►
From YouTube: EIPIP Meeting 73
Description
Agenda: https://github.com/ethereum-cat-herders/EIPIP/issues/208
A
Welcome
to
eipip
meeting
73
have
shared
agenda
and
chat.
We
have
a
few
items
added
here
for
discussion
today
and
not
a
ton
of
them,
but
yet
some
of
them
are
important
to
be
discussed
and
probably
we
can
make
some
decisions
to
move
forward
with.
The
first
item.
Here
is
a
moderation
and
governance
around
Community
interaction.
A
So
we
all
are
familiar
with
this
farming
issue
that
was
happening
on
GitHub,
like
people
show
up
to
write
whatever
they
want,
but
with
moderation
support
from
EF
personnels.
We
are
able
to
keep
it
in
control
and
like
delete
spam
comments
and
want
user
Etc,
and
we
are
also
familiar
with
like
Twitter
trolling
and
people
screaming
on
Twitter
for
work
and
not
done
as
per
their
wishes.
A
But
recently
it
was
brought
to
our
attention
that
similar
behavior
is
observed
on
Fellowship
of
ethereum
magician
a
place
where
we
think
that
every
developer
can
share
their
thoughts
about
their
proposal
and
probably
share
some
ideas
for
governance.
So
it
was
related
to
the
contributors
who
are
trying
to
help
us
with
EIP
peer
reviewing
process.
A
Obviously,
people
have
shared
their
thoughts
on
this
card
and
we
think
it
is
important
to
discuss
moderation
and
governance
around
Community
interaction
for
providing
a
healthy
ecosystem
to
ethereum
users.
So
anyone
here,
if
you
would
like
to
share
any
thoughts
on
the
issue
or
suggestion
on
moderating
fem
or
EIP
GitHub
in
general,.
A
B
I,
don't
know
what
to
do
with
that.
He
hasn't
messaged
me
since,
or
they
haven't
I,
don't
know
who
they
are.
If
they're
rude
to
me
again,
I'll
give
them
a
warning
and
I'll
just
stop
interacting
with
them,
but
for
the
time
being,
I
don't
know
if
we
need
to
do
anything
like
systemic
changes.
Just
this
one
person
so
far.
A
Yeah,
it
seems
like
that
one
individual
was
not
only
showed
this
kind
of
behavior
on
fbm,
but
he
was
also
doing
the
similar
actions
on
EIP
GitHub
repository
I.
Suppose
there
was
a
link
shared
by
Panda
view
for
his
earlier
action,
so
I
wonder
like
if
we
have
any
plans
to
maybe
take
help
of
fem
team
or
yeah
I.
Don't
know
Greg
is
here
Greg
if
you
may
have
any
suggestion
for
adding
warning
to
these
kind
of
users
or
maybe
having
it
like
band,
or
something
like
that
for
some
time.
C
A
Is
there
a
way
to
report
these
people
like
in
when
we
get
any
spamming
issue
and
get
away
have
a
forum
where
we
report
it
to
AP
readers
and
those
are
banned
and
like
deleted
comment
and
everything
else?
Can
we
do
similar
actions
on
fem
as
well.
B
There's
a
flag
button,
so
I
I
flagged
the
messages.
I,
don't
know
what
the
mods
of
the
three
magicians
do,
but
yeah
foreign.
A
Flagging
is
definitely
the
first
step
and
first
good
step
in
the
direction
of
letting
mods
know
about
someone
not
behaving
properly
very
well.
I
just
wanted
to
share
this,
so
people
are
aware.
I
just
want
to
also
communicate
that
we
want
to
keep
all
the
discussion
forum
clean
by
clean
I
mean
that
everybody
is
here
to
contribute.
So
let's
try
to
help
each
other
rather
than
let
go
live.
So
if
we
come
across
any
such
issues
further
and
future
probably
will
seek
out
to
moderator
of
Fem.
A
All
right
moving
ahead,
we
have
few
discussion
continued
from
the
earlier
meeting.
I
think
some
of
them
were
proposed
by
Sam,
but
unfortunately
he
wasn't
there.
So
the
first
one
is
I'm.
Gonna
share
a
link
here.
It
is
related
to
EIP
5
000..
If
I
have
not
much
taken.
The
pull
request
number
is.
