►
From YouTube: EIPIP Meeting 39
Description
Agenda: https://github.com/ethereum-cat-herders/EIPIP/issues/82
A
So
I
found
this
this
item
in
eat,
one
dot
or
specs
repository
in
issues
section,
and
the
issue
number
is
290.
A
generally,
it
has
received
positive
feedbacks
and
people
seems
to
be
in
agreement
about
the
version
release
thing
like
there
should
be,
like
version
release
for
network
upgrades,
wondering
if
people
would
like
to
discuss
or
is
there
an
agreed
upon
process
for
it?
This
number
one
and
number
two
is
like
if
there
is
where
it
can
be
documented
or
where
people
can
follow
along.
C
This
is
the
full
yeah
okay,
so
I
think
we
still
have
like
some
time
before.
We
need
to
actually
do
this
just
yeah.
I
I
suspect
the
merge
is
probably
the
first
one.
We
need
to
figure
it
out
for
yeah
yeah
I,
and-
and
I
don't
know
I-
I
personally
would
like
to
see
how,
like
the
merge,
spec
sorry,
the
executable
spec
comes
along
before
the
merge
to
see.
If
you
know
we're
gonna
have
that
yeah.
C
Yeah,
I
think
the
east
one
of
spank
is,
is
the
best
place
and
like
in
the
next
few
months.
There
should
be
some
updates
on
that,
but
I
don't
think
it'll
be
super
soon
yeah,
unless
anybody
else
wants
to
like
own
this,
but
I
suspect,
I'm
probably
the
one
who's
gonna
have
to
to
figure
this
out.
A
All
right,
maybe
we
can
revisit
it
after
a
couple
of
weeks.
If
there
is
any
progress-
or
I
mean
like
my
best
guess-
would
be,
it
should
be.
Read
me
off
eat
one
or
spec,
where
we
we
can
follow
like
find
more
information.
If
there
is
any
process
in
place
or
if
there
is
informal
agreement,
but
as
to
mention
that
this
is
too
early
to
make
kind
of
announce
on
it.
So
we'll
come
back
on
this
topic
after
a
few
weeks.
A
Moving
on
the
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
eip
erc
editors
in
training
progress.
So
yesterday,
william
sharp
I
and
matt
garnett
we
had
this
meeting
of
in
training
meeting.
This
was
the
third
one
in
a
row
we
went
over
more
than
five
proposals
and
after
a
few
discussion,
nightline
added
comments
on
all
of
them.
So
we
came
across
a
few
topics
or
issues.
We
can
say
that
we
would
like
to
bring
it
to
attention
of
daughter
audience.
A
The
number
one
was
eip's
merged
as
final
while
there
is
an
open
pull
request
for
the
proposal,
so
this
issue
was
identified
for
two
proposals,
so
both
the
proposals
were
final
and
we
came
across
that
there
was
something
open,
pull
request
which
was
missed
earlier
or
we
could
have
addressed.
A
So
we
were
wondering
if,
if
this
can
be
resolved
with
the
help
of
a
feature
addition
to
the
existing
bar
for
that
my
suggestion
was,
if,
if
there
is
a
pull
request
to
change
the
status
to
final,
the
bart
makes
a
quick
check
into
all
open
pull
requests
to
list.
A
If
there
is
any
other
pull
request
for
that
particular
proposal
and
if
so
then
send
a
warning
message
to
the
editor
as
well
as
to
water
with
the
list
stating
that
this
cannot
be
moved
to
final
because
there
is
or
are
open,
pull
request
that
needs
to
be
closed.
Before
merging
this
proposal
to
finals,
I'm
curious
to
know
what
do
people
think
in
general?
A
Is
that
something
worth
spending
time
and
effort
and
getting
it
done
or
is
it
something
that
that
is
very
rare
and
it
should
be
man
managed
manually
by
the
eip.
D
I
I
think
that
I'm
gonna
be
nice
if
the
bot
did
that
check
for
us,
but
I
don't
think
it's
high
priority
for
me.
I
think
it's
a
pretty
rare
situation
when
it
does
come
up.
It's
usually
manageable.
It's
not
a
big
deal
like
usually
those
last
minute.
Pull
requests
are
non-normative
changes
and
especially
at
least
for
core
eips
they're,
usually
not
normal
of
changes,
and
so
I
think
that
I
would
say
yes
added
to
the
to-do
list
for
bot
things,
but
as
low
parity.
A
Right
any
other
thought
on
this.
Unfortunately,
I
do
not
see
alita
on
the
call,
so
I'm
not
sure
if
she
would
be
in
a
position
to
add
any.
You
know
thoughts
or
how
does
she
find
the
issue?
