EIPIP Meeting 67

Transcript

welcome to eipip meeting 67 I have shared agenda and chat here we have a few item listed for discussion uh from the past meeting some of them are new and yeah probably we will look into some of the open pull requests and issues so starting with number one the first one is related to external link policy uh so external link policy has been under discussion for quite some time I have added the links to issues and I believe there is also an open pull request it's a proposal for the process for allowing external

link this pull request was opened by Sam so yeah Sam has a proposal he has created a pull request maybe some if you would like to provide an overview of what that it is and how would it help sure so um 57 57 is basically like a process for like a set of requirements like it's processed instead of requirements you have to satisfy to get a particular source of res of links approved so as an example you'd submit like w3c you'd create an EIP for it and you describe how it meets all of the requirements specified in 5757 and

um you know if it does meet all the requirements editors approve it and it moves into the living status and then you're allowed to use links to the w3c sorry I missed the first part of it but um whenever you request to add a new source that is a separate EIP or that just goes into 5757 or both it's a separate EIP because they they should have their own discussion threads that's kind of my motive motivation for that um because I feel like there's gonna be a lot of argument about each of these things so I I like the idea of them having their own threads okay but the individual eips for the

sources are not living because a source may change like it might add a fee for publishing or it might have some change that requires removing it as a permitted source and you can't do that if it's final so we put them into living status I mean we I don't think they necessarily need to be living because we can have 57 57 meter canonical list of accepted ones like to me that's the point 57 57 oh I see what you're saying so you you create an EIP it would go to final and then if it loses its status you just leave it at final and then take it out of 57.57 and if it comes back you create a new

Erp to bring it back I think yeah I might prefer that like I generally don't like this living status and I think we should minimize them but I I don't know if there's a good way for avoiding this in 5757 maybe like I don't know maybe my ideal world is that these go in like the list of accepted 57 to 57 sources go on to each one yeah that's the way you said right now okay but 5757 is also living and so like in my world the only each one would be living 57 57 would go to final and then the VIPs that go that like are the

sources once they go to final and they're accepted into each one um so so you want the process to be a final EIP and then the decision for each source to be a final EIP yeah that's reasonable I can I can change it yeah I mean it's kind of annoying I know but like I I think the living status is a weird one and I'm I want to minimize using it where all possible yeah that's reasonable I'll I'll do that all right yeah if I if I may I have three

um feedback on this um so first of all I I I'm hoping that uh Galvin uh Greg and uh impact that can be participating I think between you you too and I I think uh Calvin and and Greg Colvin and Panda are on the two further extremes it might be helpful for them their their consideration to be taken into um they're they're uh yeah thoughts to be taken into consideration second piece of feedback is the approach to use EIP to get a new uh to a new one to be to be in I think that's going to slow the

process down a lot uh for something to be included and can hurt the process um imagine currently an average time from uh from draft to uh to uh CPU is about a month and then each step is about a month and there's a final final like the fastest you can get is three months minimum to go in as a final imagine there's a valuable uh piece of Source it takes too long I think for the depending VIPs to have it adopted we have seen uh a lot of a few existing EIP that is beneficial that is society the

source which I think uh should be citing providing information they have been forced to drop the link that is providing contacts there's two piece of people of type of people who put in uh links either it's scammer or it's good uh intention author who want to provide more and more content more more contacts and I think we have urge on the side that is too conservative and has heard it so that would be I would be in favor procedurally if we can kind of have a group discussion and then if any other group allowed it uh then in this immediately adopted that would be my kind of a suggestion for this and the

third piece of information uh third piece uh is the definition of free access um I think I debated with uh Sam and then I I just want to raise my concerns for requiring the source to be uh free access uh for one I think looking at the past there are books there are libraries there's a lot of things that at work we're not published free of access and our copyright policy is really bad like copying here is to me I don't want to put it on record but I think we should talk to uh lawyers about whether it is actually right to move from things that is copyrightable to ours which is cc0 so asking for uh everything moved to

either move to us or ask for a free Access Link is I I think a little bit too far away I I would I really like the intention I I'm not saying it's not no married I really like the intention I think we're living in a non-perfect world that there's still a lot of access that it needs to be uh gone through through pay but also we are looking at a future of of tokenized a lot of things but let's imagine there is a knowledge sharing group that want to incentivize knowledge sharing and then they want to have some token gating like I I won't be surprised if that is coming up in Atlanta in a landscape of two years and do we want to like block