B
A
C
D
C
A
A
C
Again,
register
my
long-standing
opinion
that
we
should
drop
this
because
I
feel
like
a
parent
who
wants
to
send
their
children
to
the
room
say:
go
to
your
room,
don't
come
out
until
you're
ready
to
stop
arguing.
A
A
I
hope
we
don't
get
into
this
for
for
a
very
long
time
and
we
get
it
resolved
up.
Unless
that
pull
request
is
closed,
I
mean
someone
has
to
do
it
either
close
it
or
have
the
discussion
continued
last
time
we
didn't
have
like
Sam,
so
we
could
not
get
through
it.
Now
we
don't
have
math,
so
I
hope
in
the
next
meeting.
Both
are
there
and
we
resolve
it
in
time
box.
A
A
Moving
on
to
the
next
item,
that
is
about
updating
the
permitted
links
for
eip1,
the
number
is
6306
just
we
want
to
have
General
opinion
thoughts
from
the
present
editors
if
they
have
any
objection
and
having
it
approved.
B
So
I'm
somewhat
hesitant
to
allow
links
to
eels
just
because
we
might
be
changing
the
process
a
little
bit,
but
I
don't
really
care
that
strongly
about
it.
If
we
want
links
to
eels,
we
can
do
that
and
I
think.
The
yellow
paper
is
the
other
one
and
I
I,
don't
really
see
a
problem
linking
to
the
yellow
paper.
A
Okay,
so
from
the
last
meeting,
and
as
you
can
see
it
listed
here
on
the
comment
section
as
well
looks
like
Matt
had
the
exactly
opposite
view
on
that,
like
he
was
plus
one
on
execution,
specs
but
minus
one
on
yellow
paper
stuff.
A
A
D
C
A
To
provide
some
additional
context
like
earlier,
we
are
trying
to
avoid
adding
links
in
any
of
the
eips
and
with
5757
I
think
we
have
certain
links
accepted.
But
here
this
is
about
getting
permission
to
add
the
link
for
execution
specs,
as
well
as
the
ethereum
yellow
paper.
Whenever
and
wherever
needed.
B
B
C
C
Okay,
it
might
be
that
that
linking
into
the
Els
exactly
the
right
thing
to
do
to
make
your
point-
and
it
might
not
be
the
yellow
paper-
might
be.
Yes,
here's
this
here's,
this
piece
of
math,
which
is
going
to
unload
into
10
pages
of
code
and
other
times
it's
here's
these.
You
know
five
lines
of
code
that
unrolled
from
that
math
I.
Don't
care
about
the
math
I
care
about
these
five
lines?
C
That's
why
I've
always
said
we
we're
going
to
wind
up
needing
more
than
once
back
and
just
keeping
them
together
and
the
El
is
is
likely
to
stay
current
because
we
can,
you
know,
basically
keep
it
on
the
cycle
with
the
other
clients
and
the
yellow
paper
is
just
going
to
run
behind.
We
sort
of
need
to
beg
the
foundation
to
get
resources
on
it,
to
keep
it
up
to
date
or
else
decide
that
it's
trash
and
just
end
of
life.
C
It
I
think
that
would
be
very
unfortunate
because
the
the
academics,
especially
the
formalists
and
mathematicians,
find
that
they
can
work
with
that
paper
pretty
well,
and
a
lot
of
them
would
not
be
able
to
use
the
El
at
all
because
they're
mathematicians,
they're,
not
computer
brokers,
suppose.
A
So
one
reason
that
has
been
prominent
enough.
The
reason
why
people
do
not
want
links
to
be
added
is
the
chances
of
getting
it
changed.
Execution
specs,
my
understanding
is,
it
may
change
over
the
period
of
time
if
I'm
wrong,
then
probably
it
could
be
allowed
same,
goes
with
yellow
paper
like
if
there
are
no
changes
expected
after
a
certain
point
of
time,
then
there
shouldn't
be
any
problem
in
having
it,
but,
as
per
my
knowledge,
yellow
paper
is
being
updated
time
to
time.
We
had
updated
few
eids
to
them.
Yet.
B
Yeah
I
mean
I'm
okay,
linking
to
it
I'll,
I'll,
poke,
Matt
and
make
sure
he's
not
like
like
violently
against
allowing
links
to
it
and
as
long
as
he's
not
like
horribly
against
it,
I'll
merge
the
pr
there's.
