►
From YouTube: EIPIP Meeting 67
Description
Agenda: https://github.com/ethereum-cat-herders/EIPIP/issues/185
A
Welcome
to
eipip
meeting
67
I
have
shared
agenda
and
chat.
Here
we
have
a
few
item
listed
for
discussion
from
the
past
meeting.
Some
of
them
are
new
and
yeah.
Probably
we
will
look
into
some
of
the
open,
pull
requests
and
issues
so
starting
with
number
one.
The
first
one
is
related
to
external
link
policy,
so
external
link
policy
has
been
under
discussion
for
quite
some
time.
I
have
added
the
links
to
issues
and
I
believe
there
is
also
an
open
pull
request.
It's
a
proposal
for
the
process
for
allowing
external
link.
A
B
Sure
so
57
57
is
basically
like
a
process
for
like
a
set
of
requirements
like
it's
processed.
Instead
of
requirements,
you
have
to
satisfy
to
get
a
particular
source
of
res
of
links
approved.
So
as
an
example,
you'd
submit,
like
w3c
you'd,
create
an
EIP
for
it
and
you
describe
how
it
meets
all
of
the
requirements
specified
in
5757,
and
you
know
if
it
does
meet
all
the
requirements.
Editors
approve
it
and
it
moves
into
the
living
status
and
then
you're
allowed
to
use
links
to
the
w3c.
C
Sorry,
I
missed
the
first
part
of
it,
but
whenever
you
request
to
add
a
new
source
that
is
a
separate
EIP
or
that
just
goes
into
5757
or.
B
Both
it's
a
separate
EIP
because
they
they
should
have
their
own
discussion
threads.
That's
kind
of
my
motive
motivation
for
that,
because
I
feel,
like
there's
gonna,
be
a
lot
of
argument
about
each
of
these
things.
So
I
I
like
the
idea
of
them
having
their
own
threads.
C
C
I
might
prefer
that
like
I
generally,
don't
like
this
living
status
and
I
think
we
should
minimize
them,
but
I
I,
don't
know
if
there's
a
good
way
for
avoiding
this
in
5757,
maybe
like
I,
don't
know.
Maybe
my
ideal
world
is
that
these
go
in,
like
the
list
of
accepted
57
to
57
sources
go
on
to
each
one
yeah!
That's.
B
C
E
D
If
I,
if
I
may,
I
have
three
feedback
on
this,
so
first
of
all,
I
I
I'm,
hoping
that
Galvin
Greg
and
impact
that
can
be
participating,
I
think
between
you,
you
too
and
I
I,
think,
Calvin
and
and
Greg
Colvin
and
Panda
are
on
the
two
further
extremes.
It
might
be
helpful
for
them
their
their
consideration
to
be
taken
into
they're
they're
yeah
thoughts
to
be
taken
into
consideration.
D
Second
piece
of
feedback
is
the
approach
to
use
EIP
to
get
a
new
to
a
new
one
to
be
to
be
in
I?
Think
that's
going
to
slow
the
process
down
a
lot
for
something
to
be
included
and
can
hurt
the
process.
D
Imagine
currently
an
average
time
from
from
draft
to
to
CPU
is
about
a
month,
and
then
each
step
is
about
a
month
and
there's
a
final
final
like
the
fastest.
You
can
get
is
three
months
minimum
to
go
in.
As
a
final
imagine,
there's
a
valuable
piece
of
Source.
It
takes
too
long,
I
think
for
the
depending
VIPs
to
have
it
adopted.
We
have
seen
a
lot
of
a
few
existing
EIP.
That
is
beneficial,
that
is,
society
the
source,
which
I
think
should
be
citing
providing
information.
D
There's
two
piece
of
people
of
type
of
people
who
put
in
links
either
it's
scammer
or
it's
good
intention,
author,
who
want
to
provide
more
and
more
content,
more
more
contacts
and
I
think
we
have
urge
on
the
side
that
is
too
conservative
and
has
heard
it
so
that
would
be
I
would
be
in
favor.
Procedurally,
if
we
can
kind
of
have
a
group
discussion
and
then,
if
any
other
group
allowed
it,
then
in
this
immediately
adopted.
D
That
would
be
my
kind
of
a
suggestion
for
this
and
the
third
piece
of
information
third
piece
is
the
definition
of
free
access,
I,
think
I
debated
with
Sam
and
then
I
I
just
want
to
raise
my
concerns
for
requiring
the
source
to
be
free
access
for
one
I.
Think
looking
at
the
past,
there
are
books,
there
are
libraries,
there's
a
lot
of
things
that
at
work,
we're
not
published
free
of
access,
and
our
copyright
policy
is
really
bad.
