►
From YouTube: EIPIP meeting 46
Description
Agenda: https://github.com/ethereum-cat-herders/EIPIP/issues/98
Contact Ethereum Cat Herders
---------------------------------------------------
Discord: https://discord.io/ethcatherders
Twitter: https://twitter.com/EthCatHerders
Medium: https://medium.com/ethereum-cat-herders
Email: support@ethereumcatherders.com
Website: https://www.ethereumcatherders.com
A
So
this
particular
item
I
have
added
from
the
discussion
in
the
last
eip
apprentice
meeting.
It's
my
observation
that
the
general
practice
to
document
standard
track
eip
of
erc
category
is
erc
dash,
123
or
whatever
it
is.
A
So
I
kind
of
looked
into
the
eip
one
and
the
present
eip1
suggests
that
there
are
only
two
mentions
where
erc
category
eips
have
been
mentioned
as
erc.
But
when
we
look
into
those
erc
at
eips.etm.org,
those
are
listed
as
eip
and
I'm
giving
an
example
here.
When
we
look
into
erc20
it's
not
erc20,
it's
written
as
eip20,
and
then
it
is
listed
at
the
same
way
as
any
other
standard
tracker
eip.
A
So
my
proposal
here
was
to
treat
all
standard
track,
eips
equally
and
also
standardize
the
documentation
of
vip
like
we
should
have
it
like.
In
the
synchronous
way
in
eip1
and
everywhere
else
so
curious
to
know
what
are
the
thoughts
here.
B
C
I
was
just
wondering
if
the
eip
authors
already
know
the
difference
between
an
erc
and
much
more
higher
abstraction
eip,
so
isn't
that
sufficient
for
at
least
from
the
er
eip
author's
point
of
view.
A
Yeah,
actually,
I
think
there
is
a
general
understanding
of
what
erc's
are.
They
are
basically
a
part
of
a
standard
track
eip.
It's
just
that
for
convenience
purpose.
They,
I
think
for
convenience
purpose.
It
is
easier
to
refer
it
as
erc,
so
we
also
specify
the
category
of
it,
but
making
that
as
a
standard
in
my
opinion,
would
not
be
a
good
idea
so
having
a
consistent
name
as
eip,
it
might
take
some
time
like
educating
people,
that
you
should
not
call
it
as
erc20
call
it
eip20,
but
it's
a
task.
C
C
I
am
just
looking
from
a
web
3
user
perspective,
so
it's
erc20
is
more
like
a
marketing
term
for
me,
so
it
makes
me
it
makes
easier
for
the
contract
developers
and
every
developers
and
users
to
kind
of
understand
it
rather
quickly,
like
erc
721
erc20,
because
it's
anyway
focus
more
on
the
user
and
end
of
the
spectrum
right
most
of
the
core
and
networking
eips
are
not
directly
being
used
by
the
user.
C
User
is
majority
of
the
times,
not
directly
when
interacting
he's
interacting
with
the
wallets
and
the
contracts
that
are
deployed,
so
I
think
trying
to
move
trying
to
make
erc
into
an
eip
and
from
that
perspective
might
might
be
again.
I
think
micah
mentioned
earlier.
It
would
be
a
herculean
effect
effort,
but
I
think
at
least
from
author's
point
of
view,
if
let's
say,
if
an
author
is
coming
and
writing
an
eip,
that
turns
out
to
be
that
goes
into
the
erc
category.
C
I
think
that
that
should
be
good
enough
for
us
right,
because
is
the
bottle
like
that
that
we
are
we
as
the
maintainers
having
trouble
figuring
out
what
an
eip
erc
is
or
conveying
it
to
the
author,
whether
whether
you're
writing
an
eip
or
an
erc
or
a
subcategory
of
drc?
Is
that
the
bottleneck?
What
what
exact
problem.
B
I
think
it's
just
we're
inconsistent
right
now,
like
some
places,
we
refer
to
them
as
eips.
Some
places
refer
to
them
as
the
rcs
again,
our
documentation.
C
A
B
Do
we
still
plan
on
splitting
the
ercs
out
and
just
have
a
repository?
Anyone
know.
A
We
had
a
chat
yesterday
on
the
penny
recording
with
the
light
client
on
this
topic
and
the
impression
that
I
get
is
like
we
are
still
in
wait
and
watch
see.
Maybe
after
some
time
when
then,
after
the
moon,
we
get
some
clarity.
Should
we
separate
it
or
just
take
out
the
eaps
itself
and
let
the
erc
stay
there.
D
No,
I
kind
of
feel
like
wow,
I
kind
of
feel
like
we're
waiting
a
little
bit
too
for
the
execution
spec.
I
think
the
depending
on
how
people
want
to
use
the
execute
execution.
Spec
is
going
to
dictate
a
bit
whether
or
not
we
move
the
erc
to
their
own
repository.
They
stay
in
each
repository
and
each
process
moves
to
a
different
repository,
et
cetera.
