in
popularity.
But
it's
all
about
prioritizing
thing
and
and
so
all
large
communities
fail
miserably
at
that
kind
of
stuff
and
the
best
they
get
is
making
rules
to
try
and
in
scope
and
out
scope
and
have
a
whole
bunch
of
sensors
trying
to
make
people
mad
by
saying
we're
shutting
your
project
down.
D
But
if
you
find
out
what
everyone
wants
and
do
concise
they
and
quantitatively
get
if
you
can
know
what
everyone
wants,
that
by
definition,
isn't
consensus,
and
if
everyone
can
prioritize
things
and
if
you
can
measure
consensus
by
what
is
the
ether
think
people
voting
there
ether?
What
are
the
peer
ranked
core
developers?
What
do
they
all
think?
What
are
the
miners
think
and
if
you
can
canonize
things
in
different
ways
that
allows
you
to
prioritize
all
your
work
and
and
and
problems
like
that
become
much
easier
solve
so.
I
D
And
and
you
measure
how
good
ideas
are
by
how
many
people
are
supporting
them,
and
and
also
you
have
to
have
a
way
for
people
that
don't
want
particular
things
to
happen
to
also
have
a
competing
camp
and
and
you
find
out
what
both
camps
want.
And
then
you
have
negotiation
to
find
out
where
the
agreement
is,
you
focus
on
the
agreement
and
you
push
the
disagreement
to
lower-level
supporting
sub
camps
and
and
it's
all
about
finding
out
and
getting
everyone
everything
you
want
and
not
censoring
or
anyone
any
at
any
time.
So.
M
If
I
may
I
think
this
is
I
mean
I'm
going
to
be
a
bit
harsh
on
this,
one
I
think
it's
wishful
thinking
to
believe
that
people
get
going
to
get
more
involved
that
they
are
today
what
happen
in
sort
of
community
that
there
is
like
you
dial
just
like
people.
You
think
just
actually
want
to
get
pushed
to
push
things
forward,
and
those
are
the
one
do
and
we
actually
do
things
otherwise.
Just
I
don't
expect
the
community
to
rise
now
and
say:
oh
I'm,
against
this
or
I'm
in
favor
of
this
and
I.
M
We
don't
have
support
or
like
we
don't
have
people
coming
and
saying
oh
I'm,
interested
that
we
don't
have
people
that
are
sufficiently
interested
to
actually
do
it
into
the
work
or
do
the
duty
or
come
forward
and
say
and
proof
Doozer.
So
the
the
rest
of
the
core
dev
at
this
point
that
they
actually
did
the
work
of
sorting
things
out.
I.
G
Would
really
I
would
really
agree
with
that
Louis
if
you
could
just
introduce
yourself,
so
people
can
know
yeah
yeah.
M
Sure
sure
so,
Louis
I'm
from
start
where
we
thought
we
got
involved
with
the
IP
process
or
in
the
case
of
the
AP
2028,
which
was
the
introduction
of
transaction
costs,
transaction
cost
transaction
basic.
It's
any
old
data,
reducing
cost
on
in
Istanbul
and
and
from
my
experience,
because
I
came
in
pretty
late
into
the
the
only
IEP
and
like
some
what
doesn't
come
from
v4
information
or
any
sort
of
big
organization.
That's
already
be
part
of
the
24y.
M
There
was
some
sort
of
inertia
because,
oh
at
some
point
we
say
yes
and
then
now
we
just
recognized
that
we
need
to
continue
and
no
one
keep
pushing
so
that
finger
gives
me
an
upset
from
the
perspective
of
the
future
of
the
other
of
the
network,
because
we
end
up
with
like
proposal
that
get
accepted
and
end
up
being
barely
used
for
many
many
reasons
or
or
just
were
implemented
in
well
worth.
Pacification
we're
just
not
appropriate,
because
there
is
only
one
people.
One
group
of
people
who
worked
on
it.
C
Louie
to
summarize
our
the
the
issue
that
you
faced
I'm,
assuming
that
maybe
people
who
are
not
coming
directly
from
the
etherium
foundation
or
maybe
redevelopment
work
on
on
a
regular
basis,
the
challenges
that
they
are
facing
at
the
initial
level
is
how
to
proceed
from.