Like
copying
here
is
to
me
I.
D
Don't
want
to
put
it
on
record,
but
I
think
we
should
talk
to
lawyers
about
whether
it
is
actually
right
to
move
from
things
that
is
copyrightable
to
ours,
which
is
cc0
so
asking
for
everything
moved
to
either
move
to
us
or
ask
for
a
free,
Access.
Link
is
I,
I
think
a
little
bit
too
far
away.
I
I
would
I
really
like
the
intention.
D
I
I'm,
not
saying
it's
not
no
married
I,
really,
like
the
intention,
I,
think
we're
living
in
a
non-perfect
world
that
there's
still
a
lot
of
access
that
it
needs
to
be
gone
through
through
pay,
but
also
we
are
looking
at
a
future
of
of
tokenized
a
lot
of
things.
But
let's
imagine
there
is
a
knowledge
sharing
group
that
want
to
incentivize
knowledge
sharing
and
then
they
want
to
have
some
token
gating
like
I.
D
B
D
I
you
know,
I
want
to
kind
of
I
know
that
that
was
your
intention
Sam,
but
I
I
want
to
propose
that
we
used
the
cheapest
kind
of
like
if
they
can
find
cheapest
our
stores.
They
should
use
the
cheapest
source
type
of
thing
to
minimize
it,
and
if
it's
a
book
then
online
one
even
is
payment
is
better
than
a
book.
I
would
say,
because
for
me,
you
get
buying
a
put
somewhere
is
much
more
expensive
times
consuming.
D
There's
a
lot
of
debate
here
on
what
is
really
free.
Even
if
you
get
a
book,
you
cannot
share
with
other
people
right
that
was
not
in
in
so
that
would
be
my
three
pieces
of
feedback.
Getting
I,
think
Greg
and
Panda
to
be
to
to
get
feedback.
I
would
be
one
and
then
I
think
EIP
would
be
too
much
I
like
to
have
a
collaborative
discussion
and
then
and
make
this
a
quicker
decision,
and
the
third
is
that
we
should
reconsider
the
free
access
out
of
it.
D
I
think
the
second
one
I
have
the
strongest
opinion
I
like
to
put
that
into
consideration,
but
other
than
nothing
pretty
great
effort.
I
have
also
put
people's
in
the
dock.
That
I
want
to
merge,
but
I
think
thank,
be
me
too
to
it.
I
I
still
want
to
see,
if
there's
larger
consensus,
to
make
it
easier
to
do
links
I
think
our
credibility
lies
in
how
much
people
want
to
propose
EIP.
They
can
definitely
publish
it
somewhere
else.
D
We're
just
undermine
our
credibility
and
and
Trust
if
we
are
slowing
them
down.
We
have
seen
that
tent
comes
up
in
the
consensus
layer
and
definitely
I
think
the
a
lot
of
exclusive
layer
effort
has
kind
of
reduce
their
interest
in
moving
forward
on
on
the
on
on
the
eipf,
we
have
seen
many
valuable
EIP
ghosts
in
stagnant,
so
I
really
hope
that
we
can
resolve
this
problem
by
allowing
more
E3
this
link.
B
So
I
think
I
think
you
raise
excellent
points,
but
I
I
don't
agree
with
allowing
any
non-free
links.
I,
don't
think
requiring
people
to
copy
things
into
our
repository
is
illegal
from
like
a
copyright
standpoint,
just
because
I
think
that's
how
a
lot
of
Open
Source
projects
already
work
and
if
it
was
a
problem
that
model
would
have
fallen
apart.
I,
don't
remember
what
your
first
oh
yeah
and
I.
We
definitely
want
to
get
feedback
from
Greg
and
Panda
I.
Don't
want
to
move
forward
on
this
without
getting
their
input.
D
So
I
I
just
want
to
give
feedback.
I
love
that
intention,
but
this
reminds
me
of
the
GPL
kind
of
philosophical,
the
the
core
philosophy
of
the
behind
GPL,
and
we
also
see
that
GPO
has
been
like
greatly
used
by
some,
but
also
it
has
been
restricted
of
usage.
Because
of
this,
this
restriction.
So
it's
more
I'm
not
going
to
debate.
You
I
think
if
the
group
won't
have
a
consensus
or
more
people
just
want
a
GPA
GPO
approach
like
disallowing
for
on
on
free
access.
D
I'm,
okay,
like
that
would
to
me,
is
a
bp2
but
I
really
like
to
be
able
to
to
have
more
just
easier
angling
passes
and
I
also
want
just
want
to
put
it
down
that
just
let's
compare
it
with
GPL.
Is
that
something
you
really
want,
or
the
group
really
want
or
I.
