EIPIP Meeting 104

Transcript

welcome to apip meeting 104 on agenda we have some items to discuss also maybe take a look into open issues bull request we'll take a look at call for input and some other discussions along with the eips Insight of the month and we'll also take a look into the open issues and PRS number as we are trying to keep a track of how well we are trying to maintain this things so starting with the first item um this is basically last minute addition to the agenda um the item here is highlights for change in the EIP process uh it's from uh neota open

conversation notes that has been shared today so it seems like in the Meetup there the interrup event client developers and different teams joined together and they had some discussion on the EIP process the current process and the network upgrade process as per the notes it seems like uh the session was brainstorming they discussed many points and also discussed certain statuses so as for now we know that CFI consider for inclusion is is where proposals are included in the meta e and that is also considered

for Dev so there is an alternate status I don't know because CFI is not a formal status but they are proposing something this like should proposed be a formal status for eips um I wonder if editors have any thought on this well so I I don't have a problem including like proposed for a certain fork or something as a tag on the EIP but I think it should be separate from the status because the status is really about the document itself um but that's just me I don't know yeah I mean it could be part of status as well but yeah I don't have any

strong opinions on the same yeah I mean I would be uh inclining towards Sam because we are trying to keep the status uniform more or less it is working so far so good so it would be nice to keep um using tag instead of status and yeah obviously this is something that has to be decided by client team so I'm hoping that there would be a discussion in the all cour Dev meeting not sure if it would be tomorrow because we have an ecd meeting there but it's good to uh yeah collect thoughts from editors so yeah uh that was one thing the next thing was like uh the improvement process so um there the perception that

was discussed in the meeting was like EIP has gone on forever and it's not clear what the use of this there was a potential idea to consider a different approach to implement process change going forward in my personal opinion like when we talk about EIP IP it cannot be stopped at any point of time because process Improvement is something that is essential and it will go on forever because that's how we will continue to improve process as process Improvement um in continuation however if there are different approach to implement these process and process change and come up with an alternate idea to EIP I I would be really happy to

be a part of that as well but I wonder if the present uh group of editors have some thoughts on that or maybe some suggestions around how we can perhaps improve this meeting or maybe a part of any other meeting that is being proposed by the client def I mean all cour dev has been going on for years and I don't see an end for that maybe we should consider alternate ways of governing ethereum as well um I mean obviously we need to continue having this meeting um just to deal with the issues as they come up um I don't know if we need to call it EIP I but I like having a call every so often where I can talk to the other editors um so

I'm in favor of keeping the call yeah I concur I mean you can call it whatever name you want uh but essentially there will be a meeting or a call where we will basically come and talk about the outstanding issues likewise I I'm in favor of keeping the call um if we want to change time or change the Cadence I'm totally uh uh fine and look forward to it um but I just like what Sam says uh I I love to be able to meet uh meet with editors every once in a while I mean it's highly encouraging to

see all editors having almost similar views to keep this meeting I also believe that this eapap meeting provides us an opportunity to discuss things which otherwise could not be discussed in allcore Dev meeting because allc Dev agenda is already full most of the time and the initial idea of having this EIP discussion the process discussion separate from allod Dev meeting was to provide them enough time frame to you know decide it discuss it and maybe implement it whatever is the best way and it will also provide an opportunity to community to participate I'm I'm also happy uh and excited with the new process that is there these ways suggested by Sam to um like discuss

proposals and provide them for a for a month's time call for input that we are doing for tackling coord cases so I am also in very much favor of keeping these meetings but what I would encourage is like you know cevs they be a part of this meeting if if they have some question concerns and if they want certain processes to be changed because this meeting will give an hourong time for them to discuss rather than getting two minutes time in all Cod de meeting to just say their thought and yeah and that that is um sometimes unseen so happy that people are in favor and um there was certain s inter are there any outstanding issues by

codev that we haven't addressed um I'm not very sure I'm hoping that uh whatever they have discussed in the neota conference uh as per the report it seems like Tim would be looking into the issues and they would like to come up with a formalized next step for these process Improvement kind of things so I'm hoping to have some discussion with him and maybe in all c meeting it will be discussed so we can get some clarity but that's a very good question it if there is any open issue that we haven't addressed we should highly consider that including and there were certain

suggestions around Network upgrade process I have shared the link of the proposed process it seems interesting to me I'm not sure how it's going to be implemented but it would be yeah good to follow what developers thinks in this direction it's a very beautiful PNG here people may check out the um agenda cool I'll take a look thank you moving forward we have a bunch of edits uh for final proposals these proposals are already in final statuses although people are not encouraging these kind of edits but sometimes we receive it sometimes there