them in the future yes I I you know I want to kind of uh I know that that was your intention uh Sam but uh I I want to propose that we used the cheapest uh kind of uh uh like if they can find cheapest uh our stores they should use the cheapest source type of thing uh to minimize it and if it's a book then online one even is payment is better than a book I would say because for me you get buying a put somewhere is much more expensive times consuming there's a lot of debate here on what is really uh free even if you get a book you cannot share with other people right that was not in in so that would be my three pieces of

feedback getting uh I think Greg and Panda to be uh to to get feedback I would be one and then I think uh uh EIP would be too much I like to have a collaborative discussion and then and make this a quicker decision and the third is that we should reconsider the free access out of it I think the second one I have the strongest opinion uh I like to put that into consideration but other than nothing pretty great effort I have also put people's uh in the dock that I want to merge but I think thank be me too uh to it I I still want to see if there's larger consensus to make it easier to do links uh I think our credibility lies in how much people

want to propose EIP they can definitely publish it somewhere else we're just undermine our credibility and and Trust if we are slowing them down we have seen that tent comes up in the consensus layer and definitely I think the um a lot of exclusive layer effort has kind of reduce their interest in moving forward on on the on on the eipf we have seen many valuable EIP ghosts in stagnant so I really hope that we can resolve this problem by allowing more E3 this link so I think I think you raise excellent

points but I I don't agree with um allowing any non-free links I don't think requiring people to copy things into our repository is illegal from like a copyright standpoint just because I think that's how a lot of Open Source projects already work and if it was a problem that model would have fallen apart um I don't remember what your first uh oh yeah and I we definitely want to get feedback from Greg and Panda I don't want to move forward on this without getting um their input I think that's really important so I I just want to give feedback I love that intention but this reminds me of

the GPL uh kind of uh uh philosophical uh the the core philosophy of the behind GPL and we also see that GPO has been like greatly used by some but also it has been restricted of usage because of this this restriction so it's more I'm not going to debate you I think if the group won't have a consensus or more people just want a GPA GPO approach like disallowing for on on free access I'm okay like that would to me is a bp2 but I really like to be able to uh to have more uh just easier angling passes and I also want just want to put it down that

just let's compare it with GPL is that something you really want or the group really want or I think comparing it to the GPL is a little unfair just because the GPL is very much not what we want to do like we don't want to encumber any Downstream projects from the specs with further requirements like if something is in the execution specs or sorry the eip's repository um we want anybody to be able to use it freely for whatever they want whether it's closed Source open source it doesn't matter the specs are meant to be as open as possible so we can't even allow GPL software or or documentation in the eip's repository because it's infectious and like personally for

software I write I love the GPO but for the the specs repository I think it's very important or for the eip's repository it's very important to not have it be GPL or anywhere near GPO in essence I feel we share the same philosophy in terms of dark altitude toward GPL I kind of feel that either you or I have missed kind of an interpretation of how this connect to GPL I feel this is kind of creating a exclusion for a lot of sources and which is similar to GPO but let's maybe we can have a 101 Channel I I don't mind talking about it now I think this is

pretty important um so I think unlike so we are sitting in like an interesting place because we aren't trying to restrict what our Downstream users do like the people who use the eips repository we're trying to restrict the authors of eips so in a sense we're doing the exact opposite of the GPL we're saying if you want to contribute to the eip's repository you have to have the freest most unencumbered um like material as possible like GPL is too encumber to include and paid sources are too encumber to include and I think that's the philosophy that I want to go for yeah I'm gonna pause there and for other

people to join the conversation like I heard what you said some if I may add up like a couple of thoughts from my end I am somehow inclined towards Sam's Point of View because of the reason but EAP repository is a repository of office standards like we are creating standards and we are making it available for implementers or the dab developers so they can pick up the standard from here and build their project on top of that and if authors have issues with the

