►
From YouTube: EIPIP Meeting 69
Description
Agenda: https://github.com/ethereum-cat-herders/EIPIP/issues/192
A
So
maybe
we
can
start
with
the
first
item
here
that
is
update,
EAB
721.
The
pull
request
number
here
is
5887,
so
this
particular
item
was
also
discussed
yesterday
in
the
EIP
editing
office
hour.
It
is
created
by
Panda
peep,
one
of
the
editors
and
I
believe
Sam
Wilson
also
left
some
comments.
We
were
hoping
to
get
more
comments
and
feedback
to
move
forward
with
this
I.
Believe
that's
what
the
last
comments
Sam
left
on.
C
I
I
generally
think
that
the
history
on
EIT
7.1,
including
what
was
adopted,
what
was
Prior
Arts,
were
very
useful
and
being
left
as
a
record.
How
that
EIT
was
incorporated
and
finalized
through
morning
links
did
that
we're
being
talked
about.
Fl
reduces
the
value
of
the
original
documents.
C
Okay,
so
this
is
about
your
latest
solidity
and
removed
that's
right
kind
of
I,
I
kind
of
want
to
kind
of
prefer
my
keeping
it
as
as
is
because
you
can't
like
you,
can
have
a
newer
version,
but
I
I
kind
of
feel
that
the
EIP
itself
was
not
meant
to
be
updated
over
time.
C
We
don't
do
that
for
the
id220
and
I.
Don't
know
if
that
is
higher.
D
D
C
Would
be
my
perspective
just
to
avoid
touching
it
if
it's
finalized
and
has
been
widely
adopted,
even
though
I
had
like
for
another
97.12
I
have
a
lot
of
complaints
about
how
it's
broken,
but
now
this
finalized
I
wouldn't
challenge
it
much
open.
That
would
be
my
position
yeah
looking
forward
to
either
to
other
people's
thoughts.
B
A
Yeah
lately
we
have
been
receiving
a
lot
of
edits
for
final
eids,
so
I
wouldn't
visit
project
that
comes
later
on
with
someone,
however,
yeah.
If
any
other
people
have
any
thoughts,
we
are
currently
discussing
pull
request.
Number
five,
eight,
eight
seven.
E
A
A
A
So
this
is
a
question
that
we
are
receiving
generally
in
EIP
editors
office
hour
and
on
many
other
forums
like
new
EIP.
Authors
are
generally
confused
about
how
and
when
we
should
move,
though
we
try
to
put
more
information
on
eip1.
However,
there
is
one
special
case
that
came
into
light
yesterday.
It
was
about
EAP
3651,
which
is
a
core
proposal.
A
The
general
understanding
is
for
core
proposal.
We
do
not
exactly
follow
the
process
of
standardization,
although
we
have
these
similar
nuances,
except
for
we
try
to
sync
it
with
the
mainnet
upgrade,
because
that
is
supposed
to
be
updated.
Vm
Network
upgrade
so
yeah.
If
any
editor
would
like
to
reiterate
on
the
process
about
their
status.
A
Change
just
for
clarity
and
I
was
wondering
if
we
can
have
this
special
case
mentioned
in
eip1
as
well,
like
I
have
added
the
blog
post
that
was
published
by
cat
headers
over
a
year
ago,
in
which
we
mentioned
that
a
core
proposal
should
be
moved
into
last
call
during
the
public
test
net
period
like
when
it
is
into
the
main
net
phase,
but
that
I
believe
is
not
clearly
mentioned
in
eip1.
So
yeah
any
thoughts
and
yeah.
A
A
This
full
request
was
a
reaction
to
an
action
that
was
performed
by
bar,
so
the
author
reached
out
to
me
saying
that
I
really
do
not
know
when
to
move
to
a
different
status,
and
my
EIP
is
getting
this
support
comment
that
it
will
be
still
and
he
then
went
ahead
and
created
this
board
request
to
change
the
status,
though
I
mentioned
it
to
him
that
this
is
a
special
case
of
core
EIT
and
you
should
be
expecting
some
something
from
EIP
Adidas
thanks
to
math.