E
E
B
I
think
if
we,
if
we
think
that
we're
going
to
likely
eventually
split
out
ercs
into
a
repository,
I
think
there's
probably
value
in
just
calling
the
rcs
and
just
start
start
now.
B
This
is
contrary
to
my
argument
earlier,
so
I'm
arguing
both
sides
of
the
fence
here,
just
because
it's
gonna,
if
we
try
to
change
everything
to
eip
and
then
make
it
consistent
throughout
the
repository
and
then
you
know
later
we
pull
out
sorry
later
we
pull
out
erc's
into
a
separate
repository,
and
then
we
have
to
rename
everything
that
can
lead
to
even
more
confusion
on
the
flip
side.
A
Yeah
because
I
think
at
least
we
can
make
it
like
an
one.
So
in
eip1
there
are
two
mention,
as
I
mentioned
it
earlier,
we
said
erc20,
but
when
we
click
the
link,
it
says
eap,
20
token
standard,
it
doesn't
say
erc20,
so
we
are
actually
following
eip
nomenclature
there
and,
as
per
my
understanding,
as
it
was
explained
by
lightline
the
other
day,
this
eip
thing
is
generated
process
generated.
It
is
not
something
that
we
are
adding
to
it
because
of
the
template
and
all
it
is
getting
so
people
know
they
are
eap
20..
A
B
I'm
finally
making
erp
one
consistent.
I
would
recommend
against
encouraging
users
to
change
the
way
they
call
them.
I
think
that's
going
to
be
a
huge
headache
and,
like
I
said,
if
we
end
up
splitting
out
the
rc
repo,
we
always
have
to
tell
them
to
change
their
naming
back
again
for
eip1,
though
I'm
totally
fine
with
just
consistently
using
the
eip
naming
nomenclature,
especially
like
you
said,
since
once
you
click
the
link.
B
A
A
Okay,
what
I
can
do
right
now
is
I
I
think
I
can
create
a
full
request
to
make
these
specific
changes
in
eip1
and,
let's
see,
if
any
other
editor
has
any
other
comment
on
that
or
if
people
our
community
comes
back
with
any
strong
reaction
to
that,
then
we
might
want
to
pull
it
back.
Otherwise,
let's
give
it
a
try.
If,
if
anyone
has
any
different
opinion
here,
please
feel
free
to
share.
A
Moving
on
to
the
next
item,
it's
general
consensus
to
discourage
using
the
issues
for
discussion
two
or
the
eip
number,
so
we
have
discussed
it
in
the
last
meeting
and
a
few
meetings
earlier
and
as
an
action
item
I
was
supposed
to
like
create
a
full
request
to
change
the
change,
the
recommendation
to
make
sure
that
we
are
recommending
people
to
open
the
discussion
to
thread
at
the
fellowship
of
ethereum
magician
and
not
to
the
issues
section.
A
I
think
we
have
made
some
prior
effort
to
change
the
wording
and
it
looks
like
there
is
no
particular
section
where
we
can
define
the
usage
of
data
issues
and
people
are
already
getting
a
sense
of
that
we
should
be
using
fem,
but
there
was
just
one
section
where
it
is
mentioned:
that
eip
number,
which
is
allocated
to
a
proposal,
can
be
the
issue
number.
So
what
I
have
done
is
like.
A
B
A
We
are,
we
are
doing
that,
but
the
only
place
where
there
was
a
little
bit
of
confusion
they
can
still
use.
The
discussion.
Tooling
in
issue
was
the
eip
number
section
where
it
is
like
eip.
Editor
can
allocate
eip
number
based
on
the
pull
request
number
or
the
issue
number.
So
my
my
thought
process
was.
It
will
remove
that
we
can
use
the
issue
section
for
creating
eip
number.
Probably
no
one
will
go
and
start
the
discussion
to
a
link
over
there,
because
there
is
no
other
recommendation
or
suggestion
there.
B
Oh,
I
see
so
you're
saying
just
remove
the
texts
and.
A
Yeah,
that's
a
very
small
one
line,
change
that
is
added
to
eap
when
the
pull
request,
adjuster.
A
D
B
We
wanted
to
the
the
goal
with
moving
people
to
ethereum
magicians
was
to
consolidate
discussions
on
this
consolidated
discussions
on
the
magicians
platform
because
they
previously
were
spread
out
between
magicians
and
eighth
research
and
the
issues
in
github
and
secondarily
to
make
it
so.
We
can
actually
use
the
issues
section
for
discussing
issues
with
the
iep's
repository
in
the
process
and
stuff
like
that
and
so
right
right
now.
B
We
can't
really
use
the
issues
section
for
actual
issues
relating
to
the
ip
process,
because
it's
just
chock
full
of
people
discussing
their
eips
and
proposing
ideas
for
eips.
So
the
idea
was
just
get
all
of
that
over
to
three
magicians,
which
is
generally
a
better
form
for
it.
Anyways
it
has
like
the
the
tooling
I
feel
is
slightly
better
for
just
open-ended
discussion.