copyright materials to be added in the EIP they are not forced to create any standard they are free to create their project with a copyright assets and that need not to be a part of ethereum repository but once you agree to bring those things to ethereum repository I think it should be free so um the concept here for restricting authors and making it freely available for users I am very much inclined towards it but yeah I'm open for other thoughts and maybe yeah if people have I I I so respectfully I understand that your intention respectfully I'm not uh

convinced but I also don't think that we can easily convince each other at this moment uh yeah I I like to raise them more serious uh or I personally feel more concerning part which is requiring an Erp for each source to be included I like to circulate his thoughts about can we like what's your thought of uh whether either that's uh a editor group discussion would be sufficient for including them or whether than authors uh uh kind of a yeah whether other venue like we can have a faster venue to be at it like Sam are you open to this idea I don't see why we couldn't have an EIP

and then everybody got on a call and approve it like that that doesn't seem like do we want a two-week uh last call do we want a process of uh I I don't so like just just to be clear here a source is not each individual link so it's not like it's going to take like two weeks every time somebody wants to a link to a new w3c standard right it'll take it'll take a month or two to get w3c approved and then it's free to link to those without any delay okay if on condition that once they have a petition for eips they are free to

link um and in politics have a compliant policy we should say only before they go to final they need to either remove the link or have the link accepted as an as an acceptable source is that a good understanding like is that okay I don't think so no I I think like I don't think I don't think it's that important to link to something like people get by without linking today no I was Sam here's what I think it's okay not to link things we have been streaming censoring our links I personally feel that it only helps not

good at authors good authors want to put their proposal into context they want to make a point they point they want to kind of provide convincing evidence they want to add their reference implementations and then copying everything into our repository is making ourselves a um a a encyclopedia I I don't think we can even link to bitcoin if given some of the some of the criterias and I just want to cite what like client put here please let us have external links I think we we have we have been sacrificing our uh the the the richness the convincingness of our EIP proposals we

have been sacrificing our authors um ability to put all their knowledge into it like I'm okay to remove I'm definitely down for removing spammy at the advertising links I'm definitely down for requiring links to be certain level of reliability right even you want to streak this one like we find a street this uh storage persistent story to find the commit have a hashed I'm okay with that what I'm not okay is requiring everything either to not be linked or moved to our repository and then I think Sam you are doing a good thing that you are trying to find a way to allow them to be included I I do a plot for that effort I I do not share with your idea ideology of I don't

I think it's okay to not have linking I think EIP needs to be a part of of the internet EIP needs to be in contact with all other activities that Syrian movements is is happening that would be my thought we didn't say a contract cannot interact with the other contract if that contract is charging something the the openness here is that we allow openness and connection regardless of whether whether we the other side is it I I love to be kind of open heart to someone who are even close hard to us that would be kind of My Philosophy towards the world

I think this is somewhat similar to the Paradox of Tolerance where you have to be intolerant to intolerance or else it takes over your uh your Society I don't know if you you're familiar with that like uh idea but in this case if we are open to people who are closed it is very easy for people who are closed to take over and capture our governance process so I think we have to be militantly against closed Source I think everything that we do needs to be free and open and we have to like fight as hard as we can to keep it that way I think we have been censoring links which uh the other people were fighting and then we were not allowing

foreign in the good intention of allowing links that is that is free and open so I'm I'm not going to fight you if you if Sam uh if if the uh consensus of the editors is one Three Links sure I think I'm okay with that I don't want to fight you with that and I want uh I I on the other hand I I'm hoping that the process to include us or to accept the source can be faster yeah and we should have allow list to begin with we should not have some very basic uh like people are have consensus with already to need to go through that process that would be my my take would

that be would that be something that you you would be open to um I think like you're talking about like standards bodies that we already think are probably good enough right like ietf that we are ourselves are referencing VIPs for example like hierarchical the determinist wallet that we are already of referencing and then consensus uh is so that I can just copy the format into epw um but I mean I I guess I don't really care that much if the Erp is there or not okay so all right I think you what I

heard is that you open to that options um right to to having them as of at least as have our initial accepted source I don't really care that much like whatever whatever we decide as long as it's easy enough to implement an Eep W and I mean I I don't even mind writing the eips for the first sources if we have to so okay I think we kind of have some our Middle Ground rich I that that would be you and I I don't know like like Ryan is listening and other people are listening like what what's your thoughts and and I do believe that is it should be good for uh it should be necessary for Greg and