You
know
proposing
the
proposal,
the
EIP
from
draft
to
accept
it
and
how
we
can
steer
along
like
taking
help
from
the
code
em
or
did
reviewer.
Is
it
what
you're
trying
to
communicate
so.
M
What
I'm
trying
to
say
that
my
believe
is
that
the
court
F
should
be
the
safe
keeper
they
would
be.
They
should
not
outside
of
Politico
and
like,
for
instance,
the
price
of
them,
like
the
cost
of
mining.
I'm
not
going
to
talk
about
those
those
are
critical
and
depends,
but
everything
that
is
purely
technical.
What
the
change
should
be
well,
my
core
believe
at
the
end,
what
the
sort
of
and
the
student
understand
meant
I
got
from
the
core
dev
is
that
they
are
the
safe
keeper.
G
F
Another
good
example
of
someone
that
struggled
with
the
process,
who
was
actively
trying
to
contribute
was
thing
is
you
know,
handle
was
made
of
ten
and
he
was
proposing
security
considerations
to
be
added
to
I
believe
it
was
the
IP
one,
but
there
was
no
defined
process
there
to
make
any
process
type
of
changes
to
the
IP
process.
So
they
end
up
getting
dragged
on
for
a
thing
like
nine
months
and
I'm,
not
sure
if
it's
been
included
yet
or
formally,
but
yeah
he's
he
voices
a
p.m.
K
K
You
know
the
the
I
saw
recently
that
there
was
a
proposal
to
do
with
a
mechanism
for
richer
sort
of
metadata,
about
sort
of
the
EIP
updates
and
another
update,
and
it's
a
discussion
that
we
had
on
e
to
see
as
well
is,
if
you
update
a
IP
one,
should
that
should
the
beard
should
there
be
any
IP
for
the
update?
Because
really,
if
you
look
at
what
a
IP
czar,
it's
kind
of
like
their
deltas,
they're
kind
of
like
change
lists
right
in
that
they're
all
piling
up
on
top
of
each
other.
K
But
if
you
revised
an
existing
one
and
I
guess
it's
only
really
processed
ones
that
that
would
be
really
sensible
for
I.
Don't
I,
don't
know
if
they've
been
updates
to
to
others
like
I,
guess
you
could
do
it
for
an
e
rc
like
ER,
C
20,
but
but
just
this
general
question
of
like
well.
What's
the
model
you
know,
what
are
you
see
me
IPS
and
what
are
specs,
because
if
you
spec
so
just
this
bunch
of
divs,
that
itself
makes
it
very
hard
to
understand
like
what
the
overall
protocol
is.
K
You
know.
So,
if
you
make
changes
to
V
I
P
one,
should
that
itself
be
another,
a
IP
and
also
just
the
thought
of
well,
could
we
actually
use
a
canonical
document?
That's
like
all
of
the
discs
together.
If
you
see
what
I
mean,
because
you
know
yellow
paper
kind
of
is
that
for
at
least
part
of
the
spec,
but
the
broader
spec,
you
know
there
isn't
like
here's
the
etherium
book.
K
A
A
As
far
as
the
problem
of
updating
like
ERC
20,
if
there's
a
major
security
concern,
the
general
answer
has
been
make
a
whole
new,
a
IP
and
just
you
can
call
it
er
C
20
version
two.
If
you
want,
but
it
will
have
a
different,
a
IP
number
and
yeah
basically
just
make
a
whole
new
IP.
If
you
want
a
change
in
there,
that's
not
something.
That's
like
spelling
grammar
or
of
gross
overlooked.
Like
part
of
it,
like
you
misspelled
the
word
aetherium,
you
kind
of
like
that,
I.
I
Agree
that
this
the
discussion,
honest,
should
be
part
of
this
project.
How
did
you
know
how
to
Octavia
piece
I've,
actually
updated
a
whole
bunch
of
VIPs
for
various
reasons,
but,
like
Hudson,
say
Norman
Norman.