E
E
Other
discussions
happened
on
what
used
to
be
a
skype
channel.
That
was
a
discord
channel,
but
it's
just
the
way
it's
worked
for
years
and
trying
to
change
the
way
something
works
after
years
is,
I
just
don't
think
it's
worth
to
bother,
and
it
was
very
nice
that
you
could
start
an
issue
and
not
have
to
wait
for
an
editor
to
assign
a
number
it.
It
had
a
number
immediately.
You
could
start
to
refer
to
it
by
number.
B
So
do
you
feel,
do
you
feel
that
there
is,
if
I
understand
correctly,
you're
saying
that
there's
value
in
getting
a
number
before
you
are
ready
to
submit
an
actual
draft?
Is
that
accurate.
A
Well,
I
don't
think
that
it's
a
good
practice
to
call
a
proposal
which
is
not
even
merged
in
the
eip's
ref
repository
as
an
eip.
We
should
actually
refer
them
as
full
request
and
the
whole
idea
here
is
like
to
organize
the
eip
standardization
process
and
ask
the
user
to
follow
the
recommendation
of
eip1
and,
as
per
eip1.
A
An
author
is
not
isn't
supposed
to
pick
up
an
eip
number.
It
should
be
on
the
eip
editors
to
allocate
them
because
we
have
seen
in
the
past.
They
were
squatting
issues
because
we
allow
I
mean,
like
we
didn't,
allow
it
it
just
that
they
thought
that
it
is
allowed
and
they
started
picking
up
the
numbers
of
their
choice.
So
I
think
it.
A
It
makes
sense
that
the
responsibility
should
be
on
the
editors
to
provide
the
number
and
not
on
the
authors,
on
the
second
thought,
about
the
issues
to
be
the
first
discussion
to
link.
If
we
keep
that
the
process
continued,
we
were
having
a
ton
of
open
issues,
because
we
don't
know
when
to
close
that
discussion
and
actually
the
discussion
shouldn't
be
closed.
If
that
is
related
to
any
proposal.
A
So,
to
make
better
use
of
the
issues
section
we
like
in
the
previous
meeting,
we
thought
that,
let's
move
all
the
proposal
related
discussion
to
the
magician
fam
forum,
so
we
can
better
utilize.
This
issue
section.
Moreover,
we
haven't
seen
in
practice
that
a
user
who
wants
to
discuss
about
a
proposal
will
go
back
five
to
six
pages
down
in
the
github
to
pull
out
that
issue
section
and
start
discussing.
It
is
way
more
convenient
on.
E
Fpm,
the
magician's
discussion
has
to
point
to
something.
E
E
E
It's
just
a
common
way
of
doing
things,
but
the
only
hassle
has
been
people
who
decide
to
keep
clicking
the
number
until
they
get
a
number
they
like.
That's
that's
a
bad
thing
to
do
when
people
do
that,
you
scold
them,
but
at
least
you
know
let
people
do
it.
People
are
going
to
do
it.
Then
it's
not
worth
scolding
them
about
it
or
telling
them
not
to
it
works
and
trying
to
use
issues
to
keep
track
of
what's
happening
in
the
repo.
It
doesn't
work
very
well
anyway.
B
E
E
D
I
think
one
of
the
issues
of
having
two
places
for
eaps
is
that
sometimes
you
it's
not
easy
to
find
an
eip
number.
Someone
refers
to
some
of
these
old
eeps
that
never
made
it
into
the
repository
you
try
and
search
on
eepson
ethereum.org,
and
it's
not
there
and
you
don't
think
it's
an
e
and
you
look
in
the
github.
It's
not
an
eep,
but
it's
hidden
somewhere
in
the
issues
and
there's
no
good
way
of
navigating
to
that.
E
E
Oh,
I
see,
I
see
your
issue
if
it
never
gets
into
the
repo,
it's
not
quite
real
and
yeah.
I
agree
with
that.
I
see
your
point.
I
see
your
point,
but
it
just
doesn't
bother
me
as
much
as
it
bothers
you
as
I
keep
saying,
people
have
been
doing
this,
for
I
don't
know
five
or
six
years
now,
so
it's
just
it's
swimming
upstream
to
try
and
change
it
it
you
can
change
the
advice
in
eip1
so
that
people
start
doing
it
in
a
different
way.
E
The
problem
remains
where
to
put
the
initial,
the
initial
big
piece
of
text
that
you
want
to
discuss.
I
I
prefer
that
that
be
something
close
to
a
specification
rather
than
just
I
have
a
vague
idea.
I'd
like
to
discuss
that
might
become
an
eip.
Go
take
that
somewhere
else.
If,
if
you
just
want
to
discuss
vague
ideas,
so.
E
Yeah,
the
hassle
is
the
hassle.