Panda to be in and I think Alex either he's too busy or he's a little bit frustrated I owe a a bit of I think here we we should ask for him he's like uh feedback or inputs for this he he shows some strong opinion about links somewhere I think as well I I have just shared a link here it's coming up from a different proposal I like the idea what they have done with their uh proposal that's why I'm sharing here it's it's the concept of external link obviously I'm not sure why we are trying to add external like Link in the EIP itself

uh in in this uh EAP 5606 what they have done they obviously have explanatory blog for explaining what they are trying to do and I'm hoping that they would come up with some other demos and the implementation of them but that may not necessarily be living in Repository they could be a part uh sorry uh can you share the link in stand and again I didn't see the link um okay it's Jessica send sorry yeah yeah so uh here the idea is like whatever supporting document you want to share like any external link that you

want to share you can share it in Fellowship of ethereum magicians good author wants to share all the resources they have to convince that this is a good proposal to be an ethereum standard so I think this is an alternate way of sharing good materials but I'm not sure why we want to have some links which may come up with some legal issues to be added into ethereum repository so by the time we have a consensus on that if people want to make use of the existing process I think the easy way out would be sharing that information with the help of Fellowship of it here a magician and keeping your EIP as clean as possible so the bot those are working on it like

eapw bot that Sam mentioned should not face any kind of challenges because it's very important that we automate all our processes and making exceptions every time for bot would be more tedious and I'm not sure how much gain we will have in long term with that I respectfully disagree with you pleasure I think the point that uh we disallowed links is hurting and then the alternative which we currently provided is asking people or forcing people to to put things into assets folder including some some of the stores that was originally issued for example some people were putting in code that have

reference to uh Copy being copied from open sapling and other things like those aren't authored actually those those are our copyright licensed actually under MIT or sometimes Apache 2.0 and then having them put in the the assets being is essentially being re-licensed from the original copyright by the author the author whoa whoa no that we don't we don't do that at all we do not change people's licenses when we include them in the assets directory you can I can I can point you to some of the commit change that was proposing to move to change things from Apache to to cc0

so yeah I think we should we can't change people's licenses we can suggest that the authors change the licenses of things that they've proposed but we can't actually change the licenses of of let's say open Zeppelin like you're talking about that has to stay whatever license opens up and uses right that's I agree with you in that so linking to them however is kind of copywriting uh in a copyright sense linking to something doesn't create a action of copy so in fact linking is better in this case than asking people to put things in in in in in assets we

have also seen that some of editors were suggesting people to kind of snapshot or use put them print them into PDF and then put in the asset that's another type of of of copying and I I don't think we should kind of origin like prefer copying over linking unless you want to say we don't want copy either so let's keep uh eeip complete out of out of the context of the of of the movements well I think we are not going to settle down on this topic but today so uh in the essence of time we probably should

wrap it up because we are still on the item number one and we have a naughty girl so if it's okay uh we can bring it back in issue meetings and I would highly encourage having async discussion because having thoughts collected before the meeting will help us coming to a consensus on the meeting for people who could not join I just received a message from Panda Peep and the agenda that he may not be able to join this meeting today and yeah we are also working towards having a better timing in which we can have more uh participants of the meeting here so if anyone has anything to like wrap up this topic please feel free and then we can jump on to the next topic

uh politely protest let us link let us link just joking on to the next one um just uh one more information on this last piece uh this five seven five seven proposal also has a discussion to link so if we're not on the pull request people are free to share their thoughts on the link uh to discussion there so that can be collected later on the next uh yeah and just a note on the discussion too we currently required

discussion too to be on ethereum magician.org I currently I kind of want to have at least two or three options so that uh for one it's uh it's it's a free Market of Choice where they people want to choose their discussion and then also it's kind of a little bit uh uh like home like decentralized homes I I think uh yeah I just want to put it down I don't want to get into debate I may trying to propose something but for now I like to just say that at least we should allow ERC research to be one of the options alternatives to uh ethereum magicians on that topic we have like come to a consensus for having fem after a very

