►
From YouTube: EIPIP Meeting 57
Description
Agenda: https://github.com/ethereum-cat-herders/EIPIP/issues/141
A
All
right
welcome
to
eipip
meeting
57.
I
have
shared
agenda
in
chat
for
people
who
joined
just
now
may
have
missed
it,
so
I'm
gonna
re-share
it.
The
first
item
listed
here
is
a
core
eips
and
executables
back
world.
We
have
been
discussing
this
item
for
past
few
weeks
and
I
remember
in
last
meeting
there
was
a
comment
by
greg
that
we
should
postpone
the
final
decision
on
this
item.
A
Sam
did
mention
about
some
async
discussion
in
ethereum
channel.
I'm
not
sure
if
there
are
further
updates
that
you
would
like
to
share
sam.
B
Nope,
nothing
really.
There
hasn't
been
much
discussion
since
the
last
meeting.
A
Right
so
I
wonder,
like
we
still
have
some
few
open
questions
like
where
are
we
on
this
like
a
new
executable
spec
world,
and
is
there
any
action
item
for
anyone
or
if
and
when?
We
would
like
to
have
this
item
on
the
agenda
for
the
api
discussion.
B
So
we're
starting
on
the
berlin
hard
fork.
I
think
that's
the
where
that's
where
we're
at
in
the
specs
and
I'm
not
sure
when
it
should
come
up
on
the
agenda
for
eipip.
It
really
needs
greg
to
be
here
to
talk
about
it.
So
I
guess
whenever
he
can
be
here,
yeah.
A
All
right,
so
I
think
there
was
one
point
that
I
know
tim
is
not
present
in
the
meeting
today,
and
he
mentioned
that
he
would
be
talking
to
rest
of
the
client
team
members
to
maybe
seek
thoughts
on
if
they
are
comfortable
going
ahead
with
the
python
specs,
I'm
okay,
keeping
it
on
the
agenda,
and
I
will
bring
it
back
in
the
next
meeting
and
I'll
also
try
to
get
greg
tim
view.
All
of
us
together
in
this
call.
So
we
can
probably
make
a
decision
on
this
item.
A
Moving
on
to
the
next
item:
eips
github,
so
this
item
is
selected
from
eips
github.
We
have
requested
the
users
to
leave
issues
if
they
would
like
to
be
brought
into
eapap
meeting
discussion.
I
have
picked
up
two
items
from
there.
One
is
a
list
of
for
close
a
few
more
issues.
Panda
pap1
created
this
list
and
he
thinks
that
it
can
probably
be
closed.
I
wanted
to
bring
it
to
eap
editor's
attention.
C
So,
as
for
my
comment
in
in
there,
I
already
addressed
the
first
four
that
big
list.
Afterwards,
though,
we
need
to
discuss
and
decide
how
we
want
to
handle.
So
currently
we
are
recommending
all
new
eips
get
their
discussions
to
link
sent
over
to
ethereum
magicians.
However,
any
existing
eips
can
who
already
have
their
discussions
to
pointing
at
pw
issues.
We
allow
that
to
continue.
C
We
don't
have
a
plan
for
migrating
data,
and
so
the
question
is:
do
we
just
want
to
leave
those
issues
open
forever?
Do
we
want
to
close
them,
but
allow
discussion
to
continue
on
the
closed
issue?
That's
probably
fine,
or
do
we
want
to
develop
some
sort
of
plan
for
getting
people
to
getting
this
information
somehow
migrated
to
three
magicians.
A
C
None
that
I've
seen
we've
briefly
talked
about
it
and
we
just
decided
to
leave
them
there
for
now.
At
one
point
we
talked
about
maybe
closing
them
when
the
eip
becomes
final,
and
so
that
way
at
least
the
only
ones
would
be
open,
more
eips
that
are
not
final,
and
I
think
we
also
discussed
possibly
closing
when
they
become
withdrawn
or
stagnant
as
well,
the
idea
being
that
just
so
they're
not
in
the
list
anymore.
