►
From YouTube: EIPIP Meeting 87
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Welcome
to
eipip
meeting
number
87
I
have
shared
agenda
in
chat.
This
is
issue
number
255
at
eipip
GitHub
repository.
We
have
a
few
item
for
discussion
with
respect
to
open
issues
and
PR
I
think
there
is
a
new
proposal
as
well
and
then
we
will
continue
discussing
items
from
the
past
meeting.
A
B
Sure
so
I've
shared
this
around
with
I
think
all
the
editors
so
I
think
everybody
should
be
fairly
aware
of
it.
I
just
wanted
to
bring
it
up
here
and
make
sure
that
we
want
to
adopt
it
or
at
least
ask
if
we
want
to
adopt
it,
and
if
we
do
what
EIP
number
we
want
to
assign
to
it.
Anybody
opposed.
D
We
we
talked
about
it.
I
was
very
much
in
favor
of
the
mission
statement
and
the
rest
was
looked
like
a
lot
of
detail
that
I
didn't
really
didn't
really
review
and
wouldn't
want
to
just
adopt
all
of
that
at
once.
B
All
right
so
I
guess
we
can
table
this
until
the
next
eipip.
D
B
I
I
think
we
do
I.
Think
Matt
is
here
and
gender
is
here
too.
Do
we?
We
all
agree
on
the
mission
statement.
E
A
B
So
I
guess
the
next
part
would
be
on
the
idea
of
topic
groups,
so
that
would
probably
be
so
quick
summary
topic.
Groups
are
like
subsections
of
people
that
handle
proposals
up
until
last
call,
and
these
can
contain
editors.
They
might
not
contain
the
same
people
as
the
editors
they
set
their
own
processes
and
all
that,
then
we
have
rules
for
making
decisions.
On
reaching
rough
consensus.
B
We
have
a
new
elected
role
called
the
janitor
that
can
decide
when
rough
consensus
has
been
reached,
rules
for
removing
editors,
so
that's
kind
of
new
yeah
and
then
a
lot
of
content
from
each
one.
So
those
are
that's
pretty
much.
A
quick
summary
of
of
this
document.
D
Well,
I
would
love
to
see
the
mission
statement
go
in
on
its
own,
because
the
rest,
the
rest,
is
a
lot
of
details
that
could
change.
We
might
want
to
experiment,
but
some
of
them,
others
we
might
not
agree
on.
But
if
we
agree
on
a
mission
statement,
it
sort
of
stands
alone
is
something
that
we're
not
going
to
be
wanting
to
change
a
lot,
but
whether
topic
groups
work
out
whether
we
agree
on
a
janitor
role.
Etc.
That
seems
much
more
needs
more
working
out
and
could
change
more
over
time.
A
D
I
think
the
mission
statement
stands
alone.
The
rest
of
it
are
ways
of
organizing
our
process
that
are
likely
to
change
over
time
that
we
may
not
even
all
agree
on
at
this
point,
but
don't
I
don't
know
if
they
need
to
be
documented
as
theips
or
not,
but
they're,
certainly
not
of
the
same
care
they're
not
the
same
as
a
mission
statement,
I'm
repeating
myself
here
so.
D
F
Sorry
I'll
be
I'll,
be
more
precise.
I
was
just
asking
like
what
what
are
next
steps,
if,
if
people
are
generally
interested
in
this
for
the
different
parts
to
move
at
different
speeds,
should
they
be
different
like?
Is
there
something
other
than
a
PR
on
eip1
that
the
non-mission
statement,
part
of
this
could
do
next
to
get
more
review
and
I
mean
I,
I,
I'm
personally,
I
I.
Think
part
of
the
impetus
for
this
was
that
all
core
devs
is
trying
to
become
something
like
what
this
document
describes.
F
As
the
topic
group
and
I
very
much
want
all
of
our
devs
to
like
have
some
like
recognize
their
desires
and
structure
in
this,
so
that
was
sort
of
my
my
personal
interest
in
it.
But
I
I'm
just
wondering
what
next
steps
are.
If
people
like
the
general
idea
and
want
to
refine
it
together,
where
do
we
do
that?
How
does
that
work.
D
The
same
way
on
going
discussion
goes
on
for
anything,
on
the
Discord
and
among
ourselves,
and
if,
if
something
is
solid
enough,
you
want
to
make
a
PR.
