►
From YouTube: EIPIP meeting 50
Description
Agenda: https://github.com/ethereum-cat-herders/EIPIP/issues/110
A
A
So
for
the
past
few
months
we
have
been
running
this
eip
editors
apprenticeship
program
to
onboard
few
more
reviewers
to
help
out
with
the
eip
editing
process,
especially
on
the
standard
track.
Erc
proposals
and
the
good
news
is.
We
have
received
good
responses
and
possible
candidates
who
have
been
contributing
on
the
standard
track
core
and
erc
proposals
in
the
last
meeting.
Micah
brought
up
that
we
can
discuss
onboarding
of
these
candidates
because
some
of
them
have
been
contributing
for
quite
a
few
months
now.
A
A
Right,
I
totally
agree,
and
I
know
like
client,
you
have
been
facilitating
these
meetings
and
from
my
experience,
one
of
the
name
is
prominent
over
there.
That
is
william
schwab.
So
I
would
like
to
propose
him
to
be
like
formally
onboarded
and
if
you
have
any
thoughts,
suggestions
recommendation
on
that.
B
A
A
Oh
well,
in
the
past
like
how
we
did
the
onboarding
process
was
we
tried
to
get
some
accesses
in
the
eip
github
repository
for
the
eip
editor
to
be
working
now,
but
I
understand
now
many
things
have
changed
since
then,
so
I
would
be
looking
into
what
would
be
the
minimum
requirement.
What
would
be
the
like
minimum
steps
that
we
need
to
formally
on
board
these
people
and
if
there
is
any
action
item
for
me
that
I
need
to
talk
to
someone
I'll
be
happy
to
do
that.
B
Just
the
person
just
needs
to
submit
a
pull
request
to
add
their
name
to
the
I'll,
find
link,
but
there's
a
file
that
has
which
editors
have
rights
to
approve.
A
That
sounds
simple,
so
I
don't
see
any
action
item
on
my
part,
my
part,
except
we
need
to
communicate
it
to
william
schwab,
maybe
to
get
his
name
added,
so
he
can
also
start
getting
notifications.
A
Okay,
let's
begin
with
this,
and
I
know
there
is
another
name:
sam
wilson,
he
has
recently
started
getting
more
involved
and
he
is
a
he
has
been
looking
into
core
as
well
as
erc's
as
well.
A
B
A
I
know
we
do
not
have
all
of
the
present
eip.
C
B
B
So
if
you
can
reach
out
to
william
and
sam
and
have
them
go
to
that
link
and
submit
a
pr
to
add
their
names
to
or
their
github
panels,
rather
to
any
one
of
those
any
one
or
more
of
those
lines,
they're
interested
in
helping
with.
B
A
Well,
that
sounds
good
to
me
as
well.
I
will
reach
out
to
both
of
them
and
the
process
seems
simple.
As
of
now
I
do
not
see
any
other
action
item
not
on
my
part
and
not
on
like
a
devops
part.
So
let's
begin
with
this,
and
if
there
is
an
issue
or
kind
of
not
having
consensus,
which
I
doubt
highly
doubt,
then
we
will
bring
this
topic
in
the
next
meeting.
A
Any
final
comment
before
we
move
on
I'll-
let
him
know
the
next
item
listed
here
is
a
yellow
paper
fix
remove
eip
1706.
So
this
item
has
been
picked
from
the
eat.
Rnd
discord
chat
where
exits
suggested
that
yellow
paper
should
be
updated.
Someone
and
someone
from
the
community
brought
up
that
a
proposal.
A
A
If
I
remember
correctly
for
one
of
the
core
proposals,
which
was
supposed
to
be
updated,
I
mean
like
I
know
that
was
a
merged
in
clients
and
the
yellow
paper
was
updated
for
that.
Andrew
from
the
erigon
team
had
created
some
pull
requests.
I
remember
just
because
he
mentioned
this
in
the
in
one
of
the
meetings.
A
So
probably
he
is,
he
may
be
the
right
person,
but
yeah,
I'm
not
sure
anyone
else
has
any.