If
changes
require
a
new
IP
non-normative
changes,
I've
been
feeling
around
this
and
apparently
they're
getting
merged.
Also,
the
IP
one
is
not
an
EIP
at
all.
The
fact
that
we
call
DP
1
and
call
it
active
as
just
a
particularity
of
this
project.
Other
projects
like
swift
evolution,
don't
they
wouldn't
call
it?
They
wouldn't
call
it
a
standard.
C
K
A
That
sounds
like
Luke,
okay,
yeah,
so,
okay,
we'll
have
to
think
about
that
one
more
well.
We
won't
solve
it
today
anyway,
but
basically
we
need
some.
The
summary
would
be.
We
need
more
understanding
of
how
to
update
an
EIP
in
general,
regardless
of
if
it's,
the
IP
one
in
this
case
or
if
it's
an
EIP
that
needs
small
changes
or
big
changes,
making
that
on
putting
that
on
paper,
I
guess
is
the
best
way
to
describe
the
problem
we
need.
We
have
I
mean.
K
K
You
know
so
really
like
the
thought
that
you've
got
you've
got
something
in
the
form
of
the
yellow
paper
that
covering
really
the
EBM,
but
you
haven't
really
got
great,
canonical
specs
around
everything
else,
and
my
thought
really
was
that
the
VIPs
are
like
kind
of
like
deltas.
You
know
they
aren't.
They
are
like
change
lists
and
really
like
looking
at
something
like
Java.
A
A
Maybe
abstract
yeah
like
a
like
more
of
an
idea
or
something
that
people
can
implement
and
I,
don't
know
if
we
wanted
to
find
that
or
not.
That
might
be
something
we
think
about
and
just
having
our
list
of
things
that
would
be
priorities
or
not
so
yeah.
Anybody
have
the
last
last
couple
of
things
that
and
again
pooja
posted
a
link
to
a
Google
Doc
and
that
Google
Doc
has
a
list
of
stuff
already.
So
we
can
address
that
or
if
you
want
to
add
more
detail
to
any
of
those
points
as
well.
J
M
Can
I
react
to
this?
I
have
a
question
in
the
whole
group
of
people?
Are
we
talking
right
now
how
many
people
actually
pushed
in
the
IP
through
the
process
or
try
to
push
one
I'm
asking
I'm
asking
the
nuts
as
like
being
snarky
I
just
want
to
know,
because
I
feel
like
why
I
have
a
very
different
I
think.
M
I'm
asking
just
in
case
the
one
from
my
perspective,
the
the
the
IP
process
is
not
broken.
It
actually
could
work.
So
much
works.
The
only
issue
I
was
facing
is
there
are
two
things
the
first
one
is
it's
something
clear.
When
you
come
from
the
outside
out
who
you
need
to
reach
to
choose,
you
know
start
get
together.
M
I
Have
a
quick
note
here:
yes,
I,
think
this
phone
call
is
the
EIP
IP,
not
the
EIP
replacement,
see
and
I've
heard
a
current
a
couple
things
here
and
I've
heard
some
dissent
on.
Should
we
have
we
want
to
encourage
new
people,
one
of
the
ways
to
solve
this
problem,
which
I
implemented
in
the
KDE
project,
which
is
a
Linux
competitor
indanone.
I
We
had
a
mentor
program
where
yeah
there's
a
lot
of
rules
and
honestly
I
got
involved
in
this
in
2018
and
none
of
the
things
that
were
specified
in
the
IP
one
were
my
experience,
so
I
had
to
go,
find
how
it
actually
works.
That's
why
I'm
here
to
document
some
of
that
stuff,
but
with
KDE
it
is
much
harder
to
get
involved
and
what
we
did
is
we
just
said:
here's
a
few
people.
I
You
can
call
that
can
help
you
from
idea
to
what
you
want
to
do
and
all
that
and
you
know,
I'll
volunteer
to
do
that
and
I
know
other
people
will
as
well.
But
maybe
the
solution
here
doesn't
that
we
don't
have
to
figure
out
all
this
stuff
out,
write
it
down
and
agree
on
it.
We
can
just
put
a
couple
names.