If
not,
then
we
can
also
open
it
for
people
interested
to
contribute,
maybe
all
right
so,
let's,
let's
consider
it,
but
but
not
very
high
priority
task.
A
So
there
was
another
thing
is
like
checks
needed
for
proposal
in
the
last
call.
So
the
concern
here
was
what
to
do
with
the
review
date
of
a
proposal
if
waiting
on
author's
response.
So
at
present
our
eip,
one
that
describes
about
the
last
call
status
change.
It
states
that
a
proposal
needs
to
be
there
for
14
days,
no
specific
instruction
of
what
to
be
done
next.
A
So
there
could
be
two
situation
with
that
one.
When
a
pull
request
is
already
marched
and,
like
you
know,
we
are
waiting
for
those
14
days,
and
this
happens
in
between
and
the
other
situation
can
be.
The
pull
request
is
still
there
and
it
is
not
merged
and
author
is
unavailable
for
14
days.
A
D
So
my
current
process
is
when
I
I
generally
want
the
last
call
end
date
to
always
be
two
weeks
from
when
it
enters
last
call
approximately,
and
so,
if
an
author
puts
up
a
pr
saying,
I
want
to
move
this
last
call.
D
I
give
some
give
them
some
feedback
to
addre
that
I'd
like
them
to
address
before
we
move
to
the
last
call,
and
then
they
address
it
usually
I'll
then
say:
oh,
can
you
also
update
the
last
call
date
or
I'll
update
it
for
them
either
one,
but
the
idea
generally
is
that
we
want
things
to
sit
in
the
last
call
state
for
two
weeks,
and
so
so
yeah
just
ask
the
author.
It
usually
goes
over
pretty
smoothly.
I
just
ask
them
to
update
the
last
call
date.
D
The
times
it
doesn't
go
smoothly
is
when
it
took
a
long
time
to
get
the
last
call,
because
there's
no
editors
reading
like
I
feel
bad
for
them,
because
a
person
like
you
know
puts
up
a
pr
to
last
call
and
then
like
a
week
later,
someone
reviews
it
and
then
says:
oh,
can
you
update
the
date
for
another
week
and
the
week
passes
again-
and
it's
like
this
back
and
forth
in
those
situations,
I'll
usually
just
update
it
myself
and
merge
it
and
apologize
for
the
delay
again.
A
Right
yeah,
so
yeah.
My
question
is
like
if
it
is
because
of
the
author
and
and
like
author
is
unavailable
for
some
time,
even
after
receiving
some
comments,
they
could
not
make
it
to
come
back
and
respond
to
it.
What
would
be
the
next
step
like?
Should
we
keep
the
original
date
of
the
last
call
or
whenever
he
shows
up,
and
do
that
it's
it
has
to
be
like
restarted.
D
Oh,
are
you
saying
like,
after
it's
been
merged
to
last
call?
It's
been
in
last
call
for
two
weeks:
oh
okay,
so
in
that
situation,
I'm
fine
with
just
you
know
two
weeks.
The
point
of
the
two
weeks
is
to
make
sure
that
in
theory,
people
are
aware
of
the
eip
and
have
time
to
submit
feedback.
Whether
the
author
listens
to
that
feedback
or
not,
is
entirely
up
to
the
author,
and
so
it's
on
them
to
do
what
they
want
with
the
feedback.
D
That's
not
really
our
place
to
say
you
have
to
listen
to
feedback.
Our
place
is
just
to
make
sure
that
there's
a
process
in
place
that
gives
people
an
opportunity
to
provide
feedback.
So
my
general
feeling
is
you
know
if
the
author
really
wants
to
rush
through
last
call
and
ignore
all
the
feedback
they
got
it's
up
to
them.
It's
their
choice.
We
we
just.
We
just
made
sure
that
the
process
was
in
place,
that
there
was
a
way
to
get
feedback.
A
D
Yeah,
basically
the
one
exception
I
might
make-
and
this
is
this
never
come
up
and
I
don't
think
it
will
come
up
but
like
for
core
eaps
in
particular,
if
the
authors
are
non-responsive
and
the
eip
does
not
match
what's
actually
implemented
on
mainnet,
then
I
might
step
in
and
take
like
a
heavier
hand
again
for
core
eip
specifically,
and
only
if
the
eip
did
not
match
mainnet
spec.
I
don't
actually
know
what
I
would
do
in
that
situation
exactly.
I
might
just
create
another
eip
and
say
sorry.
A
A
D
See
this
is
oh,
these
ones
yeah,
these
ones
are
tricky,
and
this
is
kind
of
why
these
ones
are
have
been
taking
forever
to
get
through.
Unlike
most
core
eips,
we
don't
have
a
good
mechanism
for
getting
these
actually
like
coming
to
consensus
among
client
devs
on
it.