B
B
We
want
anybody
to
be
able
to
use
it
freely
for
whatever
they
want,
whether
it's
closed,
Source
open
source,
it
doesn't
matter.
The
specs
are
meant
to
be
as
open
as
possible.
So
we
can't
even
allow
GPL
software
or
or
documentation
in
the
eip's
repository,
because
it's
infectious
and
like
personally
for
software
I
write
I
love
the
GPO,
but
for
the
the
specs
repository
I,
think
it's
very
important
or
for
the
eip's
repository
it's
very
important
to
not
have
it
be
GPL
or
anywhere
near
GPO.
D
In
essence,
I
feel
we
share
the
same
philosophy
in
terms
of
dark
altitude
toward
GPL,
I
kind
of
feel
that
either
you
or
I
have
missed
kind
of
an
interpretation
of
how
this
connect
to
GPL
I
feel
this
is
kind
of
creating
a
exclusion
for
a
lot
of
sources
and
which
is
similar
to
GPO.
But
let's
maybe
we
can
have
a
101
Channel
I.
B
I
don't
mind
talking
about
it
now.
I
think
this
is
pretty
important,
so
I
think,
unlike
so,
we
are
sitting
in
like
an
interesting
place
because
we
aren't
trying
to
restrict
what
our
Downstream
users
do
like
the
people
who
use
the
eips
repository
we're
trying
to
restrict
the
authors
of
eips
so
in
a
sense
we're
doing
the
exact
opposite
of
the
GPL.
B
We're
saying,
if
you
want
to
contribute
to
the
eip's
repository,
you
have
to
have
the
freest
most
unencumbered
like
material
as
possible,
like
GPL
is
too
encumber
to
include
and
paid
sources
are
too
encumber
to
include
and
I
think
that's
the
philosophy
that
I
want
to
go
for.
B
D
A
If
I
may
add
up
like
a
couple
of
thoughts
from
my
end,
I
am
somehow
inclined
towards
Sam's
Point
of
View
because
of
the
reason
but
EAP
repository
is
a
repository
of
office.
Standards
like
we
are
creating
standards
and
we
are
making
it
available
for
implementers
or
the
dab
developers.
So
they
can
pick
up
the
standard
from
here
and
build
their
project
on
top
of
that,
and
if
authors
have
issues
with
the
copyright
materials
to
be
added
in
the
EIP,
they
are
not
forced
to
create
any
standard.
A
They
are
free
to
create
their
project
with
a
copyright
assets
and
that
need
not
to
be
a
part
of
ethereum
repository.
But
once
you
agree
to
bring
those
things
to
ethereum
repository
I
think
it
should
be
free.
So
the
concept
here
for
restricting
authors
and
making
it
freely
available
for
users
I
am
very
much
inclined
towards
it,
but
yeah
I'm
open
for
other
thoughts
and
maybe
yeah.
If
people.
D
Have
I
I
I
so
respectfully
I
understand
that
your
intention,
respectfully
I'm,
not
convinced
but
I,
also
don't
think
that
we
can
easily
convince
each
other.
At
this
moment,
yeah
I
I
like
to
raise
them
more
serious
or
I
personally
feel
more
concerning
part
which
is
requiring
an
Erp
for
each
source
to
be
included.
I
like
to
circulate
his
thoughts
about.
Can
we
like,
what's
your
thought
of
whether
either
that's
a
editor
group
discussion
would
be
sufficient
for
including
them
or
whether
than
authors
kind
of
a
yeah?
D
B
D
Like
do
we
want
a
two-week
last
call,
do
we
want
a
process
of.
B
I
I,
don't
so
like
just
just
to
be
clear
here:
a
source
is
not
each
individual
link.
So
it's
not
like
it's
going
to
take
like
two
weeks.
Every
time
somebody
wants
to
a
link
to
a
new
w3c
standard
right,
it'll
take
it'll,
take
a
month
or
two
to
get
w3c
approved
and
then
it's
free
to
link
to
those
without
any
delay.
D
Okay,
if
on
condition
that
once
they
have
a
petition
for
eips,
they
are
free
to
link
and
in
politics,
have
a
compliant
policy.
We
should
say
only
before
they
go
to
final.
They
need
to
either
remove
the
link
or
have
the
link
accepted
as
an
as
an
acceptable
source.
Is
that
a
good
understanding
like
is
that
okay.
B
D
No
I
was
Sam.
Here's
what
I
think
it's
okay,
not
to
link
things.
We
have
been
streaming
censoring.
Our
links,
I
personally
feel
that
it
only
helps
not
good
at
authors.
Good
authors
want
to
put
their
proposal
into
context.
They
want
to
make
a
point.