long discussion probably about a year-long discussion that we should have a centralized discussion Place earlier it was multiple places so I believe we changed this policy recently less than six months ago so I'm hoping it's the uh unless we have a strong exceptional case which enforces us to go out of the fellowship of pateria magician I believe let's keep the warm in the can itself okay yeah I I like to challenge that and I um yeah I'll issue something I I first for one I don't see where I allowed someone to put on me to the discussion and consensus and then if that is the case we should have VIP like someone

should formalize that as a policy and otherwise I I think we should uh uh yeah I would like to challenge that this discussion will never never be completely centralized and centralized just create room for censorship we don't know the governance of the fem like we and people might not agree if even if they publish people might not agree with their their their their governance as well so I think it's good for them and people were having discussion on you ethereum research like if we can convince this ethereum research to shut down and put things move things to ethereum with magician maybe that one that will but I don't think that's happening in any time

soon so having a strong preference on ethereum magician I think is a an infringement to Freedom um we work with Fellowship team to uh like as of now as far as I am aware there is no censorship anyone can go create a threat and start adding their thoughts over there nobody is stopping it yeah yeah it could yeah no so um having a good governance for now doesn't guarantee it a good governance for future if we have more than one EIP process then people is already competing governance I I hate to say that we we

are not the best governance like if we if if we have another ethereum proposal like I I think that there's the the core team the core team is already talking about maybe they were published their their their their standard somewhere else so having that competition is healthy and I don't think there is a strong case for centralization who is planning to publish their standards elsewhere I think they're talking about consensus and and uh consensus want to publish somewhere else or maybe just leave it in uh in their repository which is by itself also a place to publish right it's just that they they're not even taking a a centralized place so I think we that that would be my take like the reason we are in a in a very

hurting position that some of us want to restriction link is that there's no competing place to to publish if there's the competing publish they will allow link and then we will be forced to to adopt a better solution a better governance maybe if you are interested you can create a issue there and we'll see collect feedback if people are strongly in favor of initiating this discussion I'll be happy to bring it up in the future eipip meeting on the table uh but yeah I think we have addressed a lot of concerns related to Fem and after a year of discussion we came to a conclusion on

that but obviously this is like open Community you're free to create an issue over there yeah thank you very much yeah sounds good let's move on to the next one here it says propose a contributor feeling Preamble allow author recognize contributors of an EAP that is 5762 if people have thoughts on that that is again a proposed process change I'm against this could be automobile okay and it looks like Panda Peep has left a comment like this could be automatically populated by get author co-author data

at build time okay yeah I don't really have a problem with um displaying contributors I just don't think it should go in the Preamble if we want to set up Jekyll to parse git data that might be best but yeah I don't I don't think we need it in the Preamble and if I remember correctly we already have discussed this in the past meeting is well um and yeah we were not having consensus fair enough so um yeah so my intention is to have the ability for authors to acknowledge someone who helped them not necessarily through uh get come commit and also contributing on gear doesn't

necessarily constitute to the level of being author being recognized as a contributor so that was the intention but if people were not uh interested in having that I'm okay to postpone it and maybe revisit in a year or so like the the intention is to promote the contributorship rather than uh just like the only way you can you can help out is being an author editor or something yeah yeah it would be good to have a note left on the uh pull request number here or issue uh so people know that we already have discussed this thing in the past and unless we have some new changes in light we do not want to bring it back on the

like meeting right if we have something new definitely we can bring it back for active discussion that's good moving on next is process issues that haven't reached any consensus and the number one here is 5273 that is related to eip1 updating and start referencing ercs at ERC Dash X thank you so we have discussed this in the past and I I believe there are a lot of ongoing discussion on this one uh yeah if anyone would like to sum up

and share their thoughts I I feel like we have divided opinion here yeah I'm just gonna say again everybody in the community is already referring to ERC category eips as ERC that's the number and we really just need to accept this like you know even metallic has been is being frustrated by the fact that in the repository we're referring to ERC as eip's I think this is just extremely confusing I'm in favor

though I'm not in favor but yet I'm okay with moving ahead with this my only uh like uh thing that I would like to see here is like the changes are made on broader level especially on the document which is being referred by users for example I have added here in my comment like we write EIP uh Dash 20 in the dot MD file of eit20 so if we can have that replaced with ERC then we can maintain the consistency everywhere even in documentation so if people agree to change this thing it should not only be done at the eip1 level it should be done everywhere and unless we are like having a process