Is
you
wind
up
with
a
discussion
thread
there
that's
difficult
to
link
to,
but,
and
you
have
no
history,
if
you
start
editing
things
there,
but
the
alternative
has
been
to
is
to
get
things
started
in
your
own
repo,
but
not
everybody
manages
their
own,
their
own
get
repo
yeah.
B
Yeah,
I
think
your
point
that
you
don't
have
an
eip
to
link
to,
I
think,
is
actually
kind
of
like
matt
said
a
minute
ago.
That's
to
me
a
selling
point
like
we
don't
want
people
linking
to
this
as
an
eip.
We
want
to
be
very
clear.
This
is
not
an
eip,
it
is
not
until
it
makes
it
as
a
pull
request
that
is
accepted
as
a
draft.
B
E
A
Well,
I
think
the
process
of
a
standardization
means,
like
whatever
we
are
recommending,
we
that
should
be
for
like
everyone
to
follow,
and
then
only
we
can
make
it
as
standard
and
when
we
are
talking
about
eip,
because
that
is
something
from
coming
from
ethereum
repository.
A
E
C
But
then,
what
about
the
new
eip
authors
that
might
come
in
the
future,
because
if
they're
coming
they
they
need
to
have
minimal
friction
in
order
for
them
to
author,
an
eip
post
a
discussion
and
get
a
consensus
around
that.
If
there
is
no
standard
process,
then
the
friction
kind
of
increases
in
that
span.
E
But
the
advantage
of
of
the
issues
is
that
github
maintains
a
history
now,
so
it
provides
a
place
to
to
edit
during
discussions
and
maintain
a
history
of
what
you're
doing
without
involving
the
eip
editors
until
it's
more
substantial
and
you're
willing
to
submit
yourself
to
that
process.
E
E
The
arguments
on
both
sides-
I
just
it's
my
old
psychologist-
coming
out
here,
saying
that
when
you've
got
a
social
practice,
that's
been
established
for
years.
Whatever
the
arguments
are,
it's
still
hard
to
change
the
practice.
E
D
A
All
right,
let's
try,
let's,
let's
try
from
our
end
to
propose
this
to
the
community,
and
maybe
we
can
see
the
response,
how
it
works,
because
every
time
when
someone
new
wants
to
document
a
proposal,
the
first
recommendation
is
to
follow
eip1.
E
A
quick
question:
if
you
do
drop
the
first,
you
know
pre-draft
as
it
were,
into
the
start
of
a
discussion
thread
on
magicians.
E
A
My
understanding
is,
there
is
a
time
limit,
but
we
are
trying
to
assess
like
cad
headers
are
working
with
fem
people
and
trying
to
assist
the
author
in
case.
There
are
an
issue
in
editing
that
particular
proposal
after
a
certain
period
of
time,
so
that
is
at
this.
A
B
Is
their
edit
timer
on
it?
Some
forums
have
like
you
can
only
edit
within
the
first
30
minutes,
and
then
you
can't
edit
anymore.
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
that.
E
It's
where
to
put
the
text
that
might
become
a
draft,
but
it
might
not
you're
having
this
discussion
and
the
discussion
might
end
up
being.
No.
This
is
actually
not
a
good
eip.
So
don't
you
know,
there's
the
problem
of
cluttering
the
issues,
but
cluttering
up
the
drafts
is
a
worse
problem.
Yeah.
I
really
don't
want
people
submitting
things
as
drafts
just
so
they
have
a
place
to
discuss
them
in
a
number
to
discuss
them
by.
B
Yeah,
so
I
actually,
I
find
that
a
complaining
argument
if
ethereum
magicians
does
in
fact
have
a
edit
timer,
then
that
is
a
compelling
argument
that
this
is
not
a
viable
solution
to
the
problem
that's
been
described,
I
don't
know
if
it
has
a
timer
or
not,
and
the
page
isn't
loading
for
me
for
some
reason
right
now,
maybe
my
vpn
or
something
so
you.
D
Can
edit
old
posts
on
femme,
I
don't
know
if
that's
because
I'm
a
moderator
are
you
a
moderator.
A
Looking
for
me,
I
mean
not
the
editing
part,
but
the
fellowship
of
the
imagination
page
is
definitely
loading
and
if
I
understand
correct
yes,
there
is
a
timer,
after
which
a
post
is
not
editable
and
in
the
past
we
have
came
across
certain
cases
where
an
author
wants
to
make
some
change
on
the
initial
draft.
But
there
was
something
that,
because
of
time
period
it
wasn't
allowed,
but
we
got
that
result
very
fast.
Like
one
example
is
eip3675
the
merging
ip
mikhail
had
this
issue
and
we
were
with
the
team
and
it
got
solved.
A
So
we
are
trying
to
do
our
best
in
in
terms
of
communicating
with
eip
authors
and
make
sure
the
the
discussion
to
forum
should
be
better
utilized
and
authors
should
not
face
any
challenges
over
there.
A
I'm
sorry
shashank
was
there
a
question
I
I
thought
I
saw
you
on
youtube.