A
You
did
mention
the
same
thing,
so
it
made
it
very
clear
to
him
if
we
are
open
for
taking
it
Case
by
case
basis,
I'm
fine
by
that,
because,
as
you
said,
that
we
do
not
have
a
big
number
of
core
eids
getting
into
status
change
form
from
last
quarter
to
final
or
review
to
last
call
so
I'm
I'm,
fine
I
just
wanted
to
share
here.
C
Yeah
I
also
mentioned
there
is
wording
in
the
EIP
one,
not
much,
but
we
can
talk
about.
The
core.
Eip
has
different
requirement
that
requires
implementations
to
be
considered
flying
out.
So
I
think
that
level
of
quality
is
enough.
I
would
be.
We
don't
need
to
add
more,
but
I
think
that
any
new,
even
if
it's
a
new
yet
the
author
by
reading
everyone,
they
should
understand
that
this
is
a
requirement
for
coordinate
he's
already
documented
in
here.
If
you
want
version.
A
Okay
and
one
other
point
that
I
wanted
to
mention
related
to
this
status
change
only
I
understand.
We
generally
do
not
have
any
fixed
duration
mentioned
anywhere,
except
for
the
last
call
duration,
where
we
specify
that
the
proposal
should
be
there
for
at
least
14
days,
while
looking
into
the
eips
inside
for
the
month
of
November,
it
came
to
my
attention
that
there
are
a
few
proposals
which
moved
fast
of
moving
fast
is
not
a
bad
thing.
A
A
For
some
reason,
my
feeling
is
like
less
than
two
months
could
be
relatively
faster
and
we
may
not
be
providing
enough
time
for
Community
to
learn
about
the
proposal
and
add
valuable
feedback
so
that
we
do
not
have
iterations
of
changes
post.
It
is
finalized
like
when
a
proposal
is
done.
We
want
to
keep
it
done.
No
more
changes
there
wonder
if
there.
E
B
E
A
D
These
are
like
the
proposal.
A
A
So
if
the
author
chooses
to
make
a
pulled
request
to
merge
it
as
final,
it
will
be
less
than
two
months
actually
within
a
month
it
will
be,
and
similarly
for
five,
six
seven
nine.
It
started
on
September
19
and
on
November
10th.
It
went
into
the
final
starter,
so
I
feel
like
it
is
relatively
faster.
So
if
there
is
any
recommendation
to
keep
proposal
in
review
for
about
a
month
or
so
if
there
is
no
rush
like
if
there
is
no
particularly
need
to
move
it
faster
than
that.
E
D
F
If
we
had
that,
as
like
part
of
the
draft
stage,
like
Smooth
review
or
move
from
review
to
last
call,
you
need
to
like
show
like
three
independent
people,
who've
shared
thoughts
and
are
approving
of
this
change
and,
like
I,
don't
really
know
the
best
way
to
like
encode
that
within
the
EAP
process,
but
I
think
having
something
like
that.
Where
we
put
the
work
on
to
the
community
rather
than
having
some
arbitrary
time
limit,
could
be
a
lot
more
valuable.
C
Yeah
I
agree
with
that,
like
Ryan,
that
maybe
adding
obviously
time
period
is
not
the
best
way,
I
kind
of
in
favor
of
a
particular
way
to
like
kind
of
based
on
the
community
interests.
So
one
thing
that
I
have
been
thinking
of
is
that
for,
like
I
authored
a
lot
of
VIPs
I
think
the
RC
should
generally
also
apply
similar
standards
to
get
final,
for
example
like
how
about
having
multiple,
at
least
two
of
the
Independent
implementations,
to
get
final
I.
C
The
worthiness
of
them
and
showing
that
there's
adoptions
or
showing
their
set
implementations
just
like
core
could
help
on
one
side
really
start
the
further
iterations
of
of
of
of
the
specification
patient
like
you
already
have
adoptions,
it's
hard
for
you
to
any
actually
make
automated
change,
but
also
for
clients.
Is
that
their
time
and
energy
in
invested
into
building
and
implementations
shows
that
it's
not
just
support?