in place that uh we will be able to write a EIP 20 as erc20 in dot empty file probably we can wait is my thought okay yeah I think oh the only person against it or have concern with it is Panda so if we are all I'm also against it oh you are okay yeah you should you should voice I think the technical and side is kind of complex too I like yeah it's not too bad like a Eep W

can reach into other eips and get their category it's just I don't like it from like a consistency point of view and I mean okay so like a lot of like erc20s have an interface in the EIP called erc20 so it's not even incorrect to call them erc20 tokens because that's what the interface is called like The Proposal is eip-20 and the interface is erc20 and I think that's totally fine yeah I mean we can refer any proposal the way they would like to instead of

calling 1559 EIP 1559 people in Clan college that score for core 1559 simply eap20 can be called as erc20 but because they are all part of a standard track eips I believe whatever we decide should be applicable to all of them and there should not be any preferences just because ercs have a longer number of proposals getting added to the repository we should not change the repository for that purposes but again I'm open when we have the process in place to avoid confusion at every level yeah I fell off at the last minute sorry

you missed the against argument you missed Sam's against argument I heard the consistency part I don't know if there was a lot else to it I agree yeah that was pretty much it it's not consistent I agree it's stupid we have eap-20 dot MD um I agree I hear you but I think the community has already decided this for us and I think it's like hostile of us at this point to force the community to refer to them in a different way so to be clear you want the files to

remain EIP 20 but you want references to the proposal numbered 20 to be erc-20 uh I mean it would be great and profitable for it to be erc-20.md but I am worried about breaking the links that already exist to GitHub eap.mds um you know I mean maybe one way as we go through all the erc's and create uh you know copy the EAP into an erc-number.md and delete the content of the EIP Dash number dot MD and say this

is now placed here we can do that maybe leave that up for a year or two but I don't love um I don't love that situation that much either my understanding is like more than eip1 if someone is trying to follow an ERC they are going towards the dot MD file of uh of that proposal and maybe towards the eaps.athedm.org and then look for that particular EIP so uh if we really want to have like you know um consistency all over the platform and educate people about what do we really

want to say uh to this thing that would be a better start we can definitely go ahead and change it to EIP 22 erc20 however we made this change recently to look eip1 as a standard document like what we use for documentation purposes and that's how we started referring it to uh authors documenting new proposals that do not call it as erc20 call it as eap20 so um my bottom line here is like we should focus on how we can make these changes and depending upon the um trade-off that we have like how long we can take and how complex the situation is and how it will affect the Bots that

we are running around we make a decision on that I mean I just don't think there's any decision to really see made like the decision was made for us by the community the community does not want to refer to the Missy IPS the only decision is to figure out how to do this in the best way and I really don't care that much uh it's more a matter of the people who are maintaining the Bots it's like maybe an hour hour and a half of work it's not that bad yeah I I the uh [Music]

we are losing you underscore okay I'm sorry can you hear me yeah better now okay yeah yeah so I said that uh we used to a broken link yeah I'm in favor kind of weak uh strong um a week um preference in favor of enchanting it and and using the RC the only um concern for now is the same that we worry about the work endings and we do have precedence that drc20 used to have a different name right and then we kept kind of kept that file for a little while uh ERC eip-20 underscore something and then so I think the backward

competitive once was solved Okay so yeah that would be my thing yeah I mean favor of this change I'm done speaking are you right yeah I'm just wondering like um if people think that we have a consensus to move ahead with this proposal or do we want to continue discussion um and I really do not want to take the flow here because I may have different opinions so definitely like to open it for people

so um account I I think we should uh factor in Panda peeps uh um opinion I I hope completely obviously opinions and that people but but I think he's a an important stakeholder uh who actually have done a lot of work together with them on on those like making tools so they they should have a say unfortunately could not join us today and I see this pull request is opened by him obviously for getting consensus and then moving ahead with it

so there is a YouTube link for that I know like land you brought up this topic um I'm not sure do we want to come up to a conclusion for the meeting I mean for this particular topic to be shared with the community or do we want it to be like um coming up next meeting as well and in the meantime what we can assess about is how easy or difficult it will be for bot to handle these things and how long would it take to maybe able to replace and not