We
probably
should
I
think
pandas
about
here
today.
The
panda
myself
and
you
have
all
got
partly
partly
formatting
and
partly
substantial
things
going
against
the
ip1.
D
Some
of
mine
I
really
wouldn't
want
to
check
in
right
now,
they're
just
theirs.
When
you
put
it
up
as
a
PR,
it's
clear
what
you're
trying
to
do
so.
You
might
want
to
do
that
with
some
of
this
or
you
might.
We
might
want
to
discuss
it
more
as
it
as
you
have
it
now.
I
don't
have
a
strong
opinion
on
that.
B
A
All
right,
so
we
moved
past
through
this
really
quick.
Thank
you
all
editors
for
making
this
happen,
and
the
next
one
here
is
about
special
number
assignment.
A
There
are
two
pull
requests:
one
to
create
a
proposal
and
draft
another
one
to
move
another
proposal
in
review,
and
these
proposals
were
reviewed
in
the
last
EIP
editing
officer,
but
some
thought
that
it
would
be
a
good
idea
to
get
more
thoughts
on
it
from
all
of
the
EIP
editors
and
we
are
also
joined
by
the
EIP
author
of
both
the
proposals.
So
if
there
are
any
question
we
can
have
in
here
as
well
Sam,
if
you
would
like
to
maybe
briefly
explain
the
issue
and
then
we
can
discuss.
B
The
EIP
author
wants
to
use
a
related
number
for
these
proposals
and
they
have
precedence
that
I,
don't
know
the
EIP
number
offhand,
but
where
we've
done
it
before
and
I
just
wanted
to
get
everybody's
feelings
about
it.
On
this
call.
B
A
And
just
to
add
here,
there
is
another
comment
by
an
EIP
number,
allocating
person,
Andrew
I.
Suppose
he
mentioned
in
the
chat
that
any
manual
number
assignment
should
be
limited
to
discourage
your
number
spending,
and
he
seems
also
to
be
not
in
favor
of
having
this
number
special
number
assignment.
G
G
E
Where
are
they
asking
for
special
numbers?
I,
don't
I,
don't
see
it
in
7409.
G
Oh
yeah,
so
the
PRS
yeah
in
74409
that
this
is
where
we
opened
the
pr
for
it
and
I
can't
find
the
one
where
we
actually
discussed
it.
So
it
was
one
of
the
closed
ones
because
we
in
the
6059.
G
We
saw
what
happened
with
820s,
so
1820
superseded
because
I
think
ERC
165.
G
So
the
question
is
currently
the
Erp
numbers
usually
are
assigned
by
the
pr
in
which
the
proposal
is
opened.
Well,
the
question
is
whether
or
not
we
can
assign
the
pr
numbers
to
to
match
the
PRS
that
these
ones
are
super
the
proposals
that
these
ones
are
superseding.
So
basically
the
original
PR
is
6059
and
what
we're
wondering
is
whether
or
not
we
can
we
can
number
the
superseding
PRS
7059,
because
no
eips
have
that
number
6509.
C
G
G
And
this
one
is
replaced
by
seven
7401.
G
G
E
G
C
G
B
G
A
It
was
decided
in
a
couple
of
meetings
ago
about
the
thing
that
Lifeline
just
mentioned,
that
we
are
waiting
till
7
500
and
after
that
we
are
going
to
have
sequential
number
assigning,
though
the
process
of
number
assignment
by
EIP
editors
was
in
place
for
quite
some
time,
so
we
are
just
trying
to
be
there
and
consistently
make
changes.
So
people
are
also
aware
of
the
you
know
the
process.
The
thing
that
happened
today,
thank
you
on.
A
So
we
are
passed
this
and
we
can
move
on
to
the
next
item
on
the
agenda,
which
is
discussion,
continued
or
updates
from
the
past
meeting,
and
it
is
about
EIP
ERC,
GitHub
repository
I'm
sure
there
must
have
been
a
lot
of
discussion
in
the
past
meeting.
I,
don't
know,
I
was
sent
there,
unfortunately,
but
anyone
here
on
the
call
may
like
to
you
know
take
it
from
where
we
left
in
the
last
meeting.