You
can
easily
buy
support
by
and
pay
on
on,
foreign.
C
B
A
Thing
I
remember
discussing
with
the
few
eib
authors
actually
of
ERC
category
like
having
a
prototype,
even
if
not
fully,
implementation
is
ready
for
a
proposal
to
be
a
standard
that
could
be
a
good
place
where
we
can
realize.
Okay,
this
is
being
implemented
and
here's
the
Prototype.
Maybe
it
can
be
moved
towards
a
standard.
C
Should
consider
no
I,
don't
think
you
prototype
is
sufficient,
actually
working
in
deployed
a
small
contract
or
actually
life.
Our
clients,
I
think,
should
be
kind
of
I
am
more
leaning
towards
that
level
of
of
clarity,
because
you
can
easily
create
some
prototype
that
doesn't
get
tested.
C
It
doesn't
get
like
I
I'm,
not
sure
if
categories
for
people
who
contribute
that
is
editorially
would
be
able
to
test
just
by
looking
into
look
just
by
looking
into
that
asset
file
for
solidity
and
it's
it's,
it
takes
a
lot
of
other
things
for
the
reference
orientation
to
be
kind
of
you
actually
testable,
and
so
seeing
a
real
deployment
and
a
real
life.
One
is
much
stronger,
much
much
more
solid
as
a
proof
of
this
is
being
adopted
and
functional
functioning.
Well,
that'll
be
my
thought.
Yeah.
E
E
Want
adoption
as
a
criteria
for
publishing
an
Erp
is
final?
Don't
worry
that
that
would
kind
of
stop
people
who
may
not
be
technically
minded
or
or
as
technically.
G
A
E
I
think
the
process
should
be
open
to
as
many
people
as
possible.
That
said,
I
think
maybe
the
approach
that
I'd
prefer
is
actually
having
a
like
a
resource
list
that
we
can
send
to
authors
and
say,
like
oh
you're,
writing
a
soul.
A
E
H
A
That's
a
fair
point,
maybe
obviously.
A
So
like
when
they
would
like
to
move
but
having
a
fair
discussion
in
discussion
to
Third
and
some
implementation
could
be
right,
set
of
information
that
we
can
pass
along
to
new
Waters
when
they
are
preparing
to
move
their
proposal
into
different
status.
C
I'm
saying
I:
if
I
heard
you
you
correctly
you
referring
to
you
like
you,
you
don't
think
you
want
to
require
it.
How
about
we
said
if
you
recognize
it,
I
am
I,
I
hurt
you
and
then
I
totally
agree
with
you.
That
was
me
too,
that
as
many
people
contribute
to
the
IV
as
possible,
and
that's
one
of
the
reasons
I
really
want
to
be
flexible
on
Main
Kings
links.
C
I
do
feel
that
there's
some
way
to
show
strong
community
supports
if
there's
any
way
to
show
strong
community
supports
adoptions,
would
be
a
good
one
like
if
we
didn't
say
hey
can
we
adopted
I
can
be
seen
as
community
support,
but
if
you
haven't
also
have
multiple
implementations,
that's
definitely
helped.
C
That's
definitely
helpful
so
make
it
an
optional
suggestions.
E
C
C
I,
don't
think
we
we
mentioned
that
yeah
I,
don't
think
I
think
that
you
can
provide
this
meditation,
but
we
don't
say
okay,
so
I
may
need
to
be
like
it's
recommended
to
even
understand
reference
policy
that
you
were
advocating
if
I
understand
exactly
people
should
actually
remove
them.
C
A
Right
and
I
think
that
is
the
next
item
listed
here
about
eap1191,
better
I
believe
this
was
added
by
you.
If
you
would
like
to
provide
some
context
here,.
C
Yeah,
so
just
yeah
q191
has
been
moved
to
last
call
since
back
in
2019.,
with
minimum
change
or
minimal,
nomadic
change
and
there's
a
big
list
of
adoption
table
which
makes
me
feel
this.