You
know
ideas
or
thoughts
around
how
this
these
things
work
or
really
people
being
updated.
A
Okay,
I
just
remember
the
proposal
number.
I
think
it
was
3607
which
is
now
in
final
status.
That
was
the
proposal
which
was
supposed
to
update
the
yellow
paper
as
well
to
bring
some
changes.
A
Okay,
maybe
just
a
simple
question:
is
it
okay,
if
I
reach
out
to
andrew
and
follow
up
with
him
to
get
this
thing
updated
or
anyone
from
the
eip
editors
would
like
to
own
this
task.
A
A
All
right,
I
now
see
sam
wilson
on
the
call,
welcome
sam,
and
we
just
missed
you
as
we
were
discussing
for
you
to
be
a
future
eip
editor
and
as
an
action
item.
Probably
for
you
from
the
first
item.
Eap,
editor
onboarding
is,
if
you
are
interested
and
if
you
want
to
contribute
as
an
eip,
editor
micah
has
shared
a
link
in
which
you
might
want
to
create
a
pull
request
to
get
your
name
added.
So
you
start
getting
the
pings
for
every
pull
request
that
comes
into
the
eip
github
repository.
D
Great
okay,
that's
in
the
the
agenda
or.
A
I
think
it
was
in
the
chat.
I'm
gonna
bring
it
again
because
you
joined
recently,
so
you
might
have
missed
that
link.
Yes,.
A
More
the
merrier-
I
hope
you
guys-
will
have
a
good
time
there
all
right.
Moving
on
to
the
next
item.
It's
eip,
but
issues
update.
A
I
have
added
to
the
link
to
the
eip
part
github
repository
though
I
haven't
seen
any
new
changes
or
pull
requests
over
there,
but
we
have
shashank
on
the
call,
so
I'm
not
sure
shashank.
If
you
have
any
update
to
share
on
the
eip
bad
sides,
please
feel
free.
D
D
A
D
Sure
so
I
I
noticed
that
alpha
key
has
already
picked
up
couple
of
issues
and
he's
trying
to
work
on
the
the
eip
eip
hyphen
bolt.
So
I'm
I'm
thinking
of
picking
up
the
ip
validator
bot
end
of
resolve
couple
of
issues.
I
m.
I
do
have
some
questions
regarding
one
or
two
issues,
I'm
not
sure
if
we
are
open
to
if
the
follower
is
open
to
ask
questions
regarding
that,
will
that
be
fine.
D
D
Yeah,
so
I
think
the
main
the
main
one
is
that
discussion
regarding
you
know
have
we
formed
the
consensus
around
that
we
should
have
the
discussions
to
pointing
to
ethereum
magicians,
because
I
saw
comments
again
on
the
eip
eipv
issue
that
was
raised.
B
Yeah,
I
believe
we
are
every.
I
believe
everybody
who
is
an
active
editor
is
an
agreement.
B
D
Right
all
right,
so
I
think
so
regarding
that
what
would
happen
to
the
issues
that
or
the
eips
that
didn't
have
discussion
between
the
previous?
Like
so
have
we
have
a
thought
off?
Sorry.
B
We
don't
plan,
we
don't
currently
have
any
plans
to
migrate
existing
issues,
so
existing
issues
that
already
have
or
sorry
existing
eips
that
already
are
using
github
or
twitter
or
reddit
or
whatever
for
their
discussion
we'll
continue
to
have
that.
For
the
time
being,
this
would
only
be
validating
the
new
eips
going
forward.
D
B
Yeah,
so
any
non-final
eip
would
probably
fall
under
this
rule.
If
there's
an
eip
that
has
a
whole
lot
of
discussion
already
in
a
different
place.
We
it's
probably
fine,
but
I
would
say
we
can
just
override
when
that
happens
like
there
might
be
one
or
two
that
are
going
to
get
grandfathered
in
and
we
can
have
one
of
the
admins
which
would
be
manorai
override
in
that
case,.
D
Okay,
I
think
somebody
suggested
so.
B
D
D
B
D
Okay,
so
I
think
in
one
of
the
issue,
axic
already
mentioned
a
solution.