is an General consensus of merging them but many times it is not considered I see that out of five two are already being addressed so we can perhaps start with the issues or the request which haven't been addressed the first one is for ERC 283 it is for ERC 165 what do people think here yes this is an update to some wording in 165 around uh the use of the pure keyword um I don't think we should make this change um but I'm happy to be overruled Sam beat me to it yeah Victor

the link is shared in the chat here anyone in favor of merging this one I I am not in favor this is the finalized one already right this is 165 so not a strong there's nothing that I see as definitely needs to updates I I don't see that helpful not in favor cool for certain proposals which

for which editors are not in favor it may be a good idea to maybe add a comment and close that because that will help us reducing the issues and P request open issues and pull request so how do we want to go forward with that like do we want to wait for a certain period I have a note on it okay perfect uh Sam just curious like uh after you made a note on that do we still want to wait for one week to see if anyone like any of the other editor shows up and say no I really want to merge this one because we don't have all the editors on call here um I don't think so we have enough people here that I think the general

consens if you did like a call for input would be clear um sounds good yeah yeah very well similarly there is another one which is ERC 394 it is again to replace a old repo link for a final proposal ERC 4626 it seems like it is proposed by the team itself I mean I don't find the name in the author's list but I was surprised to see fulu I don't know I can't spell his name

correctly I'm sorry about that uh approve this change yeah which one was this 394 that's right yeah okay uh the link is broken it's final just leave it be broken is my opinion okay so do we want to close this one as well and like it will be interesting to see how that was approved in the first place because we don't allow external link ah Rari Capital yeah this would impation yeah this would have been before um e makes

sense yeah yeah do we allow like I mean I think going forward we should not allow reference link to the third project right it it was coming up from Rari capital and they are trying to just update it for transmissions 11 I guess they have renamed their project name there yeah exactly I mean this whole discussion came up with erc20 as well um there there were links to I think was um consensus' implementation and open Zeppelin's implementation of erc20 and people felt like it gave their

implementations an unfair advantage to be linked directly from the EIP um and I think that would also be true here um yeah so I think we should just leave it broken and uh not change it yeah that is a fair point we do not want to promote any project uh for the record I sorry Sam go ahead didn't meant to interrupt no I was going to say we can't we just can't copy it in because it's a GPL uhuh uh okay so for the record I vote against because this is a final um I didn't uh share the view that we

shouldn't point to people's reference invitation and that would be a longer conversation but yeah I I concur the decision with a different reason very well at least we have a decision to close this one and then we will take the other one um maybe some other day so maybe we can just add a comment and close this one as well uh the next one here is ERC 304 it seems like everything is done there but it is still not merged may it require Force merging I'm sharing trying to edit multiple

erc's at once yeah they just don't have all of the approvals they need um we need what one more ERC editor um and I guess one author for this to merge um I'm okay Forest merging this if you guys are like they're just typos I'm fine I think these are typos and if there are drops fixing them is is good I'm good with it all right cool that covers it and uh the

next section is about stagnant proposal so stagnant as we know those proposals are not being actively pursued by the author however intermittently we are receiving some edits either those are typo edits or making some small changes to the proposals so I have collected some of the PRS uh to fix or typo or yeah remove repetitive words kind of thing we can perhaps take a look at that and maybe we can try to Define this thing should we entertain a proposal uh put request for stagnant proposal if they really want to update the proposal or want to pursue the proposal they should move it out of the stagnant

status to draft to review or whatever a status yeah the first one here is ERC 395 and this is a nonauthor updating it yeah okay I me yes yeah I don't care if they're fixing typos I mean I'd rather the typos be fixed than not fixed it looks better on on the EIP website but I don't really care that strongly yeah I mean I agree to that

part but when proposals are in stagnant status most likely it is not visited by anybody because they understand it is not being like pursued I mean I would not want to entertain so that we can just reduce the pr load that we have other than that it doesn't matter sure okay so uh we'll just do we want to close it or do you want to just let it stale out I guess I mean we should close it because again we should not let open PS spiled up sure

okay you could it I mean I just the point is that uh they shouldn't consume any of anybody's attention since uh the status is already in withdrawn yeah I mean I'm just wondering if like for these like there are these are three in numbers not big deal we can perhaps or close or whatever it is but we do not want to entertain certain P request should should be the message that I think if we can communicate it to people would be nice same goes with withdrawn so if people want to work on the proposal bring it back from the

stagnant status keep it in active status and when it is withdrawn that then we know that it is already been withdrawn there would not be any further changes to it so there is no point making typ of effects or error or anything like that I think we should take the path of fle resistance explaining it to people is even bit you know putting in more effort so in that case I'll just accept it no I think adding one line on EIP 1 along with the status where we are explaining these statuses we can just add one line like um whether we encourage uh whether we discourage or encourage pull request in this kind unless the boat itself uh does not allow