C
Yes,
so
I
was
wondering
if
it
would
be
useful
to
create
a
different
repo
under
the
ethereum
under
the
ethereum
project,
specifically
for
discussing
ideas,
and
maybe
discussions
and
stuff
like
that,
because
then
there
is
mostly
no
worries
about
allocating
issue,
numbers
and
pr
requests
and
stuff
like
that.
A
A
B
E
B
So
yes,
I
I
do.
I
kind
of
agree
with
greg
that,
if,
if
we
cannot,
if
there's
an
edit
timer
on
fem,
then
it
does
not
make
for
a
good
place
to
have
this
idea
phase
eip
like
the
pre-eip
discussion,
because
there
is
value
and
as
as
greg
described,
having
a
place
where
you
can
type
up
your
specification
before
you're
ready.
You
know,
you're,
not
confident
enough.
It's
going
to
be
an
eip.
You
don't
really
want
to
clog
up
the
eips
process.
B
You
don't
want
to
go
through
like
the
actual
process
of
drafting
a
formal
eip,
but
you
want
to
get
feedback
and
you
want
to
you
know
iterate
on
it
and
having
a
place
to
do.
That
is
very
valuable.
I
do
agree
pretty
strongly
with
them
and
right
now,
if
we
can't,
if
there's
an
edit
timer
on
fem,
that
makes
that
a
non-viable
option,
and
so,
if
we
can't,
if
we
can
remove
that,
then
I'm
back
in
the
camp
of
we
should
be
having
those
discussions
and
on
fem.
E
I
I
have,
I
have
vips
and
variations
on
eips
that
have
been
on
the
table
for
five
years
now,
so
edit
timers
are
really
a
hassle.
A
All
right,
so
if
we
can
attribute
it
into
two
two
pieces,
like
one
issues
to
be
considered
for
eip
number,
that's
number
one
and
number
two
issues
to
be
considered
as
discussion
tooling.
So
I'd
be
curious
to
know
thoughts
for,
like
fourth
section,
is
there
any
general
agreement
that
only
the
pull
request
number
and
that
to
buy
the
editor
should
be
allocated
as
eip
number.
E
No,
that's
that
the
whole
advantage
of
issues
is
that
the
numbers
come
from
the
same
sequence
as
the
prs.
So
so,
as
soon
as
you
open
an
issue
on
it,
you
have
a
number
to
refer
to
it
by
and
the
advantage
is
that
everything
is
in
that
repo
everything's
there
it.
You
should
move
the
discussion
to
fam
pretty
quickly.
E
E
E
It
works
I
hate
to
the
only
way
it's
broken
is
that
we
get
a
whole
bunch
of
issues
that
we
can't.
We
can't
use
issues
the
way
they're
usually
used
in
a
repo,
but
we've
never
used
them
that
way,
they
don't
even
work
that
well
in
other
repos.
So
we
have
these
discussions
on
our.
You
know
on
our
discord
trends
and
that's
been
working
for
a
long
time.
A
Well,
I
think
in
the
past
we
have,
we
have
made
some
effort
to
move
the
discussion
link
to
what's
the
fcm,
and
I
don't
know
I
haven't
heard
any
any
like
strong
resistance
so
far,
but
I
am
completely
open
to
the
like
reconsideration
of
making
use
of
issue.
Though
I
see
there
are
more
downsides
of
using
issues
as
discussion
to
link
than
the
advantage
that
it
provides
and
talking
about
the
serial
number
once
the
pull
request
is
there.
A
It
is
from
the
same
sequence
of
the
issue,
so
I
don't
see
there
is
much
of
a
difference
of
making
pull
request
number
as
an
issue
number,
but
I
strongly
recommend
that
this
is
something
that
needs
to
be
provided
by
eip.
Editor,
that's
number
one
and
number
two.
We
shouldn't
call
a
proposal
as
an
eip
unless
it
is
merged
in
the
eips.etm.org
in
the
form
of
draft,
at
least
because
in
the
past
we
have
seen
a
lot
of
proposals
which
are
implemented
in
projects.
A
Maybe
this
is
some
something
like
might
require
a
longer
discussion
or
maybe
a
bigger
forum
discussion
and
we
have
like
15
minutes
just
left.
So
if
anyone
has
any
final
comment,
thoughts
to
share
and
then
we
can
move
on
with
the
next
rest
of
the
topics.
C
A
C
A
C
So
then,
so
for
easy
identification,
what
would
be
what
would
be
a
prefix
or
a
suffix
that
we
can
give
to
that
pre-draft.
B
So
I
should
not
give
anything
for
pre-drafts.
You
really
should
not
be
like.
You
should
be
soliciting
people
for
feedback
on
your
ideas
and
your
thoughts,
but
you
should
not
be
telling
people
hey.
I
have
a
thing
that
is
a
standard.
You
do
not
have
a
standard
until
you
have
a
final
eip,
and
so
the
thing
we're
trying
to
discourage
is
this.
