EIPIP Meeting 68

Transcript

welcome to eipip meeting 68 I have shared agenda and chat today we have small agenda items a small number of agenda items but I think the discussion is going to be relatively bigger uh so the biggest point of discussion today here is um external link policy so I have tried collecting all the related documents proposals issues and pull requests here in agenda I see a discussion started by Greg on cat hurdles Discord about perennial external references later on there are some questions by Sam Wilson on ACD

Discord there are two hack MD from one by Victor one by Sam for some general solution and also issues and pull requests here so I know Sam you have tried to summarize that and put it into a question format if you would like to give a high level overview of the dispute like people we are not having consensus on what kind of external link policy should be there and then we can start probably discussing from there uh sure so I guess um I put up EIP 5757 um which I'm just now realizing is a pretty nice number uh sorry about that but uh yeah so it kind of contains a a

framework for doing external sources and um some of the requirements in that EIP are a little contentious uh the first one being uh like no paid research like no no linking to things behind a paywall um and Greg is uh of a mind that if the EIP depends on a paid resource then we have no choice but to link to it um and myself Matt and Panda I think are all an agreement that we do not want any paid resources to be linkable that's probably the most contentious item um I think there's a few other questions

around like wording and particularly like like particular details but I haven't heard any criticisms of like the overall process so yeah the the questions you were talking about are I asked in the awkward as Discord were specifically about whether all core devs would pay to access resources um and and a few questions about like the durability and immutability of linked sources so like uh whether or not uh you can link to a blog post or a Twitter post or a Reddit post um and whether an archive.org link of the same is also acceptable um so we're just trying to figure some stuff out like that but I think I think the details are all in 5757 if anybody

wants to read it nice summary thank you I see that only we have received one response from math so Matt if you would like to share that here against the environmental things any content for each I think basically everybody is except for Greg okay so uh if I get this correct most of the people are against the paid content accepted correct so oh good thing we are having Greg on the call welcome Greg

Greg can you hear us yeah I'm here morning Greg so we were discussing the first item uh that is the external link policy um based on the questions those are shared on all core Dev Discord by Sam Wilson we were discussing about thoughts it looks like um there is some this agreement with that if you would like to share it with us yeah well I noticed I I'm late because over on all core devs the topic just exploded the call people start talking about it um

I'm again mostly thinking we're making hard policy in advance of choices we don't need to make yet um but there's obviously you go for the highest quality Source you can find and when you get down to normative stuff you at some point you have to reference what you have to reference um I don't know if people are against referencing like a published piece I'm just against like it being like a requirement for understanding like I think that we should like you know kind of rewrite the

portion that is a requirement for even a specification and say this first derived in this work inside it you you want to write the proofs of how BLS works I don't think that we need to write the proofs I think we've already accepted the EOS works well if we were to generalize that to let's say a new crypto algorithm like do you need the proofs of how that crypto algorithm Works in an EIP and I would say the answer is no because you don't need to know how it works to implement it but that's just my opinion but you need you need a reference for the reader to find out how does this work it if if you're trying to implement something you

need references to how to implement everything the specifications should describe how to implement it in my opinion fully and if that requires like possible if you I mean that just goes layer by layer all the way down to the hardware at some point you draw a line and say go look here or you just refer to the term and assume that the reader can figure it out sometimes that's what you do but right and we've generally like set that boundary at cryptography and I think that that's okay yeah I I don't know why we're trying to be bigger hard asses than any other standards organization that I've dealt

with foreign I'm really not trying to be I mean this is an incredibly painful process for me too well we're making it painful it's just a reference is a reference and occasionally they rocked and it's not it's not like the end of the world I agree Greg what do you think about referencing these national resources in the fellowship cafeteria magician page like we definitely I mean I I feel like we need to set a boundary what can go into the specification in EIP and what can be left out for any educational resources that are currently not allowed and we think that it is not directly

related to Specs maybe it is only for references purposes can we not have it on fem thread sharing these are the additional resources to follow along all right I I guess I'm just not seeing why this became such a big problem the ietf has been dealing with this for many years and I suggest their policy is a good place to start um we can keep bringing up examples of bad lengths and for the most part they should simply not be should not be needed um I mean I think that the ietf is has a bit of a different angle because it tends to have a lot more of an

academic footprint and so there's a lot of citations that are academic journals that maybe do cost money if you're not part of that community and I don't think like for crypto most people have access to that stuff there's like free ways of accessing it and um yeah not super against like linking to academic pieces because it's pretty much commonly accepted is okay well um things a reference is a reference they actually consider links to be optional but what's needed is a reference you know the

author of the title enough information to find it right but all of the references most the references in the ietf rfcs are two quote unquote published documents which are retrievable via those mechanisms and we link to a lot of things that are like URL native I think our general policy should be linked first and that includes you know references to academic pieces so so to be clear in 5757 it doesn't specify whether it's a URL or like an APA or uh whatever citation it's anything that refers to an external document is is a link