They
point
they
want
to
kind
of
provide
convincing
evidence,
they
want
to
add
their
reference
implementations
and
then
copying.
Everything
into
our
repository
is
making
ourselves
a
a
a
encyclopedia,
I
I.
D
Don't
think
we
can
even
link
to
bitcoin
if,
given
some
of
the
some
of
the
criterias
and
I
just
want
to
cite
what
like
client
put
here,
please
let
us
have
external
links,
I
think
we
we
have.
We
have
been
sacrificing
our
the
the
the
richness,
the
convincingness
of
our
EIP
proposals.
We
have
been
sacrificing
our
authors,
ability
to
put
all
their
knowledge
into
it,
like
I'm,
okay,
to
remove
I'm,
definitely
down
for
removing
spammy
at
the
advertising
links
I'm,
definitely
down
for
requiring
links
to
be
certain
level
of
reliability
right.
D
Even
you
want
to
streak
this
one
like
we
find
a
street.
This
storage,
persistent
story
to
find
the
commit,
have
a
hashed
I'm.
Okay,
with
that,
what
I'm,
not
okay,
is
requiring
everything
either
to
not
be
linked
or
moved
to
our
repository
and
then
I
think
Sam.
You
are
doing
a
good
thing
that
you
are
trying
to
find
a
way
to
allow
them
to
be
included.
D
D
We
didn't
say
a
contract
cannot
interact
with
the
other
contract
if
that
contract
is
charging
something.
The
the
openness
here
is
that
we
allow
openness
and
connection
regardless
of
whether,
whether
we
the
other
side,
is
it
I,
I
love
to
be
kind
of
open
heart
to
someone
who
are
even
close
hard
to
us
that
would
be
kind
of
My
Philosophy
towards
the
world.
B
I
think
this
is
somewhat
similar
to
the
Paradox
of
Tolerance,
where
you
have
to
be
intolerant
to
intolerance,
or
else
it
takes
over
your
your
Society
I,
don't
know
if
you
you're
familiar
with
that,
like
idea,
but
in
this
case,
if
we
are
open
to
people
who
are
closed,
it
is
very
easy
for
people
who
are
closed
to
take
over
and
capture
our
governance
process.
So
I
think
we
have
to
be
militantly
against
closed.
D
I
think
we
have
been
censoring
links
which
the
other
people
were
fighting,
and
then
we
were
not
allowing
foreign
in
the
good
intention
of
allowing
links,
that
is,
that
is
free
and
open.
So
I'm
I'm
not
going
to
fight
you
if
you,
if
Sam,
if,
if
the
consensus
of
the
editors
is
one
Three,
Links
sure
I,
think
I'm.
Okay
with
that
I
don't
want
to
fight
you
with
that,
and
I
want
I
I.
D
On
the
other
hand,
I
I'm,
hoping
that
the
process
to
include
us
or
to
accept
the
source
can
be
faster
yeah
and
we
should
have
allow
list
to
begin
with.
We
should
not
have
some
very
basic,
like
people
are
have
consensus
with
already
to
need
to
go
through
that
process.
That
would
be
my
my
take.
Would
that
be?
Would
that
be
something
that
you?
You
would
be
open
to.
B
B
Is
so
that
I
can
just
copy
the
format
into
epw,
but
I
mean
I,
I,
guess
I,
don't
really
care
that
much.
If
the
Erp
is
there
or
not.
D
Okay,
so
all
right,
I
think
you.
What
I
heard
is
that
you
open
to
that
options
right
to
to
having
them
as
of
at
least
as
have
our
initial
accepted
source.
D
B
D
Okay,
I
think
we
kind
of
have
some
our
Middle
Ground
rich
I,
that
that
would
be
you
and
I
I.
Don't
know
like
like
Ryan
is
listening
and
other
people
are
listening
like
what
what's
your
thoughts
and
and
I
do
believe
that
is,
it
should
be
good,
for
it
should
be
necessary
for
Greg
and
Panda
to
be
in
and
I
think
Alex
either
he's
too
busy
or
he's
a
little
bit
frustrated.
I
owe
a
a
bit
of
I
think
here.
We
we
should
ask
for
him
he's
like
feedback
or
inputs
for
this.
A
I
I
have
just
shared
a
link
here.
It's
coming
up
from
a
different
proposal:
I
like
the
idea
what
they
have
done
with
their
proposal.
That's
why
I'm
sharing
here
it's
it's!
The
concept
of
external
link,
obviously
I'm,
not
sure
why
we
are
trying
to
add
external,
like
Link
in
the
EIP
itself,
in
in
this
EAP
5606,
what
they
have
done.