His
suggestion
was
to
ignore
he
said
two
rules.
One
is
basically
ignore
it
for
anything,
marked,
final
superseded
or
abandoned,
and
the
second
rule
was
add,
an
explicit
exclusion
list
for
eips.
That
is
a
way
to
disable
this
check
for
a
set
of
eips
and
include
those
which
are
missing
it
currently,
but
are
merged.
B
I'm
also
okay,
with
either
of
those
solutions.
Okay,
those
those
solutions
that
alex
proposed
are
more
robust
than
the
one
I
proposed.
The
one
I
proposed
is
very
easy,
so
it
depends
if
you,
if
you
feel
you
have
the
time
and
capacity
to
implement
alex's
solutions.
I
do
think
those
are
better
if
you,
if,
if
we
have
to
choose
between
doing
nothing
and
doing
my
solution,
then
I
would
sure
pick
my
solution
sure
sure
make.
D
Sense:
okay,
that's
there
so
matt
there
was.
This
issue
opened
called
remove
updated.
Will
it
be
fine
if
I
share
my
screen,
so
it's
easy
for
everyone
to
the
friend
of
you,
so
yeah.
D
Yeah,
so
could
you
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
this
issue?
I
I
kind
of
I
kind
of
didn't
understand
this
eip
should
not
be
allowed
in
with
updated.
B
Yeah,
so
there
there
is
a
very
constrained
set
of
fields
that
are
allowed
in
the
header
and
updated
is
not
one
of
them,
and
so
I
don't
know
if
the
validator
currently
validates
that
there
are
no
extraneous
fields,
I
don't
think
it
does,
but
it
should
so.
The
validator
should,
when
it's
checking
should
make
sure
that
there
are
no
fields
in
the
header
besides
the
ones
that
are
official
fields.
A
Yeah,
I
think
that
is
from
the
one
of
the
recent
pull
requests.
It's
a
new
proposal,
fairly
new
proposal
that
had
that
additional
fee-
and
we
were
wondering
like
it-
would
be
nice
to
have
the
part
validating
it,
and
I
should
not
auto
merge
that.
B
No,
so
the
sections
and
the
header
fields
should
all
match
what
is
in
the
spec
within
a
section,
things
are
a
little
more
loose,
but
the
top
level
section
so
things
that
start
with
two
pound
signs
and
then
everything
in
the
header
which
is
between
those
three
three
dashes
those
are
very,
very
strict
and
the
more
we
can
get
the
bot
to
check
those
two
sets
of
things:
the
better
right.
B
Now
the
editors
basically
manually
read
and
check
to
see,
there's
no
extra
sections
and
there's
no
extra
header
fields,
but
we
very
often
miss.
D
Okay,
I
just
remembered
there
was,
I
think,
two
other
yet
two
other
issues
that
I'd
like
to
discuss.
One
was
there
was
this:
let
me
just
hear
the
screen
again,
so
there
was
this
issue
pulled
pulled
by
x.
I
see
that's
that's
to
kind
of
check
whether
these
links
within
the
eips
are
matching
correctly
or
not.
Are
you
guys
aware
about
this
issue.
B
Yeah
so
there's
another
thing
that
would
be
great
to
have
the
validator
check
doesn't
currently,
but
the
eips
should
always
be
in
the
form
eip
dash
and
then
some
number
of
numbers,
not
starting
with
a
zero
so
like
the
the
reg
x,
would
be
eip
dash
and
then
any
number
of
numbers
first,
one
not
being
zero
recorded,
so
one
through
nine,
followed
by
slash
d
plus
or
anyway,
so
so
yeah
so
anytime.
B
There's
a
link
to
another
eip-
and
this
is
the
tricky
part-
is
going
to
be
identifying
where
there's
a
link
to
an
eip,
that's
a
little
more
complicated,
but
any
time
there
is
a
link
to
any
another
eip.
It
should
use
sorry
anytime,
there's
another
a
reference
to
another
eip.
It
should
use
that
form
and
it
should
be
hyperlinked
using
relative
pass,
so
dot
slash
eip
dash
number
number
number
dot
md.