one to make a PR yeah uh then I think it's possible that we can basically have it in EIP one and but if the V is allowing to make PR then somebody has to look at it at least and see what what is happening so it basically takes away the cognitive load that I wouldn't want uh if I'm checking a proposal or if any of the other authors are checking the proposal but uh if it for example if we have to explain it to the contributing members and sort of write it then it's easier to just accept it so I mean whatever is the best or whatever is the least resistance path is

what we should just take it because having that hyp ofix anyway is a good thing uh so if someone feels that okay they can just approve it then it's good to go that's an interesting point Sam do we think that eapw bot can maybe check the status and um maybe leave a message so ew doesn't really consider status changes um so not really no um e review bot like the the one that Panda pip worked on

would be able to do it um but I'm I'm not super familiar with that code is that still working like are we using e preview B for our presenting I think so yep yeah all right maybe we can U put it out as an issue and look for some um some contributors who are willing to look into issues and may be able to help us there so basically uh our uh merch bought could just review it and Auto close the pr that would be the best yeah we can it can definitely do

that um yeah it's just I'm not super confident in my ability to edit that part but someone maybe um maybe create an issue there then I can like pass that issue to a group of people who are willing to look into ways to support EIP editing process yeah if if someone can just document it and just put it as an issue I'll be taking it forward thank you all right uh for the these three proposals now like are we fine merging them or do we want to like say no right away what what what are we doing with

these if if everybody's okay with me just merging typo fixes I'll just merge typo fixes cool anyway we have not given them enough time I have no obje yeah we have not given them enough time to say no so let's Marge this one thank you Sam all right so there is this one proposal 7623 which is proposed here to be moved to withdrawn um I notice uh it like it is done like they have done everything but I don't see this is merged wonder if requires

editors approval or what is blocking this PR I think the proposer is not the author 11623 is not the author oh all right so we is a b uh EIP I mean I think as far as I understand that this is a viable e so this person is might just be I don't know doing EIP sniping or whatever he is an author for sure I know he he is an active contributor as well

so may not be that case perhaps we should add comment that it seems to be viable and if you really want to move it to withdrawn we might want to get consent from the original authors it may be possible that there there may have been some discussion around this internally yeah so ebot or ebot has um tagged the correct people and if they want to merge this they can approve the pr I'm trying to remember like what is our current uh period is it 3 months or 6 months for moving into stale or

stagnant I think it's uh two weeks for the warning and then six months after that but yeah Oh you mean to sorry to go into stagnant or to go into uh to close the pr close the pr so yeah PRS is like six months or something like that yeah then this would be like increasing the number without any reason for very long period of time like the if authors do not respond to them in next two weeks or three weeks it is clear they are not willing to move this proposal to withdraw in that case there's no point keeping this on active will increase the number yep um so my partner Nikki has been working on a

little tool that should make this a bit easier they have uh they're working on like a a dash board that displays the PO requests to be reviewed and it filters out ones that uh editors don't need to look at so it should make it a little bit easier to ignore these I think it will make it a lot easier not a little bit especially for editors thanks very well so I think just for summary purpose we are leaving it as is and we'll be waiting for for original author's response to this PLL request ideally by bot it will be closed in next

6 months but if we can get back to it sooner to get it closed will be nicer to have and um I have listed a few issues and peers I'm not sure if they are actually spam but they seem like spam the first one is Issue 4 to5 from ERC 4 to5 that one was definitely spam I deleted that one already the other two are real right yeah okay they are real then I would remove them so uh like it comes along with the pull request but there was no request number mentioned so I could not get that okay author yes I think there is another

question we can perhaps help them but it would require original author support to the proposal very well so I will just remove these two next is call for input it seems like we have closed all the call for inputs last three call for inputs from the earlier meetings and kind of added result Sam if you would want to add anything on top of that because I don't see anything new here uh sure there are a few author name updates that I emerged um I closed genders um policy on typo correction PRS just

because there wasn't anything clear there um feel free to reopen it if you want to talk some more about it um yeah that's about it it was kind of quiet past couple of weeks so we don't have new uh call for inputs which is good thing to have we want to go it smoothly only for like very difficult situation call for inputs should be there moving on to the next agenda item um we don't have many things new just the first one here is like create how to how to create a more inclusive environment to increase Community participation for upcoming proposals so

recently ethereum cat herders um started this protocol study group in which we are talking to a group of new contributors and assigning them some issues which are already existing in different ethereum report as for now um because I'm more familiar with the issues which are on EIP ERC and RP depository we are trying to make use of that I I understand that most of them could be new may not be able to review these proposals right away but they could be useful and helpful in terms of updating our bots so we have collected a few issues from eapw Bots and some of the um contributors are working on that I hope to see this experiment going good