C
I
think
the
yellow
paper
itself,
I'm
gonna-
have
to
bring
it
up.
Yellow
paper
itself
has
a
has
a
version
says
what
version
it's
caught
up
to.
C
B
The
proposed
format
is
to
link
to
the
specific
git
hash
that
the
yellow
paper
is
published
under,
so
we
can
get
like
a
cryptographically
secure
version
for
it.
That.
C
B
A
Very
well
so
it
seems
like
Sam
will
check
with
the
mat.
Greg
is
already
in
agreement,
and
if
there
is
no
strong
disagreement,
this
would
be
merged.
A
C
B
C
Yeah,
it's
not
it
isn't
telling
anybody
how
to
build
ethereum.
It's
trying
to
tell
marketing
people.
You
know
yeah
yeah,
exactly
I'm,
just
shaking
my
head.
B
C
I
think
I
did
probably
not
to
that
effect.
There
were
sticky
semantic
issues.
You
know
gas
is
one,
you
know,
there's
there's
contracts
that
depend
on
it
and
and
some
in
some
sense.
Yes,
it's
part
of
the
semantics
because
it
affects
the
behavior
of
the
code,
but
in
the
other
sense
it
really
wasn't
intended
to
be
a
permanent,
a
permanent
feature
of
any
op
code.
C
We're
hoping
to
just
get
rid
of
the
gas
op
code,
so
you
can't
know
how
much
gas
you're
spending
and
then
then
you're
down
to
the
definition
of
semantics,
I
think
in
most
language
design.
It's
you
know
it's
pretty
much
down
to
what's
what
is
the
output
and
gas
doesn't
change
the
output,
except
that
it
changes
when
your
program
will
terminate,
but
that's
true
in
other
languages.
C
If
you
blow
a
stack,
your
program
will
will
usually
crash,
and
you
can't
really
know
when
you're
going
to
blow
a
stack
and
the
term
of
Art
in
I
know
the
term
of
Art
and
the
C
plus,
plus
and
I
think
the
C
standard
is
that
it
will
follow
these
rules
within
its
resource
constraints
and
so
running
out
of
resources.
Isn't
part
of
the
semantics
of
the
standard,
so
I
think
we're
in
that
sort
of
place,
but
it's
hard
to
explain
that
to
people,
but
we
we
had.
C
We
don't
have
a
document
that
precisely
defines
all
of
the
terms
that
we're
using
the
we
refer
over
to
the
IEEE,
but
it
it's
I,
don't
think
it's
clear
on
this
I
think
we'd
have
to
dig
in
to
what
does
it
say
about
the
ways?
The
ways
that
an
internet
client
can
fail
that
aren't
considered?
You
know
part
of
the
definition
of
the
client's
behavior.
C
D
A
C
It
would
obviously
be
more
reasonable
as
an
informational
EIP,
but
even
then
I
would
I'd
want
to
see
more
discussion
of
these
hard
choices.
C
Probably
since
you
can't
just
lay
down
the
law
on
these
things,
but
you
know
be
more
into
a
discussion
of
yeah.
These
are
the
things
that
are
quite
clear,
I've
seen
some
discussion
of
it.
That
just
goes
into
you
know.
Do
we
just
mean
the
core
computational
part
of
the
of
the
evm?
But
what
about
that
last
stretch
of
call
op
codes
that
relates
to
the
environment
that
it's
in,
which
is
a
whole
other
layer
of
complication.
A
Sounds
good,
so
if
that's,
if
that's
okay,
could
we
just
drop
this
from
the
agenda
for
the
next
meeting
and
let
the
discussion
be
continued
on
Fellowship
of
ethereum
magician,
as
we
can
see
that
it's
already
getting
some
traction
and
people
are.
C
C
Yeah
they
may
want
some
feedback.
You
know
beyond
that
discussion,
more
feedback
from
the
editors
that
this
should
be
informational
and
as
such,
should
probably
incorporate
more
of
the
discussion
in
order
to
be
informative,
but
they're
there's
just
nobody
in
a
position
to
lay
down
the
law
on
this.
C
D
C
A
Very
well
so
Greg.