B
It
would
be
awesome
if
the
the
bot
could
catch
all
of
the
places
that's
broken
again.
This
is
one
of
those
things
that,
if
there's
an
easy
solution
that
catches
90
that's
better
than
no
solution.
B
So
don't
if
you
decide
you
wanted
to
follow
up
on
this,
don't
get
bogged
down
trying
to
get
it
perfect
like
maybe
the
simple
solution
is
to
just
look
for
the
common
ones
like
the
one
alex
mentioned
here,
so
he
lists
a
set
of
common
formats,
maybe
just
search
for
those
formats
and
fix
them.
Only
don't
worry
about
trying
to
find
every
single
eip
mention.
B
Puja
may
remember:
in
a
recent
meeting,
we
discussed
whether
we
should
always
use
the
eap
and
not
erc.
Did
we
come
to
a
conclusion
on
that.
A
In
a
similar
context,
if
I
may
ask
to
look
into
the
eip
number
seven
zero
six
shashank
while
you
are
sharing
screen,
would
it
be
possible
for
you
to
go
to
eips.ethereum.org
and
just
take
out
the
eap1706.
A
So
here,
when
we
see
into
look
into
the
withdrawal
reason
I
see,
the
format
is
not
working.
I
remember
that
this
thing
was
working
earlier,
but
it
seems
like
something
has
broken.
Anyone
has
any
I
idea
like.
Why
is
it
not
reflecting
the
correct?
I
mean,
why
is
it
not
properly
structured,
not
that
one
withdrawal
reason.
B
My
guess
is
because
that
isn't
that's
the
header
isn't
rendered
with
marked
markdown
render,
if
I
just
had
to
take
the
wild
gus
and
because
of
that,
it's
not
rendering
properly
so
the
place
for
someone
who's
interested
in
tackling
this
issue,
the
place
to
check
would
be
github.com,
ethereum,
eips
and
then
under.
B
I
want
to
say
under
underscore.
Layouts
is
where
it's
going
to
be,
or
maybe
index.html
anyways
in
in
that
repository
is
where.
B
If
you
go
there
to
that,
link
is
pasted,
you
can
see
it's
escaping
the
withdrawal
reason
and
so.
B
No,
it's
always
a
valid
field.
It
was
we
added
it
not
terribly
long
ago.
A
I
remember
discussion
on
this,
but
I
wasn't
sure
that
this
is
the
case
I
didn't
see.
I
probably
didn't
see
this
withdrawal
reason
in
any
other
withdrawal,
ei
withdrawn
eips.
B
All
right
so
so
fixing
it
is
going
to
be
a
pain.
The
the
fundamental
issue
is
that
it's
not
it's
not
marked
down.
We
could
make
the
withdrawal
reason
mark
down,
but
I
don't
know
how
to
do
that.
So
this
would
be
a
research
project
to
figure
out
how
the
github
markdown
or
how
the
jekyll,
which
I
believe
is
marked
out
the
renderer
we're
using.
How
does
jekyll
render
stuff,
and
how
do
you
tell
it
to
render
some
set
of
text
as
markdown.
B
A
All
right,
maybe
in
the
sense
of
time
this
the
best
next
step
for
this
would
be
kind
of
creating
an
issue,
and
maybe
then
we
can
explore
the
reason
and
if
we
get
there,
then
probably
the
team
can
look
into
fixing
it.
B
Yeah
so
definitely
create
an
issue
for
it.
It
is
a
bug.
It's
just
I'm
guessing
it's
going
to
be
more
difficult
to
solve
than
most
of
the
other
problems
we
have,
and
so
I
would
recommend
prioritizing
other
things
over
it,
since
it's
relatively
minor.
A
Thank
you
shashank.
If
you
can
also
like
just
create
an
issue
for
the
bug
that
we
just
discussed
for
eip1706,
that
would
be
nice
all
right.
Thank
you.
A
A
The
next
item
listed
here
is
a
eip's
insight.
The
link
to
the
eap
insight
is
added
in
the
agenda.
As
of
now,
we
have
four
new
proposals
and
the
latest
one
which
was
also
discussed
in
the
all
core
dev
meeting,
is
eip4788.