Would
there
will
not
be
my
change
in
in
the
future
as
well,
but
staying
in
last
call
for
multiple
years,
I
think
undermines
our
sense
as
a
community
forward
lost
parties,
so
I
kind
of
pose
this
question
to
editors.
C
Should
we
move
it
to
find
out,
or
should
we
move
to
stagnance
I
gain
towards
moving
to
final,
but
there's
a
strong
push
from
Etheridge
author,
we
attract
more
more
so
I
kind
of
like
to
get
a
gallon
of
Andrew,
saying
thoughts
about
how
she
was
like
how
what
their
ass
injury
goes
here
and
what
their
policy
thinking
process
is.
A
A
Some
more
context
here
this
proposal
was
also
under
discussion
about
about
six
months
ago,
and
that
point
also,
we
were
stuck
at
a
place
where
Arthur,
where
are
the
etherges,
are
the
requested
some
changes
and
the
proposal
author
is
not
willing
to
maybe
comply
with
that
or
is.
Is
there
only
so?
A
The
other
option
is
if
author
wants
to
maybe
withdraw
the
proposal
or
someone
else
wants
to
come
up
with
a
competitive
Proposal
with
whatever
changes
they
are
suggesting
like
I,
believe
it
is
a
a
note
on
backward
compatibility,
so
if
they
would
do,
other
proposal
will
be
moved
forward.
Otherwise
bot
will
definitely
move
it
into
standard
status.
If
nothing
happens
there
for
a
longer
time.
C
I
do
know
that,
if
untouched
for
six
months
but
we'll
do
that
I
think
my
question
is
given
the
current
status
at
some
of
the
community
has
stopped
in
some
of
the
community
being
towards,
and
so
I
came
back
with.
Compatibility
are.
C
C
So
sorry
am
I.
A
Oh
no
I
think
we
can
hear
you
yes,
I
think
we
will
differ
there
on
EAB
editors
decision
and
it
looks
like
the
decision
is
if
there
is
no
pull
request
by
the
author
yeah
to
move
it
to
the
funnel
and
unless
all
the
issues
mentioned
in
the
discussion
thread
are
addressed,
it
should
not
be
moved.
E
Like
I,
don't
think
we'll
stop
it
from
moving
to
file.
If
the
author
wants
to
move
it
to
final
but
like
there
are
a
lot
of
concerns
and
either
like
somebody
should
open
any
IP
that
addresses
them
at
some
point,
but
yeah.
A
C
I
agree:
I
I
need
to
work
that
author
I'll
allows
you
to
move
it
to
final
I.
Do
also
agree
that
they
can
also
just
resolve
any
from
any
concerns.
That
would
be
even
better,
but
my
stands.
Our
personal
opinion
here
is
that
once
they
get
larger
number
of
adoptions
that
the
ID's
hours
were
enough
to.
A
All
right
moving
ahead,
we
thank
you
moving
ahead.
We
have
item
number
two,
which
is
discussion
continued
from
earlier
meeting.
First,
one
is
a
EAP
one
clarify
when
to
use
requests.
I
think
we
discussed
this
and
Sam
Wilson
opened
a
pulled
request
for
that.
So
I
believe
this
is
to
decide
on
merging.
They
could
request.
Number
is
five
six
one,
four
any
thoughts
comments
or
maybe
decision.
E
E
This
point
I'm
I'm,
okay,
with
just
closing
this
I
mean
we
have
two
approvals
and
and
Victor
as
well.
I,
don't
think
anybody's
opposed
I'll
merge
it
unless
somebody
objects
right
now,.
E
A
A
Matt
I
believe
this
issue
was
brought
up
by
you.
You
have
to
add
anything
I'm
in
this,
since
we
were
in
agreement
like.
D
F
F
C
D
A
F
C
E
F
C
B
F
H
D
F
F
E
D
C
I
witnessing
the
same
for
speaking
of
yeah,
the
author.
A
I
would
like
to
add
a
small
Point
here:
people
who
are
referring
ERC
as
ERC.
They
are
generally
people
who
are
here
in
the
ecosystem
for
very
long
time
and
that
time
ERC
was
having
a
special
case
like
okay.
They
were
not
considered
to
be
I.