B
This
pattern
that
people
have
gotten
into
where
they
create
an
issue
or
create
a
pr
that
never
gets
merged
and
then
they
go
out
and
they
tell
everybody
hey
I
created
an
eip,
everybody
should
go
implement
this
standard
and
it
is
not
a
standard.
B
It
is
just
an
idea
and
it
might
be
a
good
idea
and
it
might
be
an
idea
that
eventually
becomes
a
standard,
but
it's
not
something
that
we
want
to
incentivize
and
encourage,
and
you
know,
facilitate
people
you
know
sharing
around
like
if
you're
ready
to
get
you
know
broader
feedback,
then
you
should
create
a
draft
and
get
it
into
the
efp
process
like
get
it
start
in
the
process.
So
you
get
a
number,
you
can
start
sharing
your
ideas,
people
and
you
know
spamming
it
to
a
broader
audience.
B
C
I
was
asking
actually
in
the
perspective
of
let's
say
if
elita
was
editor,
is
trying
to
build
a
bot
on
top
of
a
pre-draft.
So
is
there
a
category
that
these
pre-drafts
can
go
into
so
some
kind
of
automation
could
be
done
later
on
or
easy
for
identifying
within
the
project
management
community.
C
B
I
don't
I
don't
think
so,
because
draft
is
that
thing
like
draft
is
the
first
step
like
the
very
first
step
in
creating
ap
is
create
a
draft.
The
requirements
are
pretty
slim.
You
just
basically
need
to
make
sure
it's
formatted
right
so
make
sure
the
front
matters
there
make
sure
you
have
the
right
sections.
You
know
make
sure
you
follow
the
rules,
but
that's
it
like
you.
Don't
like
I've.
Had
people
submit
eaps
as
drafts
where
the
body
is
almost
entirely
like
tbd,
like
just
it's
kind
of
stubbed
out.
B
They
have
like
a
couple
of
vague
ideas
in
there
and
I've
let
them
through
and
because,
like
I
said,
that's
the
first
step
as
soon
as
you're
ready
to
create
an
eip
just
go
create
a
draft
again.
If,
if
you
like
greg-
and
you
want
to
discuss
it
beforehand-
that's
fine
as
well,
and
I'm
totally
okay
with
that.
E
Does
have
this
sort
of
draft
pr
idea
which
is
sort
of
a
pre-draft?
You
can
put
it
up
there
and
it
may
never
be
merged.
It
can't
be
merged
that
sort
of
helps.
I
I
actually
don't
want
to
see
these
totally
empty
drafts
go
in.
If
that
really
does
clutter
things
up,
I
just
don't
mind
the
clutter
and
issues.
I
don't
care.
If
there's
a
million
issues
that
never
get
closed,
it's
I
just
don't
care
we're
not
going
to
run
out
of
numbers.
B
A
Well,
with
the
help
of
this
eip,
but
we
may
not
be
having
a
lot
of
draft
debt,
it
would
be
moved
to
stagnant
if
the
author
is
not
around
to
either
champion
or
push
the
proposal.
So
if
someone
just
showed
up
to
submit
the
first
draft
and
is
gone
mia,
the
bot
is
helping
us
a
lot
making
some
noise
after
six
months.
So
you
want
to
continue
the
proposal.
Come
back,
give
feedback
or
push
the
proposal.
If
you
don't
want,
it
will
be
moved
to
stagnant.
A
So
that
way
we
may
not
be
having
ton
of
open
pull
requests
in
the
repository
which
will
keep
it
cleaner,
and
the
request
that
we
can
see
will
be
new
and
would
be
like
something
that
can
be
used.
People
can
give
their
comment
to,
but
if
we
keep
on
like
having
issues
open
issues,
hundreds
and
thousands
of
it,
I'm
not
sure
what
advantage
do
we
get
with
that
keeping
it
on,
because
it
would
never
let
us
you
make
use
of
the
appropriate
issues.
E
Whatever
the
github
feature
of
draft
prs,
they
call
them
just
to
make
it
confusing
yeah
that
works
pretty.
Well,
you
put
it
up,
you
mark
it
draft,
it
can't
even
be
merged.
You
know
the
bot
doesn't
care
about
it.
The
editors
don't
have
to
look
at
it
yeah.
E
So
that
gives
you
a
way
to
put
something
up:
get
up,
get
a
stable
number
for
it
have
a
place
to
point
to
for
discussions
and
it's
it's
less
clutter
if
they
never
if
they
never
make
it
past
draft
stage.
Stagnant
crafts
are
actual
drafts
that
just
aren't
being
worked
on,
but
they
haven't
been
withdrawn.
E
B
So
I'm
fine
with
people
creating
draft
pr's,
but
I'm
hesitant
to
give
them
a
number
for
the
exact
reason
we
mentioned
before,
which
is
that
as
soon
as
people
get
that
number,
they
just
start
spamming
it
around,
and
people
start
referring
to
it.