That
is
beacon
state
route
in
the
evm.
A
A
Three
proposals
moved
to
final
and
four
proposals
are
moved
to
review
status.
The
new
proposal
those
have
been
added
to
the
review
status
is
ap,
four,
three,
nine,
nine,
a
supply
and
difficulty
opcode,
which
is
there
for
the
march,
and
there
is
this
another
proposal:
4803
limit
transaction
gas
limit.
A
A
A
We
had
this
meeting
yesterday
and
we
discussed
about
a
proposal
that
is
currently
in
a
draft
form
as
in
pull
request,
the
number
is
4505.
A
The
authors
of
the
proposal
were
also
present
in
the
meeting
and
they
had
some
questions
we
tried
to
when,
like
the
ap
editors
tried
to
answer
that
talking
about
this
particular
pull
request.
I
I
remember
reading
a
comment
about
the
proposed
standards,
so
it
appears
that
there
is
similar
standard
available,
not
in
eips
category,
but
I
was
just
wondering
out
of
curiosity.
A
I
understand
that
it
would
not
be
possible
for
us
to
like
make
sure
that
everything
that
is
coming
up
new,
especially
in
the
erc
category
we
would
be
able
to
validate
if
there
is
something
existing
already
in
some
form
of
standard,
just
wondering
if
any
ap
editor
has
thought
about.
How
do
we
make
sure
that
a
standard
here
is
a
standard
that
is
not
like
earlier
added
to
the
repository.
B
I
mean
it's
a
hard
problem.
The
best
chance
we
have
at
that
is
that,
when
the
when
editor
goes
to
review,
it
they're
the
most
likely
ones
who
will
have
seen
something
similar
before
and
they
can
like
if
they
notice
that
this
is
a
duplicate
or
something
similar
to
another
one
they'll
at
least
I
will
usually
tell
the
person
hey.
This
looks
a
lot
like
eip
blah
blah
blah.
I'm
going
to
check
that
out
before
merging
this.
That
being
said,
it
is
okay,
like
people
are
allowed
to
submit
duplicates.
B
In
fact,
if
there's
a
strong
enough
disagreement
between
two
parties
about
how
he
should
move
forward.
One
of
the
recommendations
for
resolution
that
we
we
give
people
is
that
they
should
both
just
create
their
own
eip
and
operate
separately
and
those
such
in
such
case
those
eips
will
be
duplicates
of
each
other,
basically
so
yeah.
So
there's
no
fully
automated
solution
for
this.
That
I
can
think
of
that
doesn't
involve
like
designing
a
revolutionary,
artificial
intelligence,
and
so
I
think,
just
best
guess
of
editors
or
best
effort
of
editors
is
all
we've
got.
A
That's
yeah,
probably
the
right
solution
and
I'm
sorry
I
I
suppose
I'm
set
the
wrong
pull
request.
Number
the
correct
one
is
4671.
I
have
shared
the
link
in
the
chat
here.
A
A
The
next
item
listed
here
is
other
topics,
other
discussion
topics
which
are
referred
here,
and
I
think
these
are
the
items
suggested
by
william
in
trichen.
He
did
make
some
pull
requests
and
I
see
that
that
is
mush
now
and
I'm
not
sure
in
one
of
the
past
meetings
or
to
an
earlier
communication
to
me.
A
Going
for
the
review
action
items
from
the
previous
meeting,
I
know
there
was
this
one
that
I'm
supposed
to
talk
to
fem
team
about
the
limited
editing
window.
I
have
pinged
the
theme,
but
I'm
waiting
for
response,
probably
because
of
each
denver.
People
were
really
busy
there
so
and
most
of
them
are
traveling,
so
I'm
not
sure
they
did.
They
got
the
chance
to
look
into
it,
but
I
will
try
to
follow
up
with
them
again
and
hopefully
we
should
have
something
in
the
next
meeting
to
share
with
the
people.
A
That's
all
on
the
items
listed
here.
Anyone
has
anything
to
bring
up
or
any
new
discussion
points
for
the
upcoming
meetings.