A
H
Sure
so,
first
I'll
talk
about
the
EIP
last
call
date
has
passed,
but
I
didn't
push
it
to
final.
To
give
space
for
this
EIP
Charter
room
to
operate
there's
been
some
some
possibility,
because
this
is
all
as
a
core
developer.
My
main
concern
is
to
get
the
repo
split
and
the
whole
issue
of
governance
is
someone
of
a
distraction
and
something
we're
willing
to
give
space
I'm
willing
to
get
space
on
I?
H
So
that's
why
I'm
giving
the
charter
space
to
grow,
because
it's
got
that
no
veto
provision
and
there's
still
space
for
it
to
grow,
to
split
the
repos
into
there
is
at
least
one
for
the
core
devs
topic
group,
all
for
all
core
devs
and
possibly
other
EIP
repos
for
other
topic
groups
that
may
grow
in
the
future.
H
So
because
of
that
development
in
the
charter,
I
wanted
to
not
push
it
to
final,
to
give
it
room
to
adapt
to
whatever
the
the
EIP
process
makes
room
for,
but
to
be
clear,
the
the
core
devs
haven't
changed
their
opinion.
We
need
two
separate
websites
and
two
separate
GitHub
repositories,
and
everything
else
is
just
rearranging
the
deck
chairs.
That's
the
critical
asset
that
we
want
and
we're
willing
to
and
I'm
willing.
You
know,
I
can't
speak
for
the
courtes
on
this,
but
I'm
willing
to
see
other
changes
in
the
organization.
H
Be
the
compromise,
because
the
initial
split
was
a
full
process
split.
It
always
has
been
from
the
beginning.
But
if
what's
going
to
move
the
needle
is
to
allow
this
Charter
to
move
forward,
that
I
thought
had
full
support
from
all
of
the
editors
and
was
it
was
shared
amongst
others.
Before
this
meeting
I
thought
they
had
full
support
of
all
the
editors.
A
A
I
was
also
approached
by
ethereum.org
people
and
they
were
wondering
like
what
are
we
going
to
do
here?
Like
the
main
question
was
about
ERC
I
know.
The
initial
proposal
by
Matt
was
also
suggesting
something
like
that
that
we
can
have
ercs.ethm.org,
but
I
am
not
sure
if
we
are
there
yet
and
yeah.
H
So
I'm
willing
to
split
into
two
tracks:
there's
the
repo
split
and
there's
the
governance
issue
and
totally
decouple
those.
If
we
can
get
the
repost
split
move
forward,
we
got
the
checklist.
We've
got
everything
going
and
we
can.
We
can
mull
over
what
the
governance
looks
like
separate
of
this,
but
I
really
want
the
split
to
happen
before
we
have
to
do
serious
discussions
about
what's
going
on
in
Prague
and
what's
going
in
an
Electra
I
like
it
settled
and
done
before.
We
have
serious
discussions
about
that.
B
All
right
so
just
to
be
completely
clear
about
this
Lifeline
you're
in
favor
of
splitting
the
repos,
yes
or
no.
B
And
get
Ginger
you're
okay
with
splitting
the
repos.
H
I'll
update
the
EIP
I
have
to
pull
all
the
mentions
of
organization
split
out
of
it
clarify.
So
it's
just
a
structural
split
and
then
restart
the
final
column.
B
B
Don't
need
to
follow.
The
last
call
deadline
that,
strictly
once
we
decide
something
we
can
just
make
it
final.
So.
H
All
right,
I'm
also
flying
out
on
a
trip
to
Indianapolis,
to
watch
my
kid
at
Drum
Corps.
So.
A
One
thing
I
want
to
point
it
out
here,
just
because
we
generated
discuss,
process
process
here
and
I
know.
The
like
proposal
is
not
getting
into
like
final
right
now
and
we
are
waiting
few
more
days
about
it.
Unfortunately,
I
noticed
that
this
proposal
missed
review
status
and
because
this
is
a
meta
proposal,
I
would
like
to
have
that
in
place
if
possible,
and
while
we
are
waiting
for
this
thing
to
be
closed,
move
into
final
status.
What
do
people
generally
think
I
mean?
H
A
All
right,
so
as
a
summary
for
a
discussion,
Point
number
two
here
we
are
agreeing
that
there
would
be
a
structural
split.
