EIPIP Meeting 110

Transcript

welcome to EIP IP meeting 110 this is issue number 361 on E cat Herer EIP IP GitHub repository on agenda we have a bunch of open pull requests to discuss under different sections some are addit to final proposal some are miscellaneous issues uh on poll request they may require attention of editors we looking to call for input and um any other disc disc from earlier meetings or anything new if people have something to add for item number two please feel free to drop a comment and we'll include it as we go then we have the eips Insight monthly

section and any other updates so starting with the first item on agenda which is uh discuss open issues PRS and other topics I see a PR made by Sam Wilson number is 8919 I wonder if any other editor has any thoughts on that or if they are generally okay to approve this to be merged or maybe Sam if you would like to again give a brief overview of this proposal so I understand maybe if you yeah oh yeah no no it's fine um so there's a pro that wants to be merged at a draft state

but they have a they've disclosed that they have a patent on the technology in The Proposal but they have not included a grant for that patent uh they intend to provide a grant before going to final um and the question is do we allow drafts uh that are patented um that do not have a a patent Grant um and uh this is related to call for input um number 362 uh no not 362 uh yeah no 362 that's the one um yeah and I think most of us are opposed to this um yeah yeah we noticed there are two editors response and both are opposed I

wonder if any other editor present in this meeting they have thoughts on 362 based on that perhaps this PR can be approved or declined oh cool one more oppose Victor if you could also just uh document your uh consent on the or disapproval on the issue 362 that would be helpful right I just want to say that I oppose to it uh for the record um at the moment I think it's a very complicated issues and then we should probably consult um and get broader consensus before we can make decisions as a group uh on the other hand I also want to

mention um um Anda uh who used to be an EIP editor hold a different opinion than me uh I want to make sure sure that she if he's not in the room his opinion is being um shared as well so yeah even though he I disagree with him there's a question in chat by Sam I wonder if anybody has thought on that I think that's a good idea actually I think we uh it's it's a good idea that we get an uh some legal resource from EF I I'm support I'm I'm in favor of that for people listening to this uh

call uh the question in chat is should we talk to the EF about getting a lawyer and it seems uh Victor is in support I wonder uh if we can get any other support um by getting a lawyer here means getting opinion on um specific to this kind of issues like when we have something which is related to patent or we to define a policy around that that's also a good response um gajendra mentioned that we should not be going closer to lawyers it I mean generally speaking this is something uh consensus made by the community we can

look into that however exploring other options could also be a good idea if anyone has any strong objection on not going to a lawyer or not seeking an illegal help or at least advice if not help please let us know okay okay we do have an open poll request 8919 to create a policy for patent uh will appreciate anyone to add any feedback thoughts around that and uh yeah if anyone has a strong support or opposition please add your comments and thoughts over there and in the

meantime we'll try to collect any other um support that we can get from the foundation or any different group who would want to volunteer for this moving ahead with um the next item there are a few pull requests which are added here which are added as edit to final proposals number one on that is PR number 670 which is to update an ERC 7540 it was added in a comment um yeah by the author or proposer wonder what editus thinks about them oh we do have a proposer here with

respect to ERC 670 so if any editor has any question we may get some response from The Proposal as well Jon if you would like to maybe um share what is the minor edit it looks like uh it's a punctuation fix or anything bigger than that no exactly uh I mean the main changes that we had would like mistyped the event names um inconsistently in the spec um and then there were two other like puncturation fix or like very minor wording changes that were unclear to people that are implementing the spec in

the last few months um so it's all I guess non-substantive changes uh just your type of access and clarifications would anyone oppose to Marge PR 670 for this fix if no editor oppose I would appreciate uh someone taking a look again and may be able to merge this one sorry so um 4626 has the correct definitions for the events or like where is the like Theus sorry go ahead the for ex6 defines like a deposit event and a

redeem event and then 754 extends the functions with request deposit and request redeem and then in the in the in the sentence we had like described it should the event name should be deposit request redeem request but then somewhere else we actually had call them request deposit and request redeem so we had just swapped it around so these were not coming from 4626 they were part of the 7540 extension but then we inconsistently called the events within the spec oh I see yeah yeah so the yaml is correct here but the the English is incorrect okay exactly yeah at least that's how it was intended to be I mean obviously you could argue the other way is also correct it's just a choice but um this is what like I think as all I think there's a few approvals from

authors is what we cre on us was intended uh wording yeah I think I'm okay with this this this looks like it's just fixing some small mistakes so yeah I'll I'll make up a call for input and we can go argue it out on there yeah we can do that I was just wondering like we have most of the editors here um in case uh all of them would take a look would be nice to have we have a similar PR for fixing a typo number is 656 on ERC repository it seems

there was some error um four years old and uh thep is trying to fix that one I wonder if anyone got a chance to maybe take a look at it in general I'm wondering like uh do we need to go with creating uh call for input for each one of them or we can perhaps find a faster way to merge these PRS um there is another one on the list is 8923 that is to fix a grammatical error on EIP 658 seems pretty old EIP if anyone has any thought on any of