If
you
can
drop
a
comment
to
this
peer
that
would
be
nice
to
have,
and
we
will
add
in
the
like
discussion
section,
the
decisions
is
like
is
to
continue
getting
more
feedback
on
this
particular
proposal.
A
Moving
on
to
the
next
one
is
5703,
it
was
brought
to
eipip
meeting
a
couple
of
more
times
earlier.
A
We
mentioned
the
last
time
that
we
should
bring
it
back
after
a
few
weeks
to
see
where
EIP
editors
are
on
this
proposal.
So
this
proposal
is
to
add
Victor
as
an
EIP.
Editor
Victor
is
here
with
us
in
the
meeting
today
and
yeah,
Greg
and
Sam.
If
you
guys
have
any
thoughts
on
that
and
yeah,
we
do
have
Victor.
So
if
you
have
any
questions
for
him.
B
I
have
nothing
new
to
add
I
think
this
would
be
something
that
needs
Matt
again.
E
Yeah
I
left
some
my
some
of
my
thoughts
in
read,
writing
and
love
to
hear
what
people
think
and
get
some
feedback
and
I
do
see.
The
the
this
capacity
of
EIP
editors
are
not
catching
up
enough
with
the
big
development
in
the
activities
of
ERC
proposals.
So
we
want
to
kind
of
provide
my
capacity
to
help
foreign.
B
Yeah
I
think
we're
definitely
short
editors
for
erc's
and
I,
and
you
know
I
I,
think
I've
gotten
to
know
you
reasonably
well
so
I,
don't
think
I'd
have
a
problem,
adding
you
as
an
editor,
but
that's
the
same.
I
think
as
last
time.
I
think
the
big
Matt
I
think
is
the
biggest
objector.
So
I
I
don't
know
if
we
can
do
anything
until
Matt's.
Here.
C
I've
talked
with
Annette
about
this
a
little
bit
and
mentioned
it
many
times.
I
haven't
been
in
a
position
to
do
any
work
on
it,
or
at
least
I
haven't
done
any,
but
we
really
I
think
intended
for
The,
Magicians
and
working
groups
to
to
help
here
a
lot
more
and
I.
The
working
group
concept,
I,
don't
think,
is
really
panned
out
that
well,
partly
because
we
just
don't
do
enough
in
person
and
partly
I.
Don't
know
why.
C
But
anyway,
if
you
have
more
of
a
peer
review
process,
then
the
editors
more
have
the
right
to.
You
know
finally
merge
the
thing,
but
we
shouldn't
need
tons
of
actual
editors
to
to
do
the
the
review
of
these.
C
You
know
it.
It
seems
that
for
any
given
ERC
there
you
know
it
should
be
one
or
two
people
in
the
community
who
can
take
a
look
at
that
and
review
it
with
some
amount
of
of
subject
expertise
because
there's
just
so
many
of
them
and
they
spawn
a
they
span,
a
a
wide
range
of
of
a
wide
range
of
topics
and
I.
Don't
I'm
not
sure
what
a
good
way
is
to
to
pull
in
peer
review.
E
Yeah
I
am
yeah
I
love
to
kind
of
help
out
and,
if
needed,
to
design
the
review
process,
but
I
guess.
The
question
now
is
for
you
to
see
what
you're
feeling
about
adding
the
editor
so
that
I
can
kind
of
help
out.
Or
do
you
confirm
that
I
stayed
out
of
I'm,
not
stay
out
of
editing
and
kind
of
help
out
in
either
way.
C
B
Yeah
I
I
would
say
the
the
big
list
of
peer
reviewers
that
I
compiled
has
90
been
completely
useless.
So
you
need
to
go
back
to
the
drawing
board
on
that
one.
C
What
what
if
we
ask
an
ERC
ask
the
ERC
author
to
find
a
reviewer
I.
B
C
Nominate
ask
for
volunteers,
I
I,
don't
know
the
magician
serves
as
a
good
forum
for
discussing
things,
but
it's
been
a
hard
way
to
to
get
anyone
organized
to
do
anything.
E
Thanks
Greg
so
can
can
I.
Also
I
I
appreciate
your
encouragement
and
for
Sam
can
I
get
a
sense
of
do
you
prefer
me
to
stay
out
of
editing,
or
do
you
prefer
me
to
kind
of
continue
contributing
on
the
editing
side
I
when
I
get
rejected
from
the
from
that
being
added?