There
are
people
that
have
done
this
stuff
and
what
help
yeah.
A
J
I
think
so
I
mean,
if
I,
if
I'm
understanding
you
Lewis
and
also
you
William,
it
sounds
like
the
process
seems
to
be
at
least
a
process
that
can
work,
there's
a
certain
level
or
a
certain
lack
of
communication
about
what
needs
to
be
done.
A
certain
lack
of
documentation.
Maybe
does
that
address
your
second
point,
the
Lewis.
You
were
saying
before
that.
There's
also
sort
of
this
bizarre
process.
J
M
It
don't
get
included,
it's
not
getting
included
more
than
with
a
is
it
keep
being
referred
to,
although
everyone
involved
sort
of
to
know
that
there
is
a
big
problem
with
it.
So
my
second
comment
was
more
like
there
is
some
the
court
they've
claimed
to
be,
and
that's
something
of
big
mistake.
My
opinion
claims
to
be
not
political
article
not
has
having
ideology
particle
as
being
a
place
of
public
space,
for
people
describe
what
they
want
to
do
in
the
lobby,
for
it
and
and
because
it's
they
don't
recognize.
M
M
So
that's
more
with
a
second
point
and
maybe
standardized
away
for
instead,
okay,
for
instance,
when
in
the
IP
can
be
implemented
by
the
client,
then
the
people
who
should
have
say
about
the
specs
should
be
the
client
when
the
IP
is
not
implemented
by
the
bio-clock,
the
client
himself.
He
should
be
like
a
bit
like
fine,
whatever.
There
should
be
multiple
condition
that
could
be
referred
to
by
by
the
by
the
client.
M
J
M
M
M
Could
there's
been
a
good
lot
of
conflict
about
it,
because
it's
someone
involved
like
core
like
ideology,
about
the
blog
site
stuff
like
that
induction
and
what
we
did
is
we
survey
that
problem
by
providing
like
objective
data
that
no
one
else
everyone
could
check
and
when
we
finished
and
we
released
it
like
yesterday,
we
publish
the
posts,
the
IP
analysis,
saying
what
we
said
was
correct.
A
And
I
think
something
to
take
note
of,
though,
is
your
VIP
process
you
went
through
was
for
corey,
ip's
and
part
of
the
challenge.
We're
gonna
have
is
addressing
the
fact
that
a
core
that
there
are
a
there
are
four
types
of
VIPs:
there's
a
core
IP
networking
e
IP,
an
ER
c
and
a
meta,
a
I,
P
I
think
I
got
those
right,
but
anyways
they
are
very
H.
A
C
L
L
But
briefly
about
me:
I've
been
involved
with
the
IP
process
for
quite
a
bit
and
I
guess.
Well,
since
probably
2016
and
I
be
in
volunteering
to
review
stuff
for
quite
a
bit
and
SF
the
past
couple
of
months.
I've
been
doing
reviews
as
an
editor
and
I
said
a
lot
of
different
proposals
to
improve
the
process
and
a
lot
of
those
are
still
in
impending
State.
A
Okay,
well
thanks
for
joining
the
telegram
and
the
call
and
I'll
be
pushing
out
the
recording
of
this
on
the
telegram
and
on
Twitter
and
stuff
after
I
get
it
uploaded
when
I
get
my
new
laptop
in,
because
I
was
stupid
and
spilled
an
entire
drink
on
my
other
laptop,
so
it's
dead
I'm
using
an
old
backup
computer
right
now,
anyways.
That
was
a
lot
of
good
good
sentiment.
Louis
and
I
agree
with
that.
A
I
think
it's
gonna
be
something
that
will
need
to
work
with
the
core
developers
as
we
overhaul
a
lot
of
the
EIP
wording
and
processes
that
we'll
need
to
get
them
involved
for
they're
part
of
the
quarry
ip's,
because
that
only
touches
like
less
than
200
people
a
year,
the
quarry
ip's
track,
and
maybe
not
even
that
many
cuz
there's
not
that
many
core
developers
and
there's
not
like
the
average
person.
Writing
a
quarry
IP.