these proposals listed here today so for the 658 I'm not sure because if with two FS is a common notation for if and only if um so this might actually be intentional I have no idea did you mean 6564 okay 3668 ERC 3668 uh no e P 658 okay sorry there was one ERC PR number 656 and EAP 658 my bad cool so we want to uh maybe leave the last one and for the other two would

it be a good idea to create a call for input and close them as soon as possible yeah I'll I'll take care of that perfect we'll add that in summary moving forward there are couple of uh issues and peers which may require attention it seems like one has already been taken care of so I'm moving to the next one uh the next one is PR on EIP GitHub repository 8258 um it seems that uh there is some discussion and this is good to be closed uh but either the bot is not allowing it

to close or it may require some manual intervention to get it closed could someone maybe take a look at it and we can close 8258 I see gajender has already approved but U um this is not being merged sorry which um PR number are we looking at here uh this is 8258 all right shared in the chat as

well yeah this is the one you wanted like uh admin permissions for right gajender uh I think that was an informational EIP this doesn't seem like that one but yeah we can oh okay okay all right uh so when you get a chance please take a look it seems like this PR should be closed and uh yeah if not then we can see okay no very much it seems like it should be closed so if you could close it that would be nice to have moving ahead we have a bunch of open PRS

for 7702 we try to take uh them in office hour but it seems like it would be nice for someone who is actively involved working on these proposals may be able to take a look and see how we can manage instead of having multiple PR for these things we can have one PR or maybe if we are getting multiple PRS we maybe try to merge them sooner so we don't get Conflict at the end of the day so um I I'm hoping Matthew are working on 7702 U like closely if you could get a chance maybe take a look at the three open PRS listed here and um yeah we can do the needful needed to be merged needed to be

closed I'm not sure Matt if you're talking you are on mute you have any thoughts on how to handle a bunch of PRS with respect to active proposals I me what's the whatever we want to do so there are multiple 7702 PRS open and generally what happens is like if someone is making PR they are B basing the current repository and if we are not merging then there would be lot of conflicts arising so how do we want to address that do we want to address it every week looking into the bunch of proposals for one propos one EIP and merge them together I mean they'll get autoc closed

eventually by the bot right there would be but I think the duration is very long and it will keep on showing so if we can get some you know response would be faster to close it I'm happy to close some of them and and when it makes sense I try to close them but it's also can be interpreted as a bit aggressive especially since I'm an author of The EAP and not every person has the ability to close issues on theep repo understood uh in that case um I can totally understand your concern for 7702

perhaps if the similar case arise for with any other EIP which are in active disc discussion we can take a stab on that and um uh like try to close them as possible there are a couple of 2537 proposals also listed here I would request all EIP editors to maybe take a look if you have thought comments added there if it is something that can be closed sooner rather than later let's add as a common so we can close it as well taking a look at the chat um I'm sorry I could not get that gajender there is this comment but we can merge

this one did you mean to merge 8258 uh I was wondering if that can be closed not merg and it seems it is closed now yeah I checked the changes that already been applied in other poll requests so I just closed it okay perfect cool um so I'm going to move past 7702 and 2 537 changes uh if um there is anything that can be closed sooner rather than later as an editor I would request you to please add this comment so we all know that this is not an active PR and people um also get to know even if it is not closed immediately by the editor and we

are hoping for bot to get that closed moving ahead uh we have call for input I believe we have already discussed 362 so let's uh take a look at 349 it seems to be pretty old p uh old call for input it was it has received two uh editors in opposing the proposal and one in favor and I believe Sam left it open to collect more input for any other editors if they would want to add their thoughts yeah exactly I I think I I think we can just close this as no though um

yeah so I believe uh not just closing this one but also if there is an any Associated PR that can be oh we have that was just a comment not a PR perfect so just closing this issue would help the next item on agenda is other discussion and updates from past meetings I I don't see a lot a lot of item here however I noticed an update on ew B and um Sam has uh shared this update and uh he is requesting for any feedback if people

find any issues please feel free to share it just wanted to include it in this meeting so people know about it and if there are any concerns they can reach out to us on cadus Discord or ether Discord I I have missed it but but perhaps we can take a look at genda's permission for merging informational EIP is it something that people would like to discuss see what is the concern here and maybe address that um gajender if you would like to mention what is the problem you are facing is it with respect to uh action bot action runs bot I'm just sharing

the link which I found on the Discord channel oh it requires approval can any of other editor May approve it auto review B it is yeah that's a good question I'm just seeing it's a not report 33 44 some weird numbers are going on yeah gajendra if you could maybe

share the pull request related with this action review bot oh I think I oh I'm sorry I'm looking at ph's not getting there my bad okay the number is 8933 oh that's weird why can't you approve that um is it just a config thing uh yeah you just have to add yourself to