it's just to clear up the terminology there yeah I'm suggesting we have a reference section um as as the most straightforward way to do it is there's a reference section and anything external there's a citation and the citation um gives the information someone needs to find this thing um so yeah I know I agree with that entirely I don't whatever and as far as links sometimes there is no link usually there's one or more links and they should be the highest quality you can find um so the Journal of publication is a

good link even though it's even though it's locked up it's the Publisher's link so it's a place to start if there's a DOI identifier that's a good link um the author the author of the editor the reviewer someone could do a little work to try to find high quality Lakes um that aren't paywalled and Last Resort um whoever's implementing it has to get the information somehow but you've given them a big leg up on finding the information um and if it's information that's necessary to implement it that seems to be a much bigger favor to the author um than

um concentrating on on whether a link might go dead in the future that if it goes dead in the future it can be fixed in the future so I mean I I it's kind of a crazy counter example would you be all right if I started to replace like any core eipi right is going to be a link to my website in the specification section where they have to pay me a hundred dollars to read it would that be an acceptable way of publishing eips um it would certainly be a very low quality link and I'd be looking for isn't there a better way to do this and if it's your own website um you would have the rights to it and

wouldn't we say let's put that in the assets sure sure I'm just saying like as an EIP author I can refuse to do that and force people to pay to access it but these are decisions we can make when the eip's in front of us rather than trying to make a policy to cover all possible um all possible Futures okay I think we just need to be using more common sense yeah it's just not that hard it's easy to come up with obviously carbon encounter examples but mostly authors aren't going to do silly things like that uh I'm not sure about that but yeah I don't know I think

like I I really don't think there's much of a problem with having like a list of places that we allow like I don't know why like why there's a lot of opposition to that particular idea a few of them um yeah it can become a long list it can be checked automatically though right like that's the point I may have misread but I've checked to making the author go through the work of making their Source beyond that list just because we've said that's a cool link for this article doesn't mean this is a cool source for all possible links you know it could be as a last resort this is the source we use for this link we don't recommend it

in general it really is I could see a small list of things that just are obviously fine um and after that it gets Case by case and the academic literature is hard because so much of it is paywalled that's that's just an unfortunate fact um there's there's a story that uh when Reagan came in one of his people um in charge of PubMed I think the NIH director was going to insist that anything listed on PubMed would have to uh have a publicly accessible copy

online to be listed and uh that guy got fired so uh this is the world we're stuck with um but so um Greg I would like to share a couple of uh thoughts from my and here I am I don't know how much it is relevant in terms of ietf standard and for ethereum I understand that it could be a good practice to follow something that is coming from a reputable organization but I believe that with ethereum we are not only trying to create this educational resources and other things but why we are trying to make it a policy instead of Case by case is something that we

want to standardize the process for like being watchful for future proposals that is coming in so we don't have to argue against every single EIP author that they're like linked to a tweet is not good enough I I want to avoid the situation where we get into arguments with authors every single time and we don't have a clear policy that we can just point to and say like this is how we approve links follow this process because like otherwise we're going to get into so many arguments with people and we see it all the time already um and it's like once we automated the process with epw a lot of those arguments just went away and it's a lot easier now so I I I I'm on the fence of

automating as much as possible and having a clear policy uh for external links I think I don't have a big problem there um yeah I think in in fact what we should try here is like have a standard agreement from all EIP editors or I can say them like most of the people being in favor of any decision either to go this way or that way but that should be as a policy that we people who are trying to help out other authors we are not EIP editors but trying to let them know where to go and find what to do next we will be uh like having some documentation or some reference to site to people and I believe that will help

us like a lot of discussion in future and this eipip meeting is especially for streamlining the process so if we can come upon any agreement on what is the best middle ground from where we can let other VIP authors know that Beyond this line you are not allowed to put anything into the proposal that means into the dot MD file of that EIP you are very welcome to the have it on Fellowship of ethereum magician and people can go and refer it over there how stable a link is that really no here in this case like we are not taking guarantee of a stability of the

link whatever is there in Fellowship of ethereum magician but what we are providing them is the discussion tool link which is added in EIP and we are sharing that this is a place where you can go and add your thoughts so when we are providing a platform that can be relevant and that cannot be relevant after a few period of time but that is not uh a part of a standard right yeah well that's that's what the discussions too like is for in the header um yeah right so that's what I'm suggesting here let's start making use of that link and only uh where we think is directly related to Specs should be put into the dot MD file any additional information

or the link which may or may not have paid like money involved there or copyrights involved there should be a part of uh like you know the discussion to threat not the part of the dot MD file yeah but I think I've been clear enough here and I'm not it's not important enough to me to dig down into the details of these but um so considering that I mean I would like to understand how people think about the five seven five seven proposal like is it something good that can be moved forward we can have it merged because I don't see that is merged in repository yet so yeah any thoughts on that one