As
editor
I've
I
saw
the
signal
being
puzzled,
like
I
I'm,
not
sure
what
what
it
means,
like
am
I,
not
editing
in
the
right
way.
If
so,
then,
what
is
the
area
to
improve
or
kind
of?
B
In
my
mind,
I,
don't
think
I'm
opposed
to
you
being
an
editor
like
I
I.
Think
you've
demonstrated,
like
you,
give
good
feedback.
You
participate
in
the
process
like
I,
think
you've
met
all
of
the
like
technical,
like
you've
met
all
of
the
bars
that
I
would
set
for
your
contributions
to
be
an
editor
I
think,
like
that's
great
I,
think
you've
you've.
B
Definitely
at
least
you've
said
that
you're
willing
to
put
like
the
principles
of
the
EIP
thing
up
like
above
your
own,
for
like
this
part
for
the
process,
like
you
know,
you're,
okay,
with
you
know
not
allowing
like
allowing
Origins
that
charge
for
links
well
like
I'm,
not
and
I.
B
Think
those
kind
of
discussions
are
good
but
you're,
okay
enforcing
the
rules,
as
we
decided
as
editors
and
I,
think
that's
you
know
the
the
most
we
can
ask
for
new
members,
so
I
I,
don't
think
I
have
a
problem
with
you
being
an
editor
I
think
you
just
need
to
talk
to
Matt
he's
the
the
only
the
only
person
who
is
like
very
much
against
it.
Yeah.
E
Let's
talk
about
Matt,
so
I
saw
the
different
behaviors
in
Matt's
or
different
standards
and
maths
activity.
E
And
then,
in
the
same
situation,
where
three
editors
shows
at
least
I,
think
Panda
and
Greg
shows
support
in
my
being
editor
and
you
at
the
time
was
supporting.
But
now
even
if
you're
neutral
was
executing
adding
me
as
an
editor
and
then
so
he
come
up
and
respond.
No,
so
how
does
governance
work
in
this
situation?
I
mean
in
in
Matt's
own
standards
should,
in
a
general
consensus,
be
adopted
or
should
generous
consensus,
be
able
to
block
by
one
editor.
E
C
E
That
usually
means
that
a
person
that
speaks
loud
enough
is
able
to
base
basically
block
anyone
else
right
like
right,
because
the
veganized
is
not
about
personally,
but
in
general,
in
any
Community.
If
that
is
the
approach
than
the
person
who
stands
down
still
would
get
the
best
of
the
most
weight
of
it,
and
then
it
basically
paralyze
the
system,
if
someone's
trying
to
block.
C
Well,
personally,
I
think
we're
just
we're
imposing
too
high
a
standard
to
get
things
into
draft
lots
of
things.
I
think
we
could
handle
in
the
review
process
we're
we're
trying
to
impose
on
draft
and
that's
it's
making
it
harder.
It's
making
it
harder
on
us
anyway.
C
Yeah
there
used
to
be
a
draft
was
just
a
draft
and
pretty
much
if
it
you
know
if
it
was
readable,
English
and
met
the
formal
standards
in
the
formal
standards
weren't
that
hard
it
got
in
as
a
draft
and
then
when
it
went
to
review
status.
There
was
plenty
of
time
to
to
deal
with
these
things,
but
anyway
we
didn't
used
to
have
a
lot
of
trouble
reaching
consensus
and
it
wasn't
a
matter
of
who
talked
loudest.
C
It
was
the
finally
yeah
getting
consensus
on
the
arguments,
but
things
have
changed.
We
have
more
people
and
stronger
opinions,
apparently,
but
in
general,
in
such
situations,
Matt
has
to
decide
is,
am
I
blocking.
You
know.
It's
really
so
important
to
me
that
I
won't
let
this
person
be
an
editor
or
I.
C
Don't
want
him
to
be
an
editor,
but
if
everyone
else
is
for
it,
I'll
I'll,
Stand
aside,
and
that
just
express
my
opinion
and
move
on,
and
so
it's
it's
kind
of
Matt's
call
there
and
then
it
becomes
the
group's
call
to
say
either.
Okay,
this
is
a
legitimate
block
and
we'll
move
on
or
okay,
we've
heard
you
we've
heard
you
out
Matt,
but
we
don't
feel
that
you've
got
legitimate
reasons
to
block
this
and
we
need
this
editor.