A
A
A
Yeah,
so
here
the
idea
is
like
whatever
supporting
document
you
want
to
share,
like
any
external
link
that
you
want
to
share.
You
can
share
it
in
Fellowship
of
ethereum
magicians.
Good
author
wants
to
share
all
the
resources
they
have
to
convince
that
this
is
a
good
proposal
to
be
an
ethereum
standard.
So
I
think
this
is
an
alternate
way
of
sharing
good
materials,
but
I'm
not
sure
why
we
want
to
have
some
links
which
may
come
up
with
some
legal
issues
to
be
added
into
ethereum
repository.
A
A
So
the
bot
those
are
working
on
it
like
eapw
bot
that
Sam
mentioned,
should
not
face
any
kind
of
challenges,
because
it's
very
important
that
we
automate
all
our
processes
and
making
exceptions
every
time
for
bot
would
be
more
tedious
and
I'm
not
sure
how
much
gain
we
will
have
in
long
term.
With
that.
D
I
respectfully,
disagree
with
you,
pleasure,
I
think
the
point
that
we
disallowed
links
is
hurting
and
then
the
alternative
which
we
currently
provided
is
asking
people
or
forcing
people
to
to
put
things
into
assets
folder,
including
some
some
of
the
stores
that
was
originally
issued.
For
example,
some
people
were
putting
in
code
that
have
reference
to
Copy
being
copied
from
open
sapling
and
other
things
like
those
aren't
authored.
B
B
D
Right,
that's
I,
agree
with
you
in
that,
so
linking
to
them,
however,
is
kind
of
copywriting
in
a
copyright
sense
linking
to
something
doesn't
create
a
action
of
copy.
So,
in
fact,
linking
is
better
in
this
case
than
asking
people
to
put
things
in
in
in
in
in
assets.
We
have
also
seen
that
some
of
editors
were
suggesting
people
to
kind
of
snapshot
or
use,
put
them
print
them
into
PDF
and
then
put
in
the
asset.
That's
another
type
of
of
of
copying
and
I
I.
D
Don't
think
we
should
kind
of
origin
like
prefer
copying
over
linking
unless
you
want
to
say
we
don't
want
copy
either.
So,
let's
keep
eeip
complete
out
of
out
of
the
context
of
the
of
of
the
movements.
A
Well,
I
think
we
are
not
going
to
settle
down
on
this
topic,
but
today,
so
in
the
essence
of
time,
we
probably
should
wrap
it
up,
because
we
are
still
on
the
item
number
one
and
we
have
a
naughty
girl.
So
if
it's
okay,
we
can
bring
it
back
in
issue.
A
Meetings
and
I
would
highly
encourage
having
async
discussion,
because
having
thoughts
collected
before
the
meeting
will
help
us
coming
to
a
consensus
on
the
meeting
for
people
who
could
not
join
I
just
received
a
message
from
Panda
Peep
and
the
agenda
that
he
may
not
be
able
to
join
this
meeting
today
and
yeah.
We
are
also
working
towards
having
a
better
timing
in
which
we
can
have
more
participants
of
the
meeting
here.
D
Politely
protest.
Let
us
link,
let
us
link
just
joking.
A
On
to
the
next
one,
just
one
more
information
on
this
last
piece,
this
five
seven
five
seven
proposal
also
has
a
discussion
to
link.
So
if
we're
not
on
the
pull
request,
people
are
free
to
share
their
thoughts
on
the
link
to
discussion
there,
so
that
can
be
collected
later
on
the
next.
D
Yeah
and
just
a
note
on
the
discussion
too,
we
currently
required
discussion
too
to
be
on
ethereum,
magician.org,
I,
currently
I
kind
of
want
to
have
at
least
two
or
three
options
so
that
for
one
it's
it's
it's
a
free
Market
of
Choice,
where
they
people
want
to
choose
their
discussion
and
then
also
it's
kind
of
a
little
bit
like
home,
like
decentralized
homes,
I
I,
think
yeah
I
just
want
to
put
it
down.
I,
don't
want
to
get
into
debate.
D
A
A
So
I'm
hoping
it's
the
unless
we
have
a
strong,
exceptional
case
which
enforces
us
to
go
out
of
the
fellowship
of
pateria,
magician
I,
believe,
let's
keep
the
warm
in
the
can
itself.
Okay,.
D
Yeah
I
I
like
to
challenge
that
and
I
yeah
I'll
issue
something
I
I
first
for
one
I,
don't
see
where
I
allowed
someone
to
put
on
me
to
the
discussion
and
consensus,
and
then,
if
that
is
the
case,
we
should
have
VIP
like
someone
should
formalize
that
as
a
policy
and
otherwise
I
I
think
we
should
yeah.