Starting
linkedin
articles
like
it
gets
referred
to
by
people
in
chats
and
it
gets
linked
to
by
other
eips
and
then
that,
if
that
draft
vr
never
makes
it
through,
then
that's
just
like
a
dead
permanently
dead
link
all
over
the
internet,
and
we
see
this
often
like
this
is
not
like.
B
E
Otherwise,
you'll
find
in
the
ieee
process
you'll
find
in
the
ansi
process
that
anybody
can
write
up.
A
draft
and
it'll
be
assigned
a
number
and
there's
a
large
number
of
documents
with
numbers
that
are
pretty
much
dead,
but
beginner
numbers.
B
So
I'm
totally
fine
with
that.
It's
just
to
get
a
number
I
want
like
it
should
actually
be
in
the
eps
repo,
so
submit
any
ip
get
it
reviewed
by
an
editor
again.
All
you
have
to
do
is
make
sure
the
front
matter
is
right
that
you
have
the
right
sections,
and
you
know
you
don't
have
anything
that's
not
allowed
in
there.
E
I
don't
want
that
repo
cluttered
with
ideas
that
are
that
are
not
going
to
go
very
far,
plus
it's
a
hassle
to
go
through
an
editor
for
this
for
this
very
first
stage,
but
it
just
puts
more
work
on
the
editors
but
yeah.
A
Right,
yeah
right,
we
are
trying
to
get
more
editors
on
board
and
the
apprenticeship
program
is
helping
us
a
lot
like
getting
more
community
participation
in
reviewing
the
proposal.
So
we
hope
to
get
this
process
a
little
bit.
Speed
up,
and
maybe
an
author
may
not
have
to
wait
for
years
to
get
the
proposal
reviewed
and
we
should
be
fast
tracking,
every
proposal,
at
least
the
proposals
which
actually
make
sense
and
have
chances
to
be
a
standard.
At
one
point
of
time,.
D
E
A
Well,
we
have
just
like
eight
minutes
left
for
this
meeting,
so,
if
need
be,
we
can
bring
this
agenda
item
back
into
the
next
meeting,
but
let's
quickly
move
over
to
cover
the
rest
of
the
items,
and
I
wanted
to
bring
attention
towards
the
spam
issues
those
are
being
created
in
the
issue
section
as
well.
A
I
have
listed
in
the
number
here
four
five,
five,
six,
four
five,
five
four,
maybe
editors
who
have
like
closing
the
authorities,
may
look
into
those
issues
and
close
it,
and
it
would
be
interesting
to
learn
about
how
we
can
stop
these
kind
of.
B
B
So
please,
anytime,
you
see
these
click,
little
dot,
dot,
dot,
click
report,
content
and
then,
if
you
sorry,
I'm
loading
it
right
now.
So
I
can
remember
what
the
section
you
want
to
choose
is
click
the
dot
dot
hit
report
content.
I
want
to
report
abusive
content
or
behavior.
B
A
Well,
that's
very
good
suggestion,
because,
when
I
looked
into
that
it
looked
like
someone
is
just
trying
to
make
an
impression
that
they
are
contributing
to
ethereum
github
repository
and
what
they
are
doing
is
just
spamming.
So
it's
good
that
we
should
be
reporting.
B
Yeah
these
are
yeah,
these
are,
these
are
yeah,
these
are
these
are
scammers
and
they
basically
create
a
github
account,
and
then
they
put
it
on
a
website,
and
it
makes
it
look
like
to
the
naive
user.
It
makes
it
look
like.
Oh,
this
is
a
legit
developer
want
to
leave
they're,
just
a
scammer
trying
to
steal
someone's
money.
So
yes,
please
report
them
as
soon
as
you
can
it
not
only
helps
us
keep
the
repo
clean.
It
also
caught
make
costs
of
them.
A
The
next
item
listed
here
is
update,
eip
bar
to
add
greg
colvin
as
reviewer
to
notify
his
availability
from
the
discussion
on
the
discord
chat.
It
appears
that
craig
is
very
much
interested
into
reviewing
the
proposal,
though
he
was
not
getting
a
notification.
However,
getting
notification
can
also
be
done
by
just
subscribing
to
github,
but
if
this
is
something
that
that
can
be
done
with
the
help
of
what
I'm
just
yeah
yeah.
B
A
B
A
B
Yeah,
so
actually
so
I'd
recommend
actually
greg
take
care
of
it,
so
you
can
pick
which
ones
he
wants
to
do
so
greg.
If
you
just
go
to
that
link,
I
just
pasted
just
add
your
name,
your
github
handle
to
the
whichever
ones
you
want
to
be
notified
for
so
like,
for
example,
I'm
only
notified
on
core
networking
eips,
whereas.
E
E
Okay,
easy
enough:
this
is
this
whole
thing
has
been
very
frustrating
to
me
for
years.
I've
just
been
an
editor
and
then
all
of
a
sudden
I,
by
some
automatic
process,
I
wasn't
an
editor
and
then
it's
been
weeks
of
argument
and
discussion
about
how
to
become
an
editor
again.
