EIP Editing Office Hour #92 (EIP + ERC)

Transcript

[music] Thank you. [music]

>> [music] >> Heat. Heat. Heat. [music] Heat.

>> progress. >> Welcome to EIP editing office hour meeting number 92. This is issue number 1961 on Ethereum/PM GitHub repository. Today on agenda we have one last call, a few miscellaneous and a few draft proposals for review. We are joined by editor Sam Wilson. Thank you, Sam, for joining us here today. Maybe we can get started with um the last call proposal. >> Sounds good. All right. Um All right. Membership tokens

20 tokens represent group membership with threshold with access control. All right. March 24th. All right. Sorry, one sec. Um, it's weird.

Okay. Um defines a group as an ERC20 token where a token balance represents membership group to semantic interpretation and holding tokens in the group and binary membership support threshold membership. Holding more tokens higher membership tier privileges any applications addressable groups of accounts with control membership and tier access. Sure. 20.65.

Good. Yeah, I mean that

that's certainly a a proposal. [gasps] Cool. >> All right. >> Moving on. >> Uh so I think we are joined by Dragon. He had some question and his PR number is in EIP report 1135. All right, let's take a look. >> Yeah. >> Did you have a particular question or >> No. Um, just wanted to see what needs to be done too much. This Uh that's frame. Yeah.

>> Yeah. Yeah. I'm just uh Okay, got it.

Okay. Uh capabilities. Yeah, that makes sense. Transaction sponsorship execution frames do upgrades. Yeah,

>> true. >> Yeah, it's not like a requirement or anything. It's just a stylistic recommendation. [clears throat] [sighs] Um there isn't it's a little bit ambiguous. >> Yeah. I don't have full details how exactly is that going to be but I want like to put something.

>> Yeah. Yeah. I get it. Um >> okay. I can add some like to-do or something like that just that's like pending. >> I'd appreciate it. Um sender Yeah, that's great. Feel free to address

these while you're in draft. >> Cool. Thanks a lot. No problem. That's it from me. This was quick. Awesome. Yeah. >> Thank you. And we can get back to our list. Next one is miscellaneous. Yep. Okay. Why does this require a >> So, he is the author. I don't know why.

>> Oh, because it wasn't added when >> But Nick himself is the author and he's making the PR. >> Yeah. So, so once it's in withdrawn, it's it's final. It can't be edited. And somehow it got merged without a withdrawal reason. >> Reason. Yep. Okay. >> But this can be this can be done, right? >> Yep. >> Oh, yeah. This isn't a problem. I'm just checking to see why >> why it happened. Uh, what's wrong with HTML proofer? Interesting. All right.

Oops. That was the wrong button. there. Okay. So, that's do not merge. And then

this one says for sale. Okay. So 7813. Yeah. So you're in review. All right, let's go to Brad.

>> The first one is mine. I tried to address the comments that you have suggested last time. >> So, I noticed there was couple of bot

errors. So, I made a third uh commit for this. Um, it should be appearing and we can take a look at the latest one. >> Sure thing. So I have removed the reasoning for most

of it and try to add something in a combined way at the bottom. But I mean I am personally feeling that I'm missing uh that the main reason why this is named what except for the like the pattern. I'm wondering like when you reach there maybe we can ask this question. I'm wondering if we can add everything in the rational section. Rational is already big. Can we make it even more bigger? Yeah, that makes sense.

So here in this section I have just broadly mentioned but not any specific reasoning for that. If this looks fine it's fine otherwise I can go ahead and details. Okay perfect. >> Yeah seems good. [sighs and gasps] >> Yeah let me um work on fixing your comments while we are reviewing the other. >> Sure. [gasps] Um, okay.

Okay. Static flow control for the EVM. I can definitely come back to this one first. Thanks ma'am. Yeah, that's an advantage

of having that permissions enabled. >> Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Cool. I think that looks good. Did I not just edit this and commit to it? Like, why aren't you showing up? I guess I didn't. Interesting.

Oh, it's because I'm just looking at that makes sense. Here we go. And you look good over here. Okay. Okay. Cool. Set a flow control for the EVM. >> Thank you.

So this is anformational proposal. Last time we discussed it with Yam and we were stuck at the bottom of the proposal which has like a lot of references and we were not very sure like whether this is up to the template that's included it again here. >> Sure. Okay. Oh, So I have a question here on motivation

section. >> Okay. No, maybe I'm looking at the older version. Let me first fix that. Sorry about that. Yes, in motivation section I don't see any of the EIPs linked like 79798013 and neither I find them u like added as a required section wondering if they need to.

>> Yeah, the the bot should have picked that out. Why did it not? Huh? That's interesting. I assume because he's using a non dashed uh Greg. Huh? Why didn't the bot pick these up? That's quite strange.

And uh my second question is based on historical context. So yeah, maybe we can get there. >> Yeah, give me one sec. This is >> actually strange. Yeah. So it did find that is really

Yeah. I mean when I run it when I run it locally it find it finds the problem. So that's >> I mean I definitely think that the bot is working well because it find the same error in many other docs just missing on this one. >> Yeah, that's really weird. I'm going to have to play around with this a bunch.