So
it's
a
core
eap
in
the
sense
that
this
is
a
consensus
thing
like
clients
need
to
come
to
consensus
on
this.
D
It's
just
they
happen
to
come
to
consensus
on
it
right
now
as
a
side
effect,
not
as
an
intentional
thing
and
so
alex
is
trying
to
make
it
more
official
and
say.
Look
this:
these
are
the
rules,
they're
very
strict
rules,
and
you
know
everybody
has
to
follow
them
and
everybody
does
follow
them
right
now.
We're
saying
that
new
clients
also
need
to
follow
these,
but
there's
not.
D
We
don't,
have
a
process
in
place
for
getting
feedback
from
the
courthouse
to
make
sure
that
all
the
client
devs
actually
agreed
to
this,
and
so
I
don't
have
a
good
answer
for
you
like
they're
called
these.
These
ones
in
particular,
are
complicated
and
weird.
Maybe
tim
has
some
ideas.
D
On
ethereum
that
go
past
that
so
it's
de
facto
a
standard
but
alex
is
trying
to
make
it
official
and
you
know
make
it
so
it's
you
know
an
actual
consensus
violation
to
go
above
that
somehow
yeah
we
don't.
I
don't
know
how
we
get
consensus
on
that
from
the
core
devs,
because
we
don't
have
to
actually
do
anything.
E
D
So
I
guess
there's
that's
fair
there.
There
are
two
issues
here.
I
disagree
with
alex
that
the
right
boundaries
who's
with
64..
I.
D
D
All
right,
so
I
gotta
disagree
with
the
both
of
them
and
so
really
what
we
need
is
we
just
need.
You
know
core
devs
to
say
you
know.
Is
it
two
to
fifty
second,
or
is
it
two
to
sixty
four,
like
just.
C
Putting
the
agenda,
can
you
put
it
on
the
agenda
for
fright,
or
this
friday
or
next
friday,
like
the
agendas
are
pretty,
are
pretty
empty
right
now,
yeah,
so
yeah?
If
you
have
a
backlog
of
like
things,
you
just
need
the
plus
one
on.
I
think
we
can
probably
if
and
especially
if
you
put
it
on
the
agenda
like
a
couple
days,
at
least
before
you
know,
people
can.
B
C
C
Yeah,
if
that's
the
behavior
we
want
like,
we
should
get
it
documented.
I
don't
care
what
the
number
is,
but
I
think
yeah
just
getting
different
client
teams
to
to
kind
of
state
what
they
think
and
we
actually
don't
really
need
a
hard
fork
for
that
right,
like
it's.
Basically
a
soft
fork
because
it
just
kind
of
makes.
D
D
D
Yeah,
like
the
gas
cost,
would
be
insane
just.
C
C
D
Yeah,
this
is
really
just
something
that
will
help
integrators
integrate
a
little
bit
having
concrete.
A
C
A
It
to
the
agenda
maybe
like
as
as
to
understand
what
could
be
the
process
for
these
proposals,
and
then
we
can
like
probably
discuss
it
and
see
if
this
can
be
moved
to
final
status,
because
my
review
period
has
already
ended,
and
these
have
been
in
last
call
for
over
a
year
now,
yeah.
C
So
I
I
I
know
yeah,
it's
weird
like
the
the
last
call
period
might
not
be
two
weeks
if
these
things
just
are
not
like
high
priority
and
there's
another
really
big
high
priority
thing
say
like
in
four
months.
If
we're
like
in
the
middle
of
the
merge,
I
suspect
something
like
this
would
also
sit
for
a
couple
calls
at
least.
A
Yeah,
we
wanted
to
add
something
light
light.
E
A
Okay,
I'll
add
it
to
the
all
core
dev
agenda
and
let's
see
what
people
there
think
about
it,
yeah
so
moving
on
there
was
this
one
last
item
that
I
wanted
to
bring
to
the
attention
to
the
group
that
is
related
to
erc
title
for
math.
So
I
don't
know
if
this
is
the
right
people
to
talk
all
about
ercs,
but
because
this
is
related
to
process.
A
So
I
just
I'm
looking
for
some
good
feedback
here,
so
at
present
the
title
that
that
is
added
in
an
erc
even
for
the
new
proposals.
Those
are
variables,
like
some
people,
add
it
as
like,
erc
one
two
three
and
then
whatever
the
erc
is
for,
and
some
people
do
not
write
that
erc.
One
two
three
part
is
just
eip
and
then
whatever
the
proposal
is
about,
I'm
wondering
if
we
can
have
a
standardized
format.
So
I
looked
into
eips
eips.ethereum.org
and
the
first
erc
that
is
erc
20.
A
I
think
that
was
created
by
italic,
I
suppose
yeah
fabian
and
vitalik.