or probably people who have objections yeah uh I I need to open up the link is that the one that uh Sam Wilson is having to add external link policy that's right I have [Music] I think my feedback would be first of all uh it's uh I I appreciate that effort I think I I want the general concept I I agree with but I uh I I think we need to make it easier to add source shall be necessary to add something in um in a list and then also I I object to

the requirement for a source to be uh creative access um uh two of the main asset and we should also um we should also have a have a broader extension for example like ethereum projects should be um like it shouldn't be very hard for ethereum projects to be LinkedIn especially it should be easier for yellow paper to be linked I think it's a little bit kind of surprise to people that they can even not link to the consensus spec or the Yellow Page the yellow paper yeah yeah I think those so if we go

ahead with like a trial run of 57 57 I can put up a um like eips to do like the execution specs consensus specs the yellow paper um and I can take care of all those I I I don't like to have EIP uh have a requirement for a new EIT in order to add a add a source yeah so I wanted to say yeah I'm a little torn about that too I think my the reason why I specified that originally is because then each EIP gets its own discussions to thread and I think that's somewhat useful um and people to have a discussion we can have

a centralized discussion for all the list of you know extensions right yeah yeah but like then if a source comes up again like we can't sorry you're cutting out a little bit I I thought you were done talking um yeah I started sorry to cut you off there but so like if if the source comes up again and we have the discussion on Discord then it's it's very difficult to point somebody at the existing discussion and be like here we've already talked about it so we'll end up having the same discussions over and over again um so that that's my concern with not having an EIP per source um yeah the IP itself has a full workflow from

to to last call to final and uh if the only thing you want is I think I'm okay to make that as a requirement and have let's say two weeks of um of wait time I think I can if that is like I can I can make that kind of trade-off um I I don't think the full four-step shall be required and I I don't know if that is a good thing to add to the process I think the general idea of having the meta eat is to define the process that

we would like to follow so if we are defining a process of acceptance of external resources matter if sounds reasonable for this the the thing is that no matter he takes too long I'd rather have one EIP being alive rather than have uh if if it requires like it doesn't have to be a uip either we can we can add something to the ER if you want or anything like require a high bar for it to be merged in but I I think asking it to be a formal EIP can take too long for people if they want to contribute and add things

yeah in general I think the allow listed approach is too restrictive even if you want five seven five one is going into run I really hope that we can restrict the timelines let's say just run it for us in three months but it's only in effect for three months or six months and then see how it goes rather than like oh I am so down for that with unlimited time you're okay with uh yeah yeah if you guys want to try like 57 57 for three months I am totally on board with that and then we can revisit it and like see how well it worked I'm totally okay with that kind of a plan I mean aren't we just trying everything we're always trying things like but I

don't know I mean nothing is set in stone that is the proposal is what I'm proposing is that trial but by default if there's no additional approval in three months it just lose its effect I just don't want to debate this again in three months I want to make a decision I wanted to fix this problem we've been talking about it for like six months or more I think I think it's a year now at least I so I'm firmly in the camp of still no external links like I I like that way easier and simpler but because it comes

up so much I I'm willing to you know meet in the middle a little bit and have some kind of external links I mean we always have external links sorry oh yeah go ahead I I started to cut you off go ahead like you're fine I'm I'm done yeah I'm I'm so like in in favor of well external link I I feel that we we lose our um ability to make it's a it's a Implement proposal right it's you're trying to articulate and convince people to do something and you need to let people put them into context and the fact is that a lot of contacts

needs to come in the format of Link or otherwise we will need to have a full Wikipedia on on the that's what I the assets being put on to the the the repository it just get bigger and bigger and it's still a thing [Music] okay they're cutting out a lot it's hard to understand what you're saying what is blocking us from moving forward with 57 57 at this point

um prohibiting free uh non-free access uh non-free access content and EIP dot requiring an EIP to add new sources what I would uh be happy with to move forward so practically how do we link to academic Journal articles I mean I think that BLS is a good example you know insert new cryptography we don't want to write the proofs and EIP we should link to it how do we do it it just you just do it what what's so hard about this I'm asking you how to do it in the 5757 framework oh sure so in the 5757 framework you'd pick say uh DOI right so

say you want to link to it as a DOI so we'd have a an EIP that defines the like format of a DOI reference so it'd probably have like title authors the DOI number the publication date and that would be just like a blob of markdown that you copy and paste into your EA foreign to your EIP and then fill it out and then that's it that's how you reference an academic paper in 5757 who assigns the DOI DOI okay I mean this is great like can we just merge it this seems like it resolves our problems um one one question I have with Sam is