You
can
still
comment
on.
They
wouldn't
be
locked,
it
would
just
not
be
listed
in
the
issues.
A
I
may
have
a
slightly
weekly
opinion
on
the
first
one,
maybe
to
close
on
the
final
withdrawn
and
closed
issues
close
them
all
could
be
like
you
know,
we
can
get
strong
and
resistant
from
others
that
why
are
you
closing
it?
But
I
I
definitely
like
the
idea
of
proposals
which
are
closed
like
final
withdrawn
or
stagnant,
because
bot
is
continuously
working
on
making
stagnant
to
the
proposal
which
are
over
six
months
and
not
into
active
discussion
that
can
be
a
slow
but
steady
approach
to
get
this
number
of
issues
lower.
C
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
I
am
weakly
in
favor
of
it,
but
I
would
definitely
like
to
solicit
more
feedback
and
scar,
for
example,
had
some
feelings
on
it.
I'd
like
to
hear
more
on
that.
B
A
A
So
lately
I
have
not
seen
any
updates
on
eipv
site.
I
will
definitely
go
back
and
check
with
the
contributor,
but
we
do
see
some
action
on
the
eip
bot
side.
A
D
D
Well
as
soon
as
we
test
these
three
pull
requests
and
they
pass
the
test.
I
guess
that
with
the
they
are
the
foundation
for
at
least
five
or
six
more
issues
that
we're
going
to
be
able
to
pull,
and,
I
would
say,
easily
easily,
merge
after
it.
So
I
think
that
yeah
we're
we're
making
progress.
I
don't
know
mika
is
here:
nika
has
been
supporting
and
I'm
helping
a
lot,
so
maybe
mikka
can
add
something
if
he
likes.
But
from
my
point
of
view,
I
think
that
we
are
moving
slowly
but
getting
there.
A
A
Moving
on
item
number
four
is
eips
inside
so
for
the
month
of
may,
the
ap
inside
report
is
ready.
I
have
added
link
here
in
the
agenda.
A
We
have
got
two
final
proposals
and
the
repository
has
received
17
new
eips.
As
draft.
We
have
potential
nine
proposals
which
are
yet
to
be
merged.
As
draft
and
three
eips
are
moved
to
review,
one
is
moved
to
the
last
call.
A
B
A
bad
thing
like
I
feel,
like
we
shouldn't
be
trying
to
get
everything
to
final,
and
maybe
the
metric
we
should
be
looking
at
is
getting
eips
just
into
draft,
and
that
would
be
probably
an
indication
that
editors
are
doing
their
jobs.
Well,
I
don't
know.
C
There
are
many
eips
that,
in
my
personal
opinion,
shouldn't
go
to
final,
because
I
think
they're
bad
ideas
or
they
shouldn't
be
standards,
sometimes
they're
good
ideas,
but
they
shouldn't
be
standardized,
and
so
a
lot
of
vips
that
fall
into
that
category.
I
think
the
fact
they're
not
making
a
final
is
a
good
thing.
C
One
thing
we
may
want
to
look
at
is
like:
are
we
being
aggressive
enough
with
moving
things
to
stagnant?
Maybe
we
should
turn
that
up
if
we're
finding
that,
like
everything
that
makes
it
that
doesn't
get
merged
as
a
draft
or
doesn't
get
make
progress
in
two
months
always
ends
up
going
to
stagnant,
then
we
should
just
bump
that
stagnant
threshold
to
two
months
instead
of
six
months
or
whatever.
It
is
right
now,
but
I'm
I
don't
feel
strongly
about
that,
like
I'm,
okay
with
the
current
numbers
as
well.
A
C
Keep
in
mind
that
the
stagnant
is
only
if
it's
inactive,
not
if
like,
if
it's
making
progress,
then
it's
fine,
like
I
think.
Nick
munch,
for
example,
is
constantly
updating
standard
and
it's
been
going
on
for
like
years,
but
he's
always
touching
it
like
he's,
always
doing
things
with
it.