replace at all keeping that as an option though I feel that it will be confusing if we do not replace the eits with ercs okay so maybe uh we can keep it for one one more meeting I will ask Panda Peep and Greg to also add their weight like if whatever they think

about it and yeah we hope to come to a conclusion in the upcoming meeting though we tried it in multiple meetings in the past but uh with the new Defcon and new thoughts that I'm sure people may have met and they have all kind of discussions so it would be a good time to collect feedback and what people think may be helpful for this sorry I think I'm blabbering right now I think we're all just a little tired I love this topic yeah well okay um maybe we can move on for now sorry um like plan if we could not come to a

decision on this in this meeting as well but I hope that we should conclude this um as soon as possible it's it's being there for a very long time the next one here is a new contract interface and EAP should be required only include a privacy consideration two people have thought on that it's not applicable for the majority VIPs and the erps that it is applicable for can put in the security consideration section our note added over there so we be able to close this comment if if it is not applicable for majority of the eibs because as long as issues are open it

people feel that we are not trying to address them so it would be nice to have them like you know addressed and closed I like to mentioned that the brand eipw award if you add a new uh title add a new section can we have a catch all fall back sections everything else like other considerations and input privacy consideration delivery I personally think that I'm not a big fan of putting privacy consideration under security consideration a lot of people conflict the true concept and as a cryptography movement and EIP and like we should not conflict them

I I'm personally in favor of Eva either have it as like security and privacy consideration or have a new casual consideration like other considerations and put people let people put anything down there okay uh if you haven't already added your thoughts in the issue probably you can add it over there and then we can also add comment of Sam that it is not applicable to majority of eip's due to security consideration and you can yeah that's already on there okay fair enough cool I know we are having just five minutes

left and we have a lot of issues and pull requests to discuss but I would like to take this opportunity to decide on the next meeting time there were four proposals 1400 uh UTC 1430 UTC and uh 15 and 15 30. I could not see a consensus there like we we could not get a good mix of all to be coming up to one point however I feel like 14 30 to 15 30 sounds like a good slab where either people who are available at 14 30 and who are available at 15 should be able to do do so do people think that we can have it at 14 30 or 15 is preferred between 14 minutes

issued uh Panda Express strong preference I'm not sure if that is possible because you know all these editors and everybody else they are working on full-time basis they also deserve some kind of break on the weekends so probably we have to keep these meetings in in the weekdays itself because that's a part of their job um I mean obviously they are helping us it's not their job but definitely we should be mindful of their breaks as well yeah I don't mind the occasional weekend meeting but I don't want to re recurring one yeah I'm okay either so uh I'm actually okay for the football at all times and

then yeah um but um the 1500 40 30 1500 is better but yeah I can do anytime sorry uh uh 1400 is that an hour earlier than the current time or is that the current time current time it is 1400 is current time and I'm proposing either 1430 or 1500 yeah so anytime 1400 or later is fine for me they all work they all work for me too okay so how about 1500 does that work for every have three voices with that and then asking the people who can make it to this time is a little biased because no no I'm asking like if they can join after an hour 1400 is the

current time and if they can join after an hour 1500 I'm okay yeah I'm definitely okay and looks like I received a response from Greg and he was also open for 1500 I believe so he should be fine there too only if Panda paid but unfortunately I think um he has selected only one option which is not getting but yeah so let's hope he can make it yeah can you also reach out to I I created the foreign sorry I could not catch uh whom should I reach out to exactly

oh I did I mean like he did mention in the past that he swamped with too many calls who may not be very much interested into joining this call on top of six calls that he takes in them in a day so yeah it's fine he is okay with everything but I will definitely try to do it one more time if need be with this new proposed time 1500 UTC all right so but I think it's it's about time uh I had a couple of more issues from my end only to discuss I'll take it up async and I know there are a few topics added by Panda peep unfortunately we could not get there and he also could not join I hope to pick them up in the

next meeting if that hasn't been addressed in the meantime asynchronously thank you everyone for joining us today and I'm gonna create agenda for the next meeting for 1500 UTC obviously try to inform every party so we have good attendance in the next meeting as well thank you everyone see you in two weeks have a good one hi thank you