That
means
there
would
be
a
repo
split,
but
there
would
be
the
same
people
more
or
less
organizing,
the
or
managing
the
eipa
dating
part.
So
there
would
not
be
an
organizational
split,
and
by
that
do
we
agree
that
the
proposal
created
by
Matt,
the
pr
for
splitting
the
repo
should
be
merged,
or
we
are
hoping
to
wait
like
three
more
days
a
week
or
whatever,
where
we
are
on
that.
E
I
mean
at
minimum.
We
have
to
update
the
pr
because
the
pr
is
generated
by
Script
and
it's
now
out
of
days.
But
to
do
the
split
like
I
think
it
would
be
nice
to
have
a
synchronous
call
with
it.
You
know
at
least
Panda
pip
on
there,
since
he's
kind
of
runs
most
of
the
CI
and
we're
essentially
gonna
have
to
pause
merging,
like
turn
all
the
bots
off,
so
that
nothing
gets
merged
to
the
Eeps
repo
and
then
create
a
clone
of
it,
which
is
the
RC's
repo
and
then
do
the
run.
E
B
A
A
Right
there
was
one
other
thing
that
I
wanted
to
discuss,
but
it
just
slipped
my
mind:
now
mine
will
get
back
when
when
I
I
get
it
back
again.
Okay,
oh
yes,
I
got
it
now.
So
the
thing
was
like
just
to
be
clear:
what
we
are
trying
to
do
is
just
remove
the
ERC
and
all
other
VIPs
will
be
right
there
in
the
other
repo
there's,
no
change
in
the
letting
part.
The
discussion
that
happened
earlier
right.
H
So
part
of
this
goes
forward,
I.
Think
to
when
the
charter
settles,
I
would
like
to
see
it
be
topic
groups
going
to
EIP
the
topic
group
for
core
and
all
other
topic
groups
go
into
ERC
until
other
topic,
groups
form
and
possibly
create
their
own
repo.
If
they
want
to
like
foresee,
there
might
be
a
wallet
topic
group
forming
I
could
see
a
layer,
two
topic
group
forming
so
I.
H
B
Yeah
I
think
that
should
be
technically
possible
and
I
I,
don't
think
there'd
be
much
proposition
to
having
unique
domains,
but
I
mean
that
we
can
all
figure
that
out
like
it
should
be
pretty
straightforward.
A
Sounds
good
to
me,
it
looks
like
we
will
be
going
ahead
with
the
whatever
is
the
present
destruction
now
and
we
can
revisit
Sam's
proposal
in
our
next
meeting
and
I'm,
assuming
that
it
may
take
a
month
or
two
to
get
everything
fully
implemented,
but
at
least
that
is
there
in
the
process.
So
yeah
I
understand
the
idea
of
having
great
topic
groups
that
that
would
be
great
to
have,
and
the
next
item
here
listed
here
is
a
7230.
A
D
D
That's
the
best
way
to
do
it
and
it's
not
clear
until
I
talked
with
Sam
quite
what
he
had
in
mind
as
to
how
that
related
to
the
topic
group
and
there's
also
issues
with
both
of
our
proposals
as
to
topic
groups
that
only
come
together,
real
briefly
versus
ones
that
are
standing,
Repose
domains,
things
that
just
came
up
briefly
here
but
somewhere
we
need
details.
D
So
the
working
group
part
needs
to
be
discussed
with
Sam.
As
I
said,
the
there's
two
parts
for
the
change,
suggestions
on
links
and
I,
don't
think
Sam
had
any
trouble
with
asking
for
better
citations
and
I.
Think
there's
some
there's
still
disagreement
on
how
much
to
loosen
up
the
standards
for
informative
references
in
in
the
rationale
of
motivation.
C
D
I,
just
I
wanted
to
sort
of
know
if
it's,
if
it's
down
to
Sam
and
I
discussing
it
or
if
there's
other
editors
that
are
very
much
against
loosening
them
up
or
just
in
general.
That's
the
level
of
consensus
right
now.
D
Yeah
the
normative
the
normative
section
pretty
much
if
it's
normative
it
has
to
be
there
and
it
doesn't
have
to
be
there
it's
not
normative,
but
for
informative
links.
That's
where
I'd
like
to
loosen
it
up
more
and
I!