C
We
want
this
editor
and
we're
we're
going
to
move
on,
despite
despite
your
objections,
and
if
your
objections
are
so
strong
that
you
want
to
quit,
be
an
editor.
Well,
we're
sorry
and,
as
I
said,
I
have
not
wanted
to
pay
attention
to
this.
So
I
don't
know
at
what
state
we're
at,
but
I
think
it's
kind
of
up
to
Matt
to
make
it
really
clear.
This
is
so
important
to
him
that
he'd
rather
stop
being
an
editor
than
to
to
go
with
the
consensus.
C
Yeah
there's
three
there's
three
states:
either.
You
agree
with
the
consensus.
You
disagree,
but
you're
not
going
to
block
it
or
you
block
it
and
then,
if
you
block
it,
the
whole
group
has
to
decide
to
do
what
has
to
decide
what
to
do
with
that
block
and
really
consider
the
arguments
for
the
block
and
the
arguments,
then
matter
not
the
opinion.
The
arguments.
A
That's
really
helpful.
Thank
you
Greg.
So,
while
Mac
is
not
here,
I
don't
see
a
point
of
having
a
continued
discussion
on
on
the
topic
like.
Maybe
he
may
have
a
different
opinion
by
this
time.
A
By
looking
into
your
contribution
or
by
looking
into
the
arguments
or
the
comment
that
you
have
added
on
the
pull
request,
we
should
wait
for
his
thoughts
as
Greg
mentioned,
that
we
would
come
back
to
his
points
why
it
was
blocked
in
the
first
place
and
if
that
holds
true
even
now,
then
the
blocking
could
be
continued.
C
D
A
Thank
you.
Let's
move
on
to
the
next
item,
which
we
kind
of
partially
discussed
in
this
prior
discussion
of
adding
one
more
editor,
so
it
was
from
the
last
meeting
Sam.
It
may
be
referred
to
you.
We
were
trying
to
understand
the
prerequisite
for
someone
to
be
considered
as
a
viable
reviewer,
so
we
can
help
you
like
get
more
reviewers
and
if
there
is
any
documentation
or
any
resource
that
we
can
point
it
to
New,
EIP
authors
or
others
who
are
experienced
yeah,
they
can
follow
and
help
with
the
peer
reviewing
process.
There.
B
A
So
is
that
list
available
with
all
EIP
editors,
maybe
placed
somewhere
or
how
it
is
yeah.
B
B
C
E
B
E
I
I
have
also
being
kind
of
test
out
as
a
new
another
approach
in
comply
in
complement
to
that
and
when
I
hear
editor's
idea,
feedback
on
this
approach,
whenever
a
new,
ERC
or
EIP
was
fired,
I
would
jump
in
and
ask
hey.
Have
you
seen
this
other
EIP?
E
If
so
like,
can
you
elaborate
your
difference
or
how
your
dependency
work
out
and
maybe
reach
out
to
collaborate
and,
if
not,
then,
or
if
they
reject
it
or
you'd,
intend
not
to
just
mention
that
in
a
marriage,
so
I
kind
of
use
that
as
a
way
to
both
force
them
to
do
some
more
research,
elaborate
and
also
kind
of
find
an
opportunity
for
them
to
Ping
and
discover
the
Discover
and
pain
relevant
editors
and
relevant
authors.
C
Are
you
talking
about
proposals
that
are
closely
related,
but
the
authors
may
not
know
that.
E
Yeah
I
would
generally
try
to
kind
of
put
down
what
I
think
is
throughout,
looks
relevant
or
sounds
relevant
either
relevant
in
in
that
based
off
the
same
problem
and
they're
competing
or
Irrelevant.
In
that
it
might
be
useful
to
be
dependency
of
one
another
and
then
I'll
ask
them
what
they
think
about
foreign.
E
Yeah
I
think
that's
what
I
put
down
at
EIP
author
handbook
just
to
say
that
you
should
do
research
and
you
should
reach
out
to
people
who
have
relevant
erps
and
then
I'm
and
I
was
waiting
for
this
group
to
approve
that
into
a
informational
EIP,
so
that
I
can
point
people
to
from
a
more
canonical
links.