So
it
doesn't
move
the
segment.
A
Yeah,
I
totally
understand
that.
Yes,
I
was
coming
to
the
same
point
that
if
a
proposal
is
making
progress,
if
they
have
to
be
like,
if
we
are
expecting
them
to
see
in
finance
status
in
next
three
months,
they
would
definitely
be
making
progress
at
some
point,
but
sometimes
what
happens
like
others
get
confused
and
they
are
not
clear
about
what
to
do,
and
that
may
be
one
of
the
reason
of
not
moving
the
proposal.
A
With
the
eip
editors
internship
meeting,
we
have
started
inviting
more
authors
to
come
and
talk
and
share
their
questions,
and
they
are
doing
that.
We
are
trying
to
share
information
around
it,
so
we
are
hoping
that
the
proposal
will
be
moving
faster.
You
can
see
that
quite
a
few
proposal
in
this
particular
month
itself,
which
was
in
drought,
that
moved
to
review
and
which
was
in
last
call.
That
is
final.
Now
I
mean
it's
not
delaying
anymore.
Definitely,
editors
are
doing
a
great
job
here.
A
A
C
The
other
thing
to
keep
in
mind
is
that
the
the
bot
will
first
write
a
note
on
the
ap
saying
this
has
been
stagnant
for
a
while,
and
then
I
think,
two
weeks
later,
it
will
actually
move
to
segment.
If
ever.
C
And
so
often,
just
having
that
bot
write
the
note
kind
of
reminds
the
author
hey
we're
waiting
for
you
to
do
something
or
if
they
didn't
know,
they're
they're,
waiting,
they'll,
often
reply
saying,
oh,
what
am
I
supposed
to
do?
I
thought
I
thought
I
was
waiting
on
someone
else
and
so
I
think
bumping
the
stagnant
pot
to
be
more
aggressive.
C
I
I
don't.
It
may
just
result
in
people
moving
their
eips
faster
because
they
will
the
bot
reminds
them.
Basically,
when
it
drops
a
note-
and
they
gave
me.
A
C
Because
there's
two
different
bosses:
one
for
the
stack
for
moving
a
draft
ap
to
stagger
there's
another
one
for
closing,
open
pull
requests
and
another
one
that
closes
open.
Pull
requests
give
us
two
week
notice.
I
actually
don't
know
how
the
stacking
bot
works.
Does
it
create
the
pr
and
then
wait
two
weeks
to
merge
it.
A
If
I
remember
correctly,
that's
the
process,
but
I
would
like
to
revisit
that
thing
yeah
when
I
saw
it
last
when
I
I
had
this
notification
on
for
bought,
making
an
announcement
that
this
pull
request
or
this
proposal
is-
has
no
activity
for
past
six
months.
It
gives
a
two
weeks
period
time.
C
A
All
right,
so,
if
I
I
have
to
sum
up
this
proposal
here,
if
the
process
is
still
that
bart
gets
two
weeks
notice
to
author
of
a
proposal
stating
inactivity,
we
can
probably
pump
the
bot
to
three
months
instead
of
six
months
for
making
it
stagnant.
D
I
don't
know
you
just
need
to
define
the
time
that
you
want
to
as
make
a
mention
that
you
want
to
let
everybody
know
and
yeah.
We
can
send
the
messages.
We
can
add
a
comment
whatever
whatever
we
would
like
to
do,
the
bot
can
do
it,
but
that's
right
now,
as
it
is.
That's
not
that's
what
I
was
commenting
in
the
chat.
A
Okay,
I
mean
be
missing
here.
I
just
have
shared
a
full
request
in
the
chat
that
is
one
of
the
last
stagnant
activity.
I
noticed.
A
I
have
to
maybe
check.
C
So
it
looks
like
for
that
one
the
bots
showed
up
on
april
10th
and
then
merged
it
on
may
8th.
So
I'm
guessing
it's
certainly
set
to
four
weeks.