Um And we can take this. Go over here. Go

here. I'm not sure if the screen is frozen for

me, sir. >> No, no, I'm just in a different program. >> Okay. >> Uh So, we did that one already. That one's closed. Binary SSC transport for the engine API. I mean, this seems

great. Uh, core draft. Yep. Okay. Oops. I meant to approve That Yep. This is motivation specification.

Cool. I think I'm going to wrap it up here. Um >> Tom, if Oh, yeah, of course. What's up? >> Uh looks like the bot is not merging 11 triple 161. So, whenever you get a chance, maybe closing and opening will work. >> Triple 161. Why aren't you merging? It's failing with HTML, but it's runtime error. I don't know.

Oh. Uh yeah. Okay. So if we go in here full commit. >> So if it is for den is it for >> sorry >> is it for den? >> Uh it's for all of them. Uh because you just have dot slash here. It needs to be like https/github.

>> I did that before, but then it says that put relative link. So I had to remove all https slash. >> So um [sighs] the links should look like um so you'll need to make them look like this for it to work. That's what that's what it was there before. If you can look into previous commit. Yeah, >> in the previous commit it was there and then it says that. Okay, fine. I will do it. No problem at all.

>> Never mind. [laughter] >> Yeah, I did that and then it says relative link. Then I removed each one of them. [laughter] There are chances that there could be some execution file as well. Let me quickly check because no consensus only. Yes. Yes. Makes sense.

>> Yeah, there are a few here. >> Mhm. Yeah. I was wondering because you know there were there were time when we didn't have meta EIPs. Okay. Let's make sure this link is correct. Good. Okay. And then we go up here and we say >> so here I mean like uh the the one you checked for alter I did it for up till Capella but for Denup there is no commit link. Um, wait. This one Then one here [gasps] was that.

>> Um, and then you said which one didn't have a commit link? >> Uh, den. >> Yeah. Okay. So, that one says master. So, I >> have to go and grab This one. Let me go back here. And now we have a commit link.

And then Electra. Yeah. Could you please check for Electra as well? and gloss. Should I remove it because uh it's not finalized yet? And >> it shouldn't matter too much as long as there's a commit. Um >> but again, that's the point like because Glamdam is not finalized, the final commit link could be different. >> That's fine. Like you're just linking to a particular version of it. It doesn't matter that it's the latest one, I don't think.

>> Yeah. I mean, update it before you go to final, but yeah. Where am I even going here? I'm going to specs. [sighs] You are very slow today. GitHub. What is going on here?

>> Overloaded by clots. >> Yeah. Sam. And by the way, Greg is on the call. >> Oh, hey, Greg. >> Hello. >> How's it going? >> Um, pretty well. Just trying to get a button pushed. uh, Greg, I believe we already have reviewed the PR. If you have any specific questions, uh, maybe we can get it done in next five minutes or so.

Yeah, it's just one of those things where a request got marked as as, you know, was needing review, but it it was, you know, a nothing burger request. It was just change the name of a file. The bot couldn't recognize that that had happened. And um the way I actually should have done it was create a new file with that name, copy the entire contents, delete the old file, and it would have slid right in. But all of a sudden, this technical issue turned into a whole discussion of whether it should go in at all, which was actually a resolved point until it

hit that. Um, and so yeah, I seems to meet all requirements and >> the uh the the first pull request for any proposal always needs an editor approval. Um, so it wouldn't have mattered if you hit the bot or not. Somebody would have had to approve it. >> Okay. Well, >> yeah. Uh, that would be >> Does that mean Does that mean everybody has to approve it? No, just one.

>> Well, is there one? So, no one has approved it as of yet. >> Why? Uh so for me um there's just a few like minor issues like the um references list needs to be formatted as CSLJSON and the copyright uh waiver just needs to be uh fixed. Um >> I believe that's fixed.

and yeah, I guess there's kind of a larger discussion of whether we want to um include anformational EIP like this. and I I I posted a message in the EIP editor's uh Discord channel about it. >> the editors the editors the editors judge form, not substance. we do decide whether or not to accept things based on like whether they are of a yeah we don't we don't judge things based on technical feasibility but if it's in the right category or not like we're not going to accept an EIP that's like specifying

Salana obviously. So >> yeah, this is >> this is clearly information that is directly relevant um to EIP that are submitted and research that is underway. Um, and I I think all the criticisms raised have been reviewed, uh, have been taken care of. If editors need to look through again and make sure their criticisms have been met, um, you know,

it, um, it would seem to meet all of the requirements. Um >> Sam, if you think that it would require a wider uh discussion and things like that, maybe we can open a call for input and based on that we can perhaps take this PR. >> I'm hoping we can do it more informally, but yeah, if I don't hear back, I'll open a call for input. >> That makes sense. >> There's there's also a an asynchronous discussion thread on the you know, on the PR itself. Um and that's that is a very good place to discuss things across time zones uh and for there be it to to be a record of you

know of what the issues are um >> yeah of course >> so because there's issues that were specifically raised as far as I know you know I made commits to resolve them um So if you know so you know any issues that are editorial should definitely be raised there. Um and >> of course >> and I I prefer a record of these sorts of decision. Um >> Oh yeah definitely. I don't want uh I don't want to decide anything on this

call. Um >> I do have to take off. I have another meeting in a few minutes. So I will talk to you all later. Uh >> thank you Sam. Thank you for taking see you all in next call. Have a great rest of the day everyone. >> See what happens.