E
A
E
A
A
I
think
I
have
made
a
mention
to
an
earlier
document
that
was
published
by
cathodes
stating
like
for
which
a
status
what
we
need
to
have
if
there
is
anything
more
to
it,
I'm
happy
to
update
that.
A
But
yeah
I'm
not
sure
I
do
not
have
the
link
handy
for
the
editor's
handbook
that
you
are
talking
about.
If
you
would
like
to
share
for
rest
of
the
editors
to
maybe
take
a
look.
A
Okay,
so
that's
mostly
related
to
issues
and
pull
requests.
Those
were
added
for
today's
discussion
and
we
had
quite
a
few
discussion
on
the
peer
reviewing
process
as
well,
as
some
mentioned
that
we
would
be
looking
for
more
reviewers,
because
the
present
list
is
not
good
enough
to
continue
with
the
peer
reviewing
process.
So
if
anyone
interested
listening
to
this
call,
please
reach
out
to
EIP
editors,
Sam
or
anyone
and
have
yourself
listed,
it
would
be
helpful
if
you
have
already
authored
any
earlier
proposal.
A
A
A
C
A
quick
scam:
we
should
not
hide
stagnant
with
Tron,
even
that's
a
maybe
but
not
stagnant
because
stagnant.
They
just
get
moved
automatically,
and
so
you
don't
know
whether
the
author
is
intending
to
get
back
to
work
on
it
in
the
future
or
not,
and
on
the
page,
the
page
that
I
think
the
foundation
maintains
that
pulls
out
pulls
out
all
the
eips
together.
The
stagnant
ones
will
just
disappear.
C
Yeah
and
I.
Don't
think
that'll
be
at
all
a
good
thing.
I
think
I've
got
one
or
two
that
have
gone
stagnant,
but
they're
still
referenced
by
other
people,
I'm
likely
to
resurface
one
of
them,
but
all
of
eof
has
to
get
in
first,
so
sometime
next
year,
I'll
resurface
it.
But
if
it's
fallen
off
the
list
and
I
can't
reference
it,
it
gets
harder.
C
A
So
by
closing
here
means
that
I
mean
we
are
allowing
people
to
add
withdrawn
in
required
section.
A
Oh,
no,
so
the
I
think,
if
I'm
correct,
are
we
discussing
the
issue
number
six
one.
Three
one
Greg.
A
C
A
A
C
A
C
C
A
B
Think
I'll
rename
it
because
we
we
agree,
we
don't
want
to
hide
them,
but
Greg
you
did
say
you
might
be:
okay
with
making
them
less
visible.
C
A
C
A
Yeah,
so
we
have
about
six
minutes
left
if
we
can
look
into
anything
else.
The.
B
Lotion
your
issue
about
linking
to
withdrawn
eips
in
required
I
think
we
can
close
that
one
there's
no
real
reason
to
do
it,
except
to
say
like
we're
using
a
little
bit
like
a
piece
from
a
withdrawn
EIP
but
I,
don't
think
there's
any
technical
reason
why
we
should
disallow
links
to
withdraw
any
IPS.
A
B
C
You're
just
go
ahead
and
go
ahead.
Yes,
it
is,
if
you
know,
incorporate
it
incorporate
what
you
need
directly
into
your
own
EIP
at
that
point.
Okay,
that's
my
thought.
It's
it's
withdrawn!
So
it's
it's
as
good
as
gone
from
that
point
of
view.
So
maybe
in
inner
yeah
maybe
is
information.
It
could
be
useful,
but
so
it
goes
if
it's
if
what's
in
that
withdrawn
EIP
is
required.
That
is
its
normative
than
but
the
withdrawn
EIP.
B
C
You
know
motivation
section,
you
know
you
could
maybe
say
that
this
IEP
was
withdrawn
and
this
the
current
EIP
is
a
replacement
for
it.
You
know
it
could
be
of
historical
interest.
Things
like
that,
but
I
don't
think.
We've
really
discussed
my
opinion
that
we
should
have
different
requirements
and
much
tighter
requirements
for
the
specification
section
of
an
EIP
and
much
looser
requirements
for
motivation
and
rationale.
C
Much
easier
to
just
disallow
it
right
now
and
take
it
up
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
because
I
don't
think
many
people
will
want
to
do
it.
A
Right
yeah,
this
is
not
a
frequent
case.