It's
sort
of
like
I
got
automatically
fired
from
the
job
for
no
particular
reason
and
had
to
argue
so.
It's
been
unpleasant.
A
E
A
Deeply
regretting
the
inconvenience
that
you
may
have
because
of
the
changes
that
that
were
brought
in
with
the
bot
and
the
process,
but
but
we
are
trying
to
make
everything
go
smoother
and
that's
why
we
organize
this
eap,
ap
meeting
bi-weekly
and
I
hope
to
see
you
in
upcoming
meetings.
So
we
can
have
your
input
regularly,
not
only
on
the
proposal
and
eap,
editing
side,
but
also
the
issues
and
challenges
which
are
being
faced
by
community
in
terms
of
submitting
the
proposal
or
any
other
process
around
the
ethereum
ecosystem.
A
Thank
you
for
that.
I
think
that
is
there
on
the
eip
inside.
I'm
just
gonna
quickly
go
over
there
because
we
have
just
three
minutes
left,
so
I
have
shared
the
link
to
the
december
eapn
site
up
till
15th
of
december.
So
far
we
have
new
proposals.
Four
new
proposals,
a
few
proposals
are
pulled
back
from
stagnant
to
draft.
A
A
A
All
right,
so
that's
about
eip
inside
the
details
of
the
eip
number
and
like
what
changes
have
been
done
in
the
past
14
days
in
the
month
of
december
is
already
documented,
and
you
can
find
the
link
in
the
agenda
for
this
meeting
today.
A
The
next
item
is
eip,
editor
apprenticeship
meeting.
We
had
organized
this
meeting
last
december
and
I
have
added
the
link
to
the
recording.
It
was
again
a
great
session
by
that
we
try
to
answer
it's
great,
that
new
people
who
are
trying
to
contribute
as
an
editor
are
like
obviously
reviewer
is
very
helpful,
like
we
have
seen
quite
a
few
engagement
and
yes,
if
for
editors,
if
you
have
a
special
specific
thought
about
how
to
mature
them
to
be
an
editor
right
from
the
apprentice,
we
would
highly
encourage
those
ideas.
E
B
The
pr
is
there
to
fix
it,
yeah
I'll,
get
that
approved.
No
on
the
note
that
puja
mentioned,
I
recently
moved
houses,
and
so
I'm
way
behind
on
my
emails
and
one
of
the
things
that
got
dropped
of
all
the
things
that
I
do
is
eap
stuff.
So
if
anyone
wants
to
go
through
core
eips,
now
is
a
great
time
to
do
so,
because
I
haven't
for
like
a
week.
A
Thanks
for
the
heads
up
micah,
I
know
like
exec
and
matt
are
already
doing.
I
have
received
a
couple
of
more
interest
from
some
developers
of
the
ethereum
community.
They
would
be
probably
joining
from
january,
but
I
will
like
inform
that
if
they
can
start
contributing
from
now
and
but
we
hope
to
have
you
back
very
soon,
I
don't
think
that
you're
gonna
make
your
escape
from
here.
A
All
right,
let's
move
on
the
last
item-
is
review
action
items
from
the
previous
meeting.
One
of
the
most
important
the
discussion
from
the
last
meeting
was
the
placeholder
for
eipv.
I
didn't
check
with
the
jamie
so
far,
but
I'm
wondering
if
matt
may
have
the
you
know
permissions
to
update
that.
D
I
would
need
someone
to
make
me
whatever
role
I
can
create
repos
in
the
ethereum
organization.
For
a
brief
moment,
while
I
transfer
the
ownership,
otherwise,
I
don't
think
that
we'll
be
able
to
do
that.
A
A
All
right
that
makes
sense,
and
that
also
concludes
our
meeting
today.
Aman.
Anyone
has
any
funny
comment.
Question
thought
that
they
would
like
to
bring
up.
A
Okay,
I
have
one
last
question
for
the
group.
The
next
meeting
is
falling
on
december
29.
Do
we
want
to
keep
that
meeting
or
do
we
want
to
reconnect
in
the
january
like
the
12th
of
january.
E
A
All
right,
like
I'm
assuming
like
29th,
is
like
very
close
to
the
year
end
and
most
of
the
people
will
be
on
vacation.
So
unless
we
have
anything
urgent
to
be
discussed,
let's
keep
it
tentatively
on
january
12th.
But
if
something
comes
up
that
needs
immediate
attention,
then
we
will
have
the
meeting
on
29th
december
yeah
by
vacation
means
those
who
are
working
for
an
organization
yeah.
A
Let's
see,
let's
keep
it
open
if
we
come
across
any
issue
that
we
want
to
address
immediately,
we'll
have
the
meeting
on
29th.
Well,
that's
all
for
the
meeting
today.
Thank
you,
everyone
for
showing
up
and
I'm
happy
to
see
the
number
of
participation
today,
and
I
hope
that
this
continues
in
the
next
year
as
well
have
a
good
one.
Everyone.