Think
that's
where
authors
are
complaining
that
we
hack
away
at
their
motivation
and
rationale
and
if
they
can't,
if
they
can't
get
links,
they're
just
left,
making
bald
assertions
of
fact
that
nothing
to
back
it
up.
D
We've
got
a
lot
of
hold
a
lot
of
old
VIPs
with
a
whole
bunch
of
links
in
them
that
are
half
dead
at
this
point
so
and
that's
where
we
wanted
to
make
sure
we've
got
full
citations
so
that
a
Google
search
will
likely
likely
find
you
to
document
if
the
if
the
link
went
dead,
a
DOI,
if
you
can
get
one
Etc
but
not
restrict
authors
to
you,
know,
here's
the
list
and
you'll
have
to
argue
like
hell
to
get
anything
else
onto
it.
A
I
would
imagine
Victor
may
have
some
thoughts,
so
it
would
be
a
good
idea
like
in
my
mind
that
if
you
can
mention
it
on
Discord
and
anyone
interested
may
join
you
and
Sam
whenever
the
call
is
happening.
A
All
right
so
for
this
item
as
well,
we
are
taking
it
here
like
Sam
Greg
and
whoever
else
is
interested
in
discussing
this
update
to
Eid.
One
with
respect
to
two
PR
that
was
discussed
in
the
earlier
meeting
may
join
the
meeting,
and
we
can
expect
some
resolution.
Some
decision
or
whatever
the
consensus
is
in
the
next
meeting.
So
I
will
keep
that
as
an
update
for
the
next
VIP
meeting.
A
Okay,
moving
on
to
the
next
item
here,
it
is
EIP
is
inside
for
the
month
of
August,
as
I
can
see
it.
Here
we
have
one
final
EIP.
There
is
one
proposal
which
is
in
the
last
call
I'm
trying
to
just
take
a
look
yeah
proposal:
6492
signature,
validation
for
pre-deploy,
contract,
okay
and
the
last
date
mentioned
here-
is
August
29th.
So
anyone
having
any
opinion
thoughts
or
any
Improvement
suggestion
with
respect
to
specs
text
or
anything
else.
Please
try
to
get
it
done
before
the
deadline
passes.
A
Eap
editors
are
being
strict
and
stricter
these
days,
so
you
may
not
get
the
opportunity
to
update
the
proposal
even
for
the
smaller
things
like
I
mean.
Obviously
there
is
a
flexibility
of
it,
but
we
would
like
to
avoid
even
smaller
changes
going
in
the
proposal
after
it
is
moved
to
the
funnel
status.
A
We
have
received
a
four
proposal
in
review
and
I
suppose
there
is
one
more
test
track
in
addition
to
that,
I
wanted
to
share
that
eapsinsight.com
is
changing
like
they
are
having
a
version.
Two
of
it,
though,
the
website
is
not
deployed
so
I
have
added
a
virtual
link
of
that
for
a
quick
reference,
but
we
should
be
expecting
everything
on
the
eaps
inside
very
soon,
and
Sam
of
some
of
your
earlier
requests
are
also
included
in
it.
A
Yeah
I
would
love
to
General
feedbacks
on
that
and
I
will
list
you.
What
are
the
changes
added
here
and
that's
all
on
eipfs
inside
thing.
Next
is
EAP
editing,
office
r
I
have
added
that.
According
to
meeting
22
that
happened
yesterday,
it's
really
great
to
hear
from
all
new
Authors.
They
are
trying
to
learn
the
process
and
thank
you
so
much
Sam
for
Patiently
answer.
All
those
questions.
It's
really
great
to
have
you
on
one
hour
office
hour.
A
So
that's
there
and
the
next
meeting
for
EIT
editing
office
hour
is
scheduled
for
two
weeks
from
now,
but
on
Tuesday
at
1500,
UTC
I'll
be
uploading
the
agenda
for
it
very
soon
and
I
think
that's
all
from
the
agenda
item
listed
for
today.
Anyone
has
anything
that
they
would
like
to
bring
it
up
for
today,
we
have
some
time
if
people
would
like
to
discuss
anything.
A
Very
well
so,
thank
you,
everyone
for
joining
us
today.
We
hope
to
have
a
discussion
continued
on
Discord
and
see
you
all
in
the
next
meeting
two
weeks
from
now
have
a
great
one.
Everyone.