A
It's
like
the
same
30
people
with
the
exception
of
people
like
like
stark
ware,
who
wanted
to
get
involved,
and
then
they
had
to
go
down
that
bumpy
path
to
start
doing
an
EIP
other
other
than
you
know.
Some
people
who
want
to
do
the
low-level
stuff-
it's
very
rare-
that
we
get
the
average
person
going
through
that
process
just.
K
K
But
my
thought
was
just
that
for
those
different
threads
you
could
have
different
groups
of
editors.
You
know
that
the
core
developers
don't
necessarily
have
to
be
gating
or
involved
for
standards
to
do
with
higher
level
things
right.
You
know
if
it's
the
case
that
many
many
of
the
proposals
are
a
higher
level.
You
know
ERC
standard,
see
things
built
on
top
of
the
core
protocol.
You
know,
perhaps
a
completely
different
set
of
people
could
be.
You
know,
could
come
on
borders
that,
as
you
know,
kind
of
with
an
understanding
of
right.
K
A
Yeah
I
think
that's
that's
an
interesting
idea.
I
think
we
need
to
define
the
scope
of
what
an
EIP
editor
should
be
doing
beyond
what
EIP
one
says
and
like
figuring
out,
if
we
need
to
add
or
delete
anything,
and
then
we
should
figure
out
if
there
needs
to
be
sub
subgroups
of
VIP
editors
or
like
variant
groups
of
the
IP
editors.
That's
a
good
idea,
though
I
mean.
A
H
A
G
A
G
A
That's
a
good
line:
I'm
gonna
steal
that
okay!
Well,
it's
we
have
just
a
few
more
minutes
and
so
I
don't
want
to
get
on
any
more
tangents.
Just
do
a
couple
of
end
announcements
and
then
wrap
up
the
call.
The
first
end
amount
after
discussion
with
the
etherium
cat
herders.
This
VIP
IP
initiative
is
gonna,
fall
under
the
etherium
cat
herders
and
that
the
note-taking
will
be
funded.
A
The
videos
will
be
hosted
on
the
etherium
cat
herders
YouTube
page,
and
they
will
help
with
other
pieces
of
support
as
needed,
such
as
advertising
it
on
Twitter
and
reddit
and
stuff
like
that.
So
that's
one
thing.
So
if
people
ask
like
who's
doing
this,
you
can
say
it's
the
etherium
cat,
herders
and
then
I
am
taking
a
lead
role
and
facilitating
it
technically,
but
there's
I
mean
most
other
people
in
this
call
can
take
over
what
I'm
doing,
if
I'm
not
able
to
make
a
meeting.
So
it's
really
a
group
effort.
I
A
Outcome
of
this
phone
calls
that
we
have
items
that
are
the
the
biggest
outcome.
I
believe
is
that
we
have
a
list
that
the
note
taking
that
pooja
has
been
doing
in
the
document
that
she
created
has
a
list
of
problems
that
we
found
with
the
EIP
process
between
now
and
the
next
meeting.
What
I
want
to
do
is
try
to
order
those.
Maybe
it
might
require
a
spoken--
meeting
but
I.
A
Hopefully
it
will
require
that
and
we
can
just
do
it
over
telegram
and
a
Google
Doc
and
just
like
vote
up
and
down
on
which
issues
are
the
like.
The
issues
that
people
think
are
the
worst
issues
that
we
need
to
address.
First.
Does
that
make
sense,
or
do
you
think
there's
a
better
way
to
do
it
I
think.
I
A
Myself
and
oxic
are
AIP
editors,
I
know
other
AIP.
Editors
want
to
get
involved
and
if
we
basically
take
our
ideas
from
this
meeting
and
put
them
in
an
EIP,
it's
kind
of
cheating
because
I'm
an
EIP
editor,
but
I
can
absolutely
at
a
fair-
and
you
know
honest
way,
push
this
along.
Given
enough
community
support.
That's.
I
D
I
A
It
would
be
ideas
ordering
the
ideas
coming
up
with
solutions
and
different
documents
that
we
can
apply
slowly
and
then
finding
out
the
best
way.