I
would
like
to
challenge
that
this
discussion
will
never
never
be
completely
centralized
and
centralized
just
create
room
for
censorship.
D
We
don't
know
the
governance
of
the
fem
like
we
and
people
might
not
agree
if,
even
if
they
publish
people
might
not
agree
with
their
their
their
their
governance
as
well,
so
I
think
it's
good
for
them,
and
people
were
having
discussion
on
you.
Ethereum
research
like
if
we
can
convince
this
ethereum
research
to
shut
down
and
put
things
move
things
to
ethereum
with
magician,
maybe
that
one
that
will
but
I,
don't
think
that's
happening
in
any
time
soon.
So
having
a
strong
preference
on
ethereum,
magician
I
think
is
a
an
infringement
to
Freedom.
A
We
work
with
Fellowship
team
to
like,
as
of
now
as
far
as
I
am
aware,
there
is
no
censorship.
Anyone
can
go,
create
a
threat
and
start
adding
their
thoughts
over
there.
Nobody.
A
D
Yeah
it
could
yeah,
no
so
having
a
good
governance
for
now
doesn't
guarantee
it
a
good
governance
for
future.
If
we
have
more
than
one
EIP
process,
then
people
is
already
competing.
Governance,
I
I
hate
to
say
that
we
we
are
not
the
best
governance
like
if
we,
if,
if
we
have
another
ethereum
proposal
like
I,
I,
think
that
there's
the
the
core
team,
the
core
team
is
already
talking
about.
Maybe
they
were
published
their
their
their
their
standard
somewhere
else.
D
D
I
think
they're,
talking
about
consensus
and
and
consensus,
want
to
publish
somewhere
else
or
maybe
just
leave
it
in
in
their
repository,
which
is
by
itself
also
a
place
to
publish
right.
It's
just
that
they
they're
not
even
taking
a
a
centralized
place.
So
I
think
we
that
that
would
be
my
take
like
the
reason
we
are
in
a
in
a
very
hurting
position
that
some
of
us
want
to
restriction
link.
D
A
Maybe
if
you
are
interested,
you
can
create
a
issue
there
and
we'll
see
collect
feedback
if
people
are
strongly
in
favor
of
initiating
this
discussion,
I'll
be
happy
to
bring
it
up
in
the
future
eipip
meeting
on
the
table,
but
yeah
I
think
we
have
addressed
a
lot
of
concerns
related
to
Fem
and
after
a
year
of
discussion,
we
came
to
a
conclusion
on
that.
But
obviously
this
is
like
open,
Community
you're
free
to
create
an
issue
over
there.
A
A
A
B
A
A
Fair
enough
so
yeah.
D
So
my
intention
is
to
have
the
ability
for
authors
to
acknowledge
someone
who
helped
them
not
necessarily
through
get
come,
commit
and
also
contributing
on
gear,
doesn't
necessarily
constitute
to
the
level
of
being
author
being
recognized
as
a
contributor.
So
that
was
the
intention,
but
if
people
were
not
interested
in
having
that
I'm,
okay
to
postpone
it
and
maybe
revisit
in
a
year
or
so
like
the
the
intention
is
to
promote
the
contributorship
rather
than
just
like.
A
Yeah,
it
would
be
good
to
have
a
note
left
on
the
pull
request
number
here
or
issue,
so
people
know
that
we
already
have
discussed
this
thing
in
the
past
and
unless
we
have
some
new
changes
in
light,
we
do
not
want
to
bring
it
back
on
the
like
meeting
right.
If
we
have
something
new,
definitely
we
can
bring
it
back
for
active
discussion.
A
A
C
Yeah
I'm
just
gonna,
say
again:
everybody
in
the
community
is
already
referring
to
ERC
category
eips
as
ERC.
That's
the
number,
and
we
really
just
need
to
accept
this.
Like
you
know,
even
metallic,
has
been
is
being
frustrated
by
the
fact
that,
in
the
repository
we're
referring
to
ERC
as
eip's
I
think
this
is
just
extremely
confusing.
A
Though
I'm
not
in
favor,
but
yet
I'm,
okay,
with
moving
ahead
with
this,
my
only
like
thing
that
I
would
like
to
see
here
is
like
the
changes
are
made
on
broader
level,
especially
on
the
document
which
is
being
referred
by
users.
For
example,
I
have
added
here
in
my
comment,
like
we
write,
EIP
Dash
20
in
the
dot
MD
file
of
eit20.
So
if
we
can
have
that
replaced
with
ERC,
then
we
can
maintain
the
consistency
everywhere,
even
in
documentation.
A
So
if
people
agree
to
change
this
thing,
it
should
not
only
be
done
at
the
eip1
level.