in future and we receive more Community participation more volunteers to maybe take a look into the proposals or issues there so um this will encourage them to make a open source contribution and maybe just test the water of ethum ecosystem in general if people have any thoughts suggestions on this initiative or may want to recommend anyone to this one U please feel free to share your thoughts here and I also want to mention um I also want to shout out to Sam who has been actively supporting this initiative like because this is ew related issues so there are many questions not many people are familiar

with how our bot Works initially so Sam is trying to take out time to explain the process and kind of help them get those issues done happy to help very well uh we will continue to collect thoughts and feedbacks on that people can reach out to me even on discard and DM me I'm open to the ideas and suggestions there to encourage more Community contributors here the next one is web page rendering to include EIP rips um there is a long pending uh pull request to kind of pro provide the boilet plate to RPS so that hasn't been merged and so far we have not received any editor on EIP AP meeting so we

didn't get an opportunity to discuss how do we want to uh like those things forward uh so that's kind of a blocker there right now the eips ethereum.org is very well representing eips and erc's I wonder if there is any updates on the charter side that you would like to share uh no I haven't been working on it all right uh at least we have eips and ercs being rendered on one of the website which is working absolutely fine I hope RPS uh Team approve them uh the pull request or may adjust their repository in a way that we would be in a position to retrieve the proposals from there and be

able to add it till then this is it all right uh that's uh about the other discussion the next section here is eaps Insight so I have added this um list of open not list of count of open issues and pull request and a small dashboard which is added to the eaps inside hackmd file if we take a look at it we are trying to improve the numbers like get it to lower however we see that um since January uh this tracker is tracking it since January 2024 in January uh for eips we were around 100 including issues and pull

requests but right now it is around 69 so definitely a progress there um that hasn't been that good with ercs we started with 76 and we are at 97 but I understand we receive more proposal on application side then we receive it on the core side and for core side we know that if one proposal is superseded or like the idea is overtaken by another better proposal people generally try to withdraw that so the number keeps decreasing we would definitely like to bring the number down of open issues and pull requests even on the ERC side side on rip repository we started with just two one issue and one PR currently we

are at 11 um this is increasing because this is a new repository we should be expecting more proposals for rule up projects and yeah right now we have only one issues and 10 PRS we hope to see these PRS getting merged or closed eventually uh so that's on the dashboard and we we will continue to keep a track of that that is kind of our performance report how we are doing and managing these issues and addressing them on time on eips Insight I think we have uh what 10 new drafts added uh out of those 10 nine are EIP and one ERC oh wow seven

move to stagnant and one proposal to withdrawn pretty basic uh information I have added link to both eips insight and hackmd to maybe take a look at the different charts and the dashboards that we are maintaining anyone has any question thought um that's awesome thank you for keeping track of all that pleasure thanks to the team I'm I'm sorry Victor uh when you mentioned link I think I missed the chat is it related to the that's that's long gone yeah no worries uh thank you for the great effort POA we should give Community more visibility to

these great effort that you you have keep track and everything yeah we're not doing uh the the the same level of uh visibility that it should it deserves we should we should give them more visibility appreciate kind words here thank you so much the next one is EIP editing office hour we could not have office hour last week but we hope to have it the next week uh so we have added the agenda here uh because we could not have it there are already 8 PRS marched like before the next meeting when it is get time

they try to take a look into the poll requests which are already listed in the agenda and out of the peers added there for review some of them are closed so we hope to get more uh PRS um msh reviewed in the next meeting if you have any open poll request or any questions around how eips are merged or ercs are merged or around process please join our editing office hour uh we hope to respond to all the questions you may have and uh yeah I think that's kind of end of the meeting I'm quickly taking a look at the um summary section if there were any open action item it doesn't look

like that so yeah I think we are pretty much done for the agenda of today um anyone would like to add discuss or mention anything I'm good I'm good too um but yeah Sam and and gajender of I want to kind of book time with you guys each individually just to grab a virtual coffee I think we work U but we didn't get enough to socialize as well I just want to like get to learn you about you and of course po we meet multiple times but yeah getting to know you guys from a personal level not just as a GitHub handle uh is

great sure yeah just uh I'm busy for like the next 14 days but after that feel free to send me an invite yeah yeah I will send you my my my calendar and you can pick or reschedule however you want and and gender too yeah we we you will be coming to Devcon right so we'll part there I yeah I think 90% I'm going to Devcon Yes sounds good awesome well thank you everyone for joining us today hope to see you around closing poll requests and addressing issues and answering questions have a

great rest of the day everyone you too thank thank you everyone