Don't
know,
people
did
not
even
consider
it
to
be
a
part
of
EIP
standardization,
but
we
spent
a
decent
amount
of
time
in
making
this
thing,
and
the
good
news
that
I
want
to
share
here
is
new
Authors,
who
are
documenting
eib
of
ERC
category.
A
F
F
D
C
C
Want
to
call
you
guys,
but
if
we
don't
agree
on
that,
put
it
to
the
poll
at
all,
then
we
don't
make
a
case.
But
if
we,
if,
as
in
this
venue,
everyone
agrees
that
we
should
call
your
EIP
based
on
what
people
call
them,
then
the
next
debate
is:
what
do
people
call
them
right?
People
already
jumped
into
the
next
everybody,
but
they're
going
to
test
out
whether
the
first
one
is.
Actually.
The
principle
is
actually
agreed
upon
by
the
group.
E
C
Whatever
that's,
what
I
think
is
like
internet,
so.
E
D
D
D
F
C
For
a
second
hello,
I
also
have
a
crappy
at
my
iPod,
just
be
great,
it's
very
badly
many
many
years.
It's.
D
D
A
D
A
Respond
to
one
big
one
comment
from
Victor
Victor
generally,
we
speaking
of
the
process
of
the
standardization
is
not
very
different.
We
are
also
looking
for
implementation
for
even
core
proposal,
though
this
implementation
is
going
via
a
client
team
and
similarly,
the
expectation
is
with
the
ERC.
Also
there
should
be
some
kind
of
implementation
or
adoption
there,
so
maybe
like
in
real
life.
There
could
be
a
little
bit
of
difference.
The
process
of
the
standardization
Remains.
F
F
G
F
Would
love
to
just
move
erc's
farther
and
farther
away
from
eip's
and
honestly
I
am
like
getting
tired
of
waiting
like
I.
Don't
know
when
that's
gonna
happen,
but
I
would
love
to
do
it
more,
but
I
think
that,
like
we're
just
seeing
over
and
over
again
that
people
are
confused
with
this,
we
have
years
used
in
the
wild
and
now
we're
like
you
know,
calling
them
in
an
automated
way
that
that's.
D
E
F
D
E
About
it
and
let's
get
everybody
except
access
to
weigh
in
on
it,
because
I
think.
D
E
A
Sorry
Victor,
if
you
were
trying
to
say
something
your
voice
went
robotic.
We
could
not
casually
then.
A
D
E
D
A
I
think
the
voice
of
editors
count
here
and.
A
A
To
do
just
like
you
mentioned
about
in
the
case
of
each
two.
Similarly,
on
the
ERC
side,
if,
if
the
EIP
editors
are
trying
to
make
a
decision
on
that,
I
think
it
is
on
them
to
own
this
responsibility
of
communicating
the
right
thing
to
the
community,
so
I
don't
think
we
should
be
feeling
bad
about
making
decisions
meeting.
This
is
open.
People
can
join
and
share
their
thoughts.
A
F
Yeah
I
mean
I'm
just
having
a
Crusades.
Do
not
have
the
blind
post
a
bunch
of
meaningless
comments
on
the
yeah.
He
said
because
there's
nothing
worse.
Yeah
there's
like
30
40
comments
but
they're
all
just
like
opening
and
closing
the
TR
or
sale
reviews
bugs
and
the
bot
whatever
and
there's
gonna
see
a.
D
F
D
F
H
H
B
A
H
C
B
A
I
have
not
added
the
format.
How
can
we
over
here
but
I,
was
trying
to
collect
the
information
with
the
new
eapsinsite.com
website
that
we
are
working
towards
it
and
we
do
have
a
tab
of
the
latest
Monday
from
that
report.
I
can
say
that
we
have
six
proposals
which
reached
to
final
status
in
the
month
of
November.
Those
proposals
are
EAP.