It
should
be
done
everywhere
and
unless
we
are
like
having
a
process
in
place
that
we
will
be
able
to
write
a
EIP
20
as
erc20
in
dot
empty
file.
D
E
B
D
B
It's
not
too
bad,
like
a
Eep
W
can
reach
into
other
eips
and
get
their
category.
It's
just
I,
don't
like
it
from
like
a
consistency,
point
of
view
and
I
mean
okay,
so
like
a
lot
of
like
erc20s,
have
an
interface
in
the
EIP
called
erc20.
So
it's
not
even
incorrect
to
call
them
erc20
tokens,
because
that's
what
the
interface
is
called
like,
The
Proposal
is
eip-20
and
the
interface
is
erc20
and
I.
Think
that's
totally
fine.
A
Yeah
I
mean
we
can
refer
any
proposal
the
way
they
would
like
to.
Instead
of
calling
1559
EIP
1559
people
in
Clan
college
that
score
for
core
1559,
simply
eap20
can
be
called
as
erc20,
but
because
they
are
all
part
of
a
standard
track,
eips
I
believe
whatever
we
decide
should
be
applicable
to
all
of
them
and
there
should
not
be
any
preferences
just
because
ercs
have
a
longer
number
of
proposals
getting
added
to
the
repository.
A
C
I
heard
the
consistency,
part
I,
don't
know
if
there
was
a
lot
else
to
it.
I
agree
yeah.
That
was
pretty
much
it.
It's
not
consistent.
I
agree.
It's
stupid.
We
have
eap-20
dot,
MD
I,
agree,
I,
hear
you,
but
I
think
the
community
has
already
decided
this
for
us
and
I.
Think
it's
like
hostile
of
us
at
this
point
to
force
the
community
to
refer
to
them
in
a
different
way.
C
C
You
know
I
mean
maybe
one
way
as
we
go
through
all
the
erc's
and
create
you
know,
copy
the
EAP
into
an
erc-number.md
and
delete
the
content
of
the
EIP
Dash
number
dot,
MD
and
say
this
is
now
placed
here.
We
can
do
that.
Maybe
leave
that
up
for
a
year
or
two
but
I.
Don't
love
I!
Don't
love
that
situation
that
much
either.
A
My
understanding
is
like
more
than
eip1.
If
someone
is
trying
to
follow
an
ERC,
they
are
going
towards
the
dot
MD
file
of
of
that
proposal
and
maybe
towards
the
eaps.athedm.org
and
then
look
for
that
particular
EIP.
So
if
we
really
want
to
have
like
you
know,
consistency
all
over
the
platform
and
educate
people
about
what
do
we
really
want
to
say
to
this
thing?
That
would
be
a
better
start.
We
can
definitely
go
ahead
and
change
it
to
EIP
22
erc20.
A
However,
we
made
this
change
recently
to
look
eip1
as
a
standard
document
like
what
we
use
for
documentation
purposes
and
that's
how
we
started
referring
it
to
authors,
documenting
new
proposals
that
do
not
call
it
as
erc20
call
it
as
eap20.
So
my
bottom
line
here
is
like
we
should
focus
on
how
we
can
make
these
changes
and,
depending
upon
the
trade-off
that
we
have
like
how
long
we
can
take
and
how
complex
the
situation
is
and
how
it
will
affect
the
Bots
that
we
are
running
around.
C
C
The
only
decision
is
to
figure
out
how
to
do
this
in
the
best
way
and
I
really
don't
care
that
much
it's
more
a
matter
of
the
people
who
are
maintaining
the
Bots.
E
D
E
E
Yeah
yeah,
so
I
said
that
we
used
to
a
broken
link:
yeah
I'm
in
favor
kind
of
weak,
strong
a
week
preference
in
favor
of
enchanting
it
and
and
using
the
RC.
The
only
concern
for
now
is
the
same
that
we
worry
about
the
work
endings
and
we
do
have
precedence
that
drc20
used
to
have
a
different
name
right,
and
then
we
kept
kind
of
kept
that
file
for
a
little
while
ERC
eip-20
underscore
something
and
then
so
I
think
the
backward
competitive
once
was
solved
Okay.
So.
A
Are
you
right,
yeah
I'm,
just
wondering
like
if
people
think
that
we
have
a
consensus
to
move
ahead
with
this
proposal
or
do
we
want
to
continue
discussion
and
I
really
do
not
want
to
take
the
flow
here,
because
I
may
have
different
opinions
so
definitely
like
to
open
it
for
people.
E
So
account
I
I
think
we
should
factor
in
Panda,
peeps
opinion,
I,
I,
hope
completely
obviously
opinions
and
that
people,
but
but
I,
think
he's
a
an
important
stakeholder
who
actually
have
done
a
lot
of
work
together
with
them
on
on
those
like
making
tools.