We
are
just
trying
to
clarify
it
for
people
who
may
come
up
with
this
in
future
like
right
now,
if
I
understand
correct
the
current
EIP
bot.
Has
this
check
that
it
does
not
allow
any
EIP
in
require
section
whose
status
is
like
prior
to
the
current
status
of
the
eib,
say,
for
example,
EIP
X
has
a
status
of
review.
It
cannot
have
any
eipy
in
draft
status.
D
C
The
IEEE
has
that
rule.
It
also
makes
a
clear
distinction
between
normative
and
non-normative
links
and
once
something
goes
to
standard,
all
normative
links
must
be
links
to
standards.
So,
if
we're
following
that
model,
which
was
our
original
model,
the
certainly
by
the
time
you
get
to
final
everything,
that's
required
has
to
also
be
final
or
the
product.
The
final
product
of
some
other
standards
organization
that
we've
decided
that
we'll
count
on.
A
Yeah
Sam:
do
you
think
this
is
the
present
model
of
our
EIT
and
we
can
probably
have
it
like
if
we
agree
to
this
model
that
we
want
to
have
eits
in
required
section
which
reaches
to
fun
and
Status?
We
probably
cannot
have
EIP,
which
are
in
withdrawn
right.
We
will
never
have
it
in
final
status,
sure
yeah.
In
that
case,
we
may
have
to
make
changes
at
two
places,
maybe
in
the
part
as
well
as
having
it
added
to
the
eip1.
A
Okay,
okay,
so
we
are
at
time
I,
don't
think
we
have
any
more
time
to
take
up
on
any
further
issues.
We'll
try
to
take
a
few
in
the
next
meeting.
I
quickly
want
to
just
talk
about
a
few
other
things
we
have
added
eaps
inside
for
the
month
of
January,
we
have
14
eaps
and
review
status
and
three
in
last
call
status.
The
last
call
status.
A
Eits
are
I'm
gonna
quickly
check
here,
that
is
EIP
5267,
which
is
retrieval
of
EAP
712
domain,
and
the
deadline
is
23rd
January,
which
has
already
passed.
There
is
another
one,
two
one
one,
three,
five
consumable
interface.
The
deadline
is
February
1st
and
eip6150
hierarchical
nft,
which
is
25
January.
That
is
today.
So
if
people
have
any
thoughts
comments,
they
would
like
to
add
last
minute
comment
for
authors.
Please
go
ahead
and
do
that.
Otherwise
these
proposals
can
be
moved
towards
the
final
status,
with
the
addition
of
a
new
pull
request.
A
A
couple
of
quick
announcements:
ethereum
magician
anat
and
Victor
from
ethereum
Caterers
have
organized
a
session
on
each
Denver.
I
think
it
is
on
March,
2nd
I
have
added
the
link
here
in
the
agenda
for
people
who
are
there
in
Denver.
Please
try
to
attend
it.
It
is
a
session
for
all
EIP
authors.
You
can
come
and
talk
and
meet
other
people
meet.
Other
authors
share
your
idea.
Probably
we
can
get
some
implementation
of
these
proposals
during
the
eat
Denver
and
there
is
another
one
interrupt
Summit.
A
We
have
a
governance
session
there.
I
and
Matt
would
be
there.
So
people,
if
you
are
around
please
try
to
join
us,
share
your
thought
with
us.
A
And
yeah
I
think
that's
pretty
much
it
for
today,
I
have
had
a
look
on
the
action
items
from
the
last
meeting.
I
think
we
have
covered
almost
all
of
them
yeah.
Anyone
else
has
anything
to
do.
Yeah.
E
Yeah,
just
really
quick
letter
notes
here
now.
Generally,
it's
the
topic
proposal,
job
to
client
document
meeting
notes,
but
for
5703
pull
requests
that
adding
me
as
added
item
I
should
probably
recuse
myself,
so
who
should
be
the
best
to
kind
of
document
this?
Whether
we
discussed
today.
E
A
I
am
going
to
leave
a
comment
at
the
end
of
the
agenda,
with
whatever
we
have
decided
with
for
today's
discussion.
A
D
E
Sounds
good
yeah
thanks
yeah
I,
I,
yeah
I,
usually
document,
but
this
one
actually
I
should
recuse
for
yeah.