So
it
opens
the
pull
request.
Waits
four
weeks
then
merges.
C
C
D
A
Okay,
okay,
so,
as
an
action
item
may
be
first,
we
will
create
an
issue
in
eips
bot
to
update
the
parts
checking
from
six
month
to
three
months
and
then
see
if
this
can
be
done
with
the
updated
text.
Updated
warning
text
for
authors.
D
A
So
yeah,
that's
basically
all
on
the
eips
inside
side.
I
have
started
adding
charts
and
in
addition
to
this,
I'm
also
trying
to
get
this
thing
updated
on
maybe
some
form
of
website,
so
we
can
move
it
from
hack
md
file.
I
may
be
looking
for
one
information
here.
What
is
the
back
end
used
here
for
these
numbers
to
be
displayed
for
eips.ethereum.org.
C
Oh
jekyll,
which
is
ruby.
A
C
The
tooling
is
jekyll,
depending
on
what
the
person
is
interested
in
helping
with
it
doesn't
might
not
actually
need
jekyll
or
ruby
knowledge,
it
might
be
like
handlebars
or
something.
A
A
A
All
right,
that's
all
about
eip's
insight.
Moving
on
to
the
next
item,
eip
editor
apprenticeship
meeting.
We
had
this
meeting
yesterday.
I
have
added
agenda
and
recording.
Unfortunately,
the
recording
is
really
bad,
zoom
recording
there,
but
we
have
the
agenda
in
which
we
have
listed
all
the
proposals
which
were
discussed
and
shared
on
the
screen
sharing
done
by
matt.
So
if
anyone
has
any
question,
please
reach
out
to
us
on
cat
herders
discord
we'll
try
to
help
you
out
there.
Most
likely
answers
are
already
there,
because
matt
left
some
comment.
A
We
had
some
discussion
that
can
obviously
be
caught
on
the
video.
Some
had
some
good
suggestions
for
how
to
improve
and
how
to
make
sure
that
your
proposals
are
viewed
by
project
implementers.
So
please
follow
those
things
that
way
you'll
be
able
to
increase
awareness
of
about
your
eip
and
it
can
be
implemented
in
projects
when
you
are
trying
to
push
your
proposal
towards
final.
A
The
next
meeting
is
two
weeks
from
yesterday.
So
if
you
are
interested
to
join
meeting
is
generally
available
on
events,
section
of
ethereum
catalog
justice
card.
A
The
last
item
listed
here
is
review
action
from
the
previous
meeting
and
from
previous
meeting
it
suggests
that
splitting
out
eip
depot
from
eips
and
ercs
will
be
put
on
hold.
Obviously,
there
were
no
decision
in
the
last
meeting
and
with
the
education
specs
coming
up
we'll
see
how
it
turns
out.
If
needed,
then
we
will
bring
back
discussion
on
agenda.
A
No
changes
will
be
made
to
that
repository.
That's
fine.
One.
Other
thing
that
was
brought
up
in
the
last
meeting
was
a
contributor's
promotion
to
eip's
github
repo
for
sam
some.
I
put
this
thing
based
on
the
discussion
from
the
previous
meeting
of
eip
editors,
internship.
You
mentioned
that
you
were
not
able
to
open
and.
A
B
A
Well,
just
to
add
some
context
here.
In
the
last
meeting
we
were
discussing
that
we
should
have
like
two
to
three
contributors:
micah
is
there
lifeline
is
there,
but
there
was
another
girl
which
may
not
be
there
anymore,
because
she
is
not
an
active
contributor
right
now.
So,
if
at
all,
you
would
be
interested,
we
can
probably
make
a
room
there.
A
Okay
for
this
item
only
do
I
need
to
reach
out
to
a
devops
team
micah.
Would
you
recommend
me
doing
that
or
is
it
something
that
can
be
vanished.
C
I
think
the
devops
needed
to
do
it.
I
couldn't
figure
out
how
to
add
real
people
to
teams.