So
they
they
should
have
a
say.
A
I
know
like
land,
you
brought
up
this
topic,
I'm,
not
sure.
Do
we
want
to
come
up
to
a
conclusion
for
the
meeting
I
mean
for
this
particular
topic
to
be
shared
with
the
community,
or
do
we
want
it
to
be
like
coming
up
next
meeting
as
well
and
in
the
meantime,
what
we
can
assess
about
is
how
easy
or
difficult
it
will
be
for
bot
to
handle
these
things.
A
A
In
the
upcoming
meeting,
though,
we
tried
it
in
multiple
meetings
in
the
past,
but
with
the
new
Defcon
and
new
thoughts
that
I'm
sure
people
may
have
met,
and
they
have
all
kind
of
discussions,
so
it
would
be
a
good
time
to
collect
feedback
and
what
people
think
may
be
helpful
for
this
sorry
I
think
I'm
blabbering
right
now.
A
I
love
this
topic
yeah!
Well,
okay!
Maybe
we
can
move
on
for
now.
Sorry
like
plan,
if
we
could
not
come
to
a
decision
on
this
in
this
meeting
as
well,
but
I
hope
that
we
should
conclude
this
as
soon
as
possible.
It's
it's
being
there
for
a
very
long
time.
A
A
E
I
like
to
mentioned
that
the
brand
eipw
award,
if
you
add
a
new
title,
add
a
new
section:
can
we
have
a
catch,
all
fall
back
sections
everything
else,
like
other
considerations
and
input,
privacy,
consideration,
delivery,
I
personally,
think
that
I'm
not
a
big
fan
of
putting
privacy
consideration
under
security
consideration
a
lot
of
people
conflict,
the
true
concept
and
as
a
cryptography
movement
and
EIP
and
like
we
should
not
conflict
them.
A
Okay,
if
you
haven't
already
added
your
thoughts
in
the
issue,
probably
you
can
add
it
over
there
and
then
we
can
also
add
comment
of
Sam
that
it
is
not
applicable
to
majority
of
eip's
due
to
security
consideration,
and
you
can.
A
There,
okay,
fair
enough
cool
I,
know
we
are
having
just
five
minutes
left
and
we
have
a
lot
of
issues
and
pull
requests
to
discuss.
But
I
would
like
to
take
this
opportunity
to
decide
on
the
next
meeting
time.
There
were
four
proposals:
1400
UTC,
1430,
UTC
and
15
and
15
30.
I
could
not
see
a
consensus
there
like
we.
We
could
not
get
a
good
mix
of
all
to
be
coming
up
to
one
point,
however:
I
feel
like
14
30
to
15.
A
E
E
Issued
Panda
Express,
strong
preference.
A
I'm
not
sure
if
that
is
possible,
because
you
know
all
these
editors
and
everybody
else,
they
are
working
on
full-time
basis.
They
also
deserve
some
kind
of
break
on
the
weekends.
So
probably
we
have
to
keep
these
meetings
in
in
the
weekdays
itself,
because
that's
a
part
of
their
job
I
mean
obviously
they
are
helping
us,
it's
not
their
job,
but
definitely
we
should
be
mindful
of
their
breaks
as
well.
E
Yeah
I'm,
okay,
either
so
I'm,
actually,
okay
for
the
football
at
all
times
and
then
yeah,
but
the
1500
40
30
1500
is
better
but
yeah
I
can
do
anytime.
B
Sorry
1400
is
that
an
hour
earlier
than
the
current
time,
or
is
that
the
current
time
current.
A
A
Okay
and
looks
like
I
received
a
response
from
Greg
and
he
was
also
open
for
1500
I
believe
so
he
should
be
fine
there
too,
only
if
Panda
paid,
but
unfortunately
I
think
he
has
selected
only
one
option
which
is
not
getting
but
yeah.
So
let's
hope
he
can
make
it.
A
Sorry
I
could
not
catch
whom
should
I
reach
out
to.
B
A
B
A
A
All
right
so
but
I
think
it's
it's
about
time.
I
had
a
couple
of
more
issues
from
my
end,
only
to
discuss
I'll,
take
it
up.
Async
and
I
know.
There
are
a
few
topics
added
by
Panda
peep.
Unfortunately,
we
could
not
get
there
and
he
also
could
not
join
I
hope
to
pick
them
up
in
the
next
meeting.
If
that
hasn't
been
addressed
in
the
meantime
asynchronously.
Thank
you.
Everyone
for
joining
us
today
and
I'm
gonna
create
agenda
for
the
next
meeting
for
1500.