Should
this
be
a
big,
a
big
PR
that
has
like
six
different
changes,
or
should
we
do
it
little
by
little,
once
we
decide
that,
then
we
produce
those
PRS
and.
A
After
and
I
think
it
should
I'm
leaning
it
for
it
being
a
big
one
that
then
we
just
kind
of
scrape
we
kind
of
discuss
within
a
github
issue,
and
just
say
this
has
the
backing
of
a
lot
of
people.
But
we
do
want
to
discuss
this
over
the
next
month
or,
however
long
and
then
get
a
lot
more
opinions
edited
a
little
bit
more
and
then
eventually,
once
there
is
consensus
in
a
last
call
issued,
then
it
goes
in.
That's
that's
my
ID,
my
dream
ideal
for
it,
although
it
might
not
work
that
way.
A
And
then
the
next
meeting
would
two
weeks
from
now
work.
I
C
A
K
So
I
might
as
well
just
say
it
for
the
record,
which
is
that
in
the
doc
there's
the
proposal
to
have
a
separate,
EC
IPA.
This
is
cool
rather
than
that
being
sort
of
bundled
in
with
the
Chordettes
and
I
think.
That
is
a
great
idea,
because
I
think
part
of
that
you
know
political
process.
How
do
we
push
things
through
kind
of
thing?
Stems
from
that
because,
of
course,
decisions
on
changes
in
the
core
protocol.
You
know
they
are
deeply
political
and
economically
impactful.
K
You
know
that
whether
things
go
in
or
not
has
real
impact
in
the
you
know
to
the
network.
Participants-
and
you
know
I-
know
a
number
of
the
core
developers.
You
know
they're
like
I.
Don't
want
to
be,
you
know,
I,
don't
I,
don't
want
to
be
public
facing
I,
don't
want
to
be
political.
You
know
this
is
just
a
technical
specification
process
and
I
mean
that
is
true
of
the
war
work
of
the
core
devs,
but
it
is
not
true
of
of
you
know
whether
ECI
please
go
through
not
so
I.
K
Think
dividing
those
two
would
be
very
useful
also
because
the
the
the
sets
of
work
are
different.
You
know
the
core
developers
are
developing
clients,
the
easting
IP
editors
are
doing
a
technical
specification
process
and
then
having
these
political
decisions
on
what
goes
through
or
not,
and
the
two
are
kind
of
deeply
intertwined
and
it's
many
of
the
same
people
doing
those
two
roles,
but
they
are
different,
so
I
think
it's
a
good
idea.
I.
M
K
All
I
mean
is
the
technical
discussions
on
on
an
EIP
are
things
which
the
core
devs
would
be
involved
with,
but
the
actual
process
of
deciding
what
goes
through
or
not
is
the
easting
IP
process.
And
yes,
many
of
those
same
individuals,
you
know,
are
filling
both
roles
and
you
obviously
aren't
gonna
do
something
if
the
core
devs
would
would
not
support
it.
But
but
ultimately,
these
are
two
different
things.
You
know
the
EIP
process.
M
M
K
Like
this,
though,
you
know
the
cat
herders
didn't
used
to
exist
and
they
do
now
and
there's
obviously
value
there.
The
magicians
didn't
used
to
exist
and
they
do
win.
There's
obviously
value
there.
You
know
and
I
see,
ECI
P
call
in
the
same
kind
of
context
is
is
like
that
it's
like
a.
It
would
be
like
a
wrapper
around
the
core
devs
of
saying.
How
can
we
help
the
core?
Devs
move
the
thing
forward
and-
and
you
know
some
decisions
you
know
are
obviously
like.
K
M
The
place
where
I
would
object
in
this
party
that
you
don't
see
the
GAF
developer
is
coming
to
Twitter
and
debate.
You
don't
see
nevermind
coming
to
Twitter
and
debate,
you
don't
see
those
guys
and
if
you
separate
like
what
is
today
their
protocol
roles,
oh
they
don't
match
some
things
that
it
is
a
pretty
broad
in
my
opinion,
then
you
just
sort
of
take
this
responsibility
of
their
shoulder
and
it
would
be
very
happy
to
have
this
pretty
of
the
shoulder.