So
in
that,
if
we
look
at
it,
the
title
states
specifically
that
is
it.
It
is
an
erc
and
then
mention
it
as
token
standard,
so
it
is
written
as
eip
dash,
20
and
then
erc-20
token
standard.
But
this
is
not
the
case
with
most
of
the
erc.
What
editors
think
in
general
should
be
the
general
practice
if
we
standardize
it,
we
can
start
educating
people
and
let
them
know
like
it's
a
good
practice
to
have
in
place.
A
Okay,
because
there
is
no,
you
know
clear
instruction
here
in
the
eip1,
how
it
should
be
written.
C
E
That
it's
an
erc
in
the
category
it
shouldn't
repeat
that
it's
an
erc
in
the
title
and
then
repeat
its
number.
Unfortunately,
a
fair
number
of,
like
really
big
ercs,
have
done
this.
Like
I'm
looking
now
erc
721
is
erc,
721
unfunable
token
standard.
It
should
have
just
been
non-fungible
token
standard
erc
1155
should
just
been
multi-token
standard.
I
think
we
can
go
back
and
replace
a
number
of
these
with
just
their
titles,
but
some
of
them
don't
make
so
much
sense
with
just
the
titles
they
have
like
erc,
777
token
standard.
E
A
E
D
So
I
hopefully
you
guys,
can
hear
me,
so
I
would
I
kind
of
agree
with
matt
there.
I
think
that
for
all
of
them
we
should
remove
the
eip
number
from
the
title
for
some
of
them.
A
E
A
I
don't
see
there
are
too
many,
so
if
this
can
be
handled,
I
think
it's
less
than
ten
yeah
one,
two
three
six,
seven
seven,
I
think
yeah
less
than
ten
it
can
be
done,
will
try
to
reach
out
to
the
author
and
request
the
changes,
I'm
not
sure
changing
the
title,
like
the
title
of
the
proposal,
more
than
just
removing
the
erc
number
is
that
is
that
something
like
that
acceptable
or
like,
because
this
is
already
in
final
status.
D
A
Try
would
that
make
sense
if
we
add
a
line
in
eip,
one
stating
that
do
not
repeat
like
this
thing,
the
erc
123
before
your
title,
so
maybe
the
future
proposals
that
comes
up
they
do
not
have
it
added.
A
C
A
Right,
yeah
yeah
for
backlogs.
We
can
do
it
manually
reaching
out
to
author,
but
for
future
I
will
try
to
get
it
documented
anywhere.
Eip1
is
the
best
place
and
the
template
has
been
suggested
so
we'll
try
to
get
it
done,
or
maybe
someone
will
create
a
pull
request
to
do
that.
I
will
try
to
do
that
too.
A
Okay,
I
think
micah
added.
I
did
something
on
the
comment,
which
is
something
to
discuss
description
field
in
the
header
header
place
of
summary
section.
Let
me
pull
out
that
pull
request
number.
I
think
it
is
by
and
sick.
D
D
And
maybe
my
internet
has
been
terrible,
so
the
tl
dr,
is
that
we
currently
have
a
simple
summary,
which
is
intended
to
be
a
place
where
you
provide
a
very,
very
short
description
of
the
ip.
Like
one
sentence
long,
I
usually
recommend
people
think
of
it
like
a
email,
subject,
line
or
github
pull,
request
title
or
like
the
kind
of
short
description
on
a
forum
thread.
Something
like
that.
D
Alex
would
like
to
move
that
to
a
description
field
and
put
it
up
in
the
metadata.
So
that
way
we
can
render
it
especially
like
it
has
more
of
a
special
place,
and
so
we
can,
when
we
have
tables
and
lists
of
efus
and
whatnot,
we
can
use
that
kind
of
more
like
we
integrate
it
better
into
places
that
you
know
render
eips
in
different
ways.
D
D
A
The
next
item
on
the
list
is
a
jason
rpc
api
spec
progress
update.
I
suppose
alita
wanted
to
provide
some
updates,
but
unfortunately
I
do
not
see
her
on
the
call.
So
we
might
want
to
skip
the
item.
It
seems
like
this
meeting
is
going
to
be
a
little
shorter
than
usual.
A
A
So
the
action
item
it
says
that
which
I
will
consider
a
feature
update
to
present
eip
bot
as
a
task
list
and
ask
data
to
provide
her
feedback
yeah,
but
unfortunately
we
do
not
have
anything
on
the
call,
so
we
maybe
keep
it
open
for
the
next
meeting
and
we'll
come
back
on
it
yeah
the
other
bot
tracking
inactivity
period.
I
think
it
is
still
there
yeah.
I
think
we
have
covered
what
whatever
we
added
in
the
agenda
for
today's
meeting.
Anyone
wants
to
bring
up
anything
else.