the EIP editors list here I don't know if you have a yeah do you have a PO request open for that already okay great I remember him being added was it only for ESC at the time and not for EAP okay oh not for the category one cool looks like it's being taken care of so we we can perhaps move forward unless anything else anyone would like to add here yeah of course like it should provide permission for all of them

especially when you have it for core why not for information cool we can move forward the next section is eaps Insight in which we are talking about monthly eips status reporting um based on the tool uh those were shared in the last meeting review trackers and analytics I have tried to pull out the chart for reviewers since January and also the yeah January for eips and erc's people may take a look here at the agenda the analytics is also shared and I believe we are joined by viven on the call here today he wanted to demo the new tool U I think the idea

shared by Sam and he also worked on it it's just that Tui creation M if you would like to take it from here and explain what is it all about and yeah maybe share hello hello everyone uh let me share my screen so we have added this new tool EIP boards and what this exactly means is these are the list of PRS in eips and ercs ercs repositories that are waiting for the editor review uh based on their waiting time and uh they require more attention from more attention from the editors or

reviewers and these are the list of PR and all of these are sorted based on the longest time first and they will be uh they are in this order you can have a view at them and currently there are 4 2 PRS in uh eips repository that requires attention and 49 PRS in ercs repository you can open the pr and have a look at that the uh they need more attention for getting merged or closed [Music] and and coming to the monthly insight for this month

there are two PRS in APS and four PR in four uh ercs and three RPS that are moved to draft State and two erc's that are moved to review state and one ERC that is moved to final State you can view the uh ERC or eips by clicking on the number you can go to them and visit each of them individually and you can also view the status timeline based on which they have changed you can see that this one is created on October 4 2024 7778 you can have a look at

that and that's it from my I have a quick question um on the E board it suggests the number is different from open PR so I'm just trying to understand if all of those PRS are pending for review why is it not listing all of them maybe criteria different uh I can talk about that if you'd like yeah please go ah sure so um it only shows PRS that are waiting for an editor response so if the most recent activity on a poll request is like let's say a a review from an editor then it

won't appear on the list because it's waiting for an author response so um yeah it'll only show things that are waiting for an Editor to interact that is awesome yeah cool one so maybe editors can simply go click on on that page and look into all the PRS which requires attention and I believe the order is oldest PR first here and no it's so it's the oldest uh author response so um you'll you'll get newer PRS at the top of the list if like an uh an older PR has a newer review on it um so yeah I don't know if that makes sense I'm kind

of typing out a comment that explains it yeah we can perhaps add it over there in the description section so for people to also get a good understanding of what this tool does and I think it makes sense to me so um just trying to reord it here it is a uh oldest PR old it is the pr which is waiting for the longest to get a response from editor after the response has been received by the author yeah uses oldest author interaction after the most recent editor response okay perfect that would also make sense if we can use uh this uh statement on the description section people may have

better understanding of it but thank you I I hope it is anyway serving purpose I wonder if we can um or if we want to bring some of the PRS to Future discussion where we can you know get editor response faster get them close any other use case I'm trying to find out for this one maybe we can explore as we go or if people have thoughts comments ideas please share and please feel free to take a look at the other to Links available on

the website if you have uh feedback please share I believe there should be a feedback form on the homepage footer people can make use of that so we can improve this Tool uh there is a feedback form that is attached in the footer of the website if if you if anyone wants to provide any feedback uh you can go there and provide us feedback awesome very well I think that brings us to the close close to the end of agenda uh we have added link from the earlier meeting of EAP editing office hour and

agenda link for the next EIP editing office hour which is um um in two weeks uh from now on Tuesday at 1400 UTC if there is any open PR people would want to add there if you have question add to the agenda as comment and we will include it in that um talking about that I remember there was um uh this discussion with respect to P EIP 4337 where original authors now want to divide that EIP into two different eips and there are open PRS for those two different proposals if people would want to maybe take a look at that and merge them I am hoping that uh Team behind 4337 are

trying to um move the proposal to the final status sooner rather than later so they are doing uh what is needed in order to move proposal forward and uh they came up with two different um issues I'm going to share the link right here if any of the editor may get a chance to take a look at it and async approv that that would be really nice to have those links are available in comment to agenda for EIP editing office our meeting number 46 please take a look and respective PRS are 626 and 628 at er

repository and that's pretty much all added to agenda from this meeting I wonder if people have any anything else to bring up for this meeting or for future consideration please feel free to share all right uh in that case we can perhaps give everybody 25 minutes back uh the next EIP meeting is planned for octob oops this is 2 weeks old uh so the next EIP meeting is is planned on the third week of November which would be on November 20th at 1400 UTC in the meantime if there is any question

comment concern with respect to any of the pull request eips erc's please feel free to join us on caters Discord there is an EIP editor Channel you can post your questions and we'll be happy to answer thank you everyone for joining us here today and anyone who are open to the idea of support ing by leaving review comments please do that we welcome all sort of reviews that will make editor life easier thank you everyone