A
A
There
are
three
proposals
in
last
call
one
is
five:
seven,
five,
zero
general
extensibility
for
methods,
Behavior,
four
five,
one,
nine
non-fungible
token
tied
to
physical
asset
and
the
last
one
is
five:
seven,
five,
seven
that
is
process
for
approving
external
resources,
so
Matt
I
was
wondering
like
we
have
this
proposal
in
last
call:
do
we
want
to
move
it
to
final
or
do
we
want
to
leave
it
with
the
status
of
living?
What
is
the
next
step
here.
F
B
F
E
A
One
the
process
for
approving.
A
Fair
enough
so
yeah,
these
are
the
three
proposals
on
last
call.
So
people,
if
you
have
thoughts,
comments,
come
forward
and
share
it
either
on
the
discussion
toolkit
or
on
the
respective
request
better
on
discussion
to
thread.
We
don't
want
to
create
any
confusion.
B
A
That's
all
on
eits
inside
the
next
item.
Here
is
EIP
editing
office
hour.
Yesterday
we
had
editing
office
hour.
Meeting
number
six
recording
is
updated
on
ethereum
cat
photos
YouTube,
and
this
has
been
going.
Great
I
have
been
receiving
a
lot
of
positive
feedbacks
thanks
Samuelson
for
having
this
meeting.
It
has
helped
a
lot
of
new
Authors
to
understand
how
they
can
move
forward
and
people
if
you
have
any
questions
or
any
pull
requests
and
anything
that
you
would
like
to
check
with
editors.
A
I
believe
this
is
the
best
meeting
where
you
can
have
one-to-one
interaction.
So
yeah
agenda
for
meeting
number
seven
is
already
added.
You
can
also
leave
your
code
request
number
in
the
agenda,
so
we
can
include
it
in
the
next
meetings.
Discussion.
A
That's
all
I!
Think
and
now
we
are
at
the
last
item,
which
is
a
review
action
item
from
the
earlier
meeting
and
okay.
So
there
is
one
action
item
for
Sam
I
think
he
already
have
worked
towards
it.
It
is
related
to
EAP
5750,
which
is
at
now
in
the
last
call,
so
that
is
taken
care
of,
and
we
have
Revisited
issues
which
were
pending
from
the
last
discussion.
A
I
think
that's
all
from
the
items
added
to
the
agenda
for
today's
discussion.
We
have
approximately
five
to
seven
minutes.
If
anyone
has
anything
to
share,
discuss
yeah,
please.
D
Origins
I.
E
Think
we
just
need
to
come
up
with
the
weather.
I
just
need
to
come
up
with
a
way
to
add
a
Json
to
a
footnote,
see.
G
Same
I,
wonder
I
it.
It
seems
like
these
jsons
are
very
highly
structured
structural
I.
Wonder
if
it's
better
to
be
in
a
separate
file
for
a
structural
or
is
that
intended.
E
G
G
E
D
Has
a
strong
purpose
but
I
felt
more
in
markdown.
E
And
validate
it,
but
from.
D
That
would
require
more
work
on
the
Jekyll
side
to
get
it
to
render
correctly,
but
maybe
that's
worth
it
I,
don't.
E
E
E
So
that's
a
problem.
Sorry
I
have
to
just
figure
out.
D
E
B
A
A
If
this
is
resolved
before
the
next
meeting,
it's
fine
I
mean
if
it
is
much
or
not.
So
if
we
want
to
bring
it
up
in
the
next
meeting,
considering
it
is
still
open,
we
can
probably
add
it
to
the
agenda.
There.
B
G
Sam
I
also
mentioned
that
I
want
to
propose
a
few
other
things
into
this
into
our
first
accepted
external
Origins,
such
as
ethereum
Dev
po
P2P.
G
Do
you
have
a
father
to
adding
those
like
I,
I'm
hoping?
This
is
probably
the
easiest
time
to
get
origins
in.
D
E
Yeah
yeah
so
I
think
just
just
because
I
didn't
separate
the
like.
E
Like
a
two
parts
like
one
about
the
the
rules
text
and
one
to
add
the
the.
A
So
if
you
could
make
a
PR
after
this,
one
gets
merged,
I'd
appreciate
it,
but
if
you
also
want
to
make
one
before
just
copy
the
same,
like
introduction.