that I linked I actually put down some of the trend uh deployed uh contract on Gurley as a reference the I wonder if what it would play out in five seven five seven with the situation so I don't know like ether scan probably wouldn't be a valid external Source like uh uh maybe like I don't know maybe you guys would disagree but I don't think etherskin is so linking to a reference implementation would just be linking to the byte code on the Chain so I don't know how useful that would be but like sure I mean you can make a 5757 source for linking to an ethereum address if you want and then you could link to it I don't really care as long

as we all agree that that's a valid source we can add it like 5757 doesn't make any statements about what sources are allowed it just says these are the things that have to be met and then we can argue about any individual Source on the discussions thread or sorry I've renamed them Origins now because Source was confusing so you cannot you can argue about any individual origin of documents on the discussion too thread I guess I'm just not really understanding this then are you saying that in order for an author to get an origin approved they have to submit a separate EIP for the

approval of that origin so yeah so for each so like uh Panda paper is calling them like categories I call them Origins right now I still haven't settled on a term that everybody understands but like DOI like the digital object identifier mix system would be one origin and then anything that has a DOI number would be from the same EIP like the same so like 5757 would have one EIP that defines all DOI identifiers and then anybody who wants to use a document described by DOI would just use that one EAP they don't need a separate EIP for every document they want to reference now I'm really confused hang on I have

I sent panda a message that kind of explains this let me see if I can find it here we go okay I'm also okay here let me let me just read you this it's not too bad so we have an author let's call her Alice right and she wants to link to the w3c.org media capture streams specification right I think we can all agree that that is a specification that we want to allow people to link to so the the Alice includes the center EIP eipw sees the external Lincoln complaints it says this is not an improved external Source you can't link to it so Allison reads 5757 and sees oh okay I need to open an EIP allowing w3c links so uh she creates EIP X whatever the

number happens to be it doesn't matter and she describes like w3c has existed for 10 years w3c has like a history of providing documents um we can't include w3c specifications because they're not licensed appropriately for whatever reason doesn't matter um and she creates this proposal then editors look at this proposed and they say okay yeah we like w3c we'll approve it as a source now Alice can use her link to Media capture streams in her EIP that's it now Bob comes along and he wants to use say the geolocation API the w3c specifies he includes the link eipw sees the link and because Alice already made the proposal allowing w3c links now Bob can link to the geolocation API without any

other like extra work it's just approved okay I'm objecting to putting that load of work onto Alice she's already doing the work of writing her proposal that's that's a lot of work um and just because in that example that's probably a good source but the hard cases come down to the source just isn't a very good source and we have to decide in that case okay we can't find better sources so we'll use it um like I'd say in general links into authors home pages at universities aren't the best links because they

retire and they change universities and those links go away but often it's the best free link you have so it makes sense to give more than one link here's the here's the link to the publisher I'm sorry it's paywalled here's a DOI the DOI organization maintains where that goes to it's a good resource here's a link to the author's copy yeah it might go away but it's free if it goes away in the future that's in a rata that can be fixed and you just the point is to give the reader access to information not to maintain

the purity of our Repository um I mean do you have an alternative proposal because what you're describing is how things were previously done on the repository and it doesn't seem like people want to do it that way anymore so I think if we want to do something other than 5757 we need a different proposal than what we were previously doing well I'm I wasn't paying attention for a while and so I don't know where the no external links policy came from it didn't used to be there um Michael is the one who like really instantiated it but I think like you know Sam and and Panda are generally

against external links and if we want to move to a place where we can allow external links we have to you know negotiate amongst ourselves and compromise and to me 5757 is a compromise that's not perfect but it is going to resolve many of the issues that we're having and I think we should do it the zip1 currently forbid them it doesn't okay I'm happy to have I'm happy I think we should have a reference section very much along the lines what the ITF recommends um and I think the general policy laid out here is fine things like 10 years

since Dutch we're just being too specific um I see the point of the editors maintaining a list of sources that we don't even have to think about if you're using these sources um no problem um and then it does come down to judgment calls um the point of the 5757 is the Compromise of we're not going to make the Judgment calls per EIP we're going to make the Judgment calls per source and if you want to that's what doesn't work yeah but this is the compromise that we're trying to make like what you're proposing is how things were previously done and many of the editors are against

it I'm like personally not against it like I think Common Sense makes sense to me and I would be happy to do it but I've been trying to make that happen for over one year and it hasn't and the only like reasonable Solution that's like really been worked out is 57.57 and so I would like to move forward with it okay uh and I'm okay revisiting this in three months like we can just be like did it work we're gonna revisit it every single meeting okay let's have a moratorium on revisiting it for a little while and then we can come back to it and see if we're happy with it because you know maybe I'm wrong maybe you know this is a horrible process and everybody hates it and it just hurts everybody and I'm totally okay with scrapping it after after we give it a trial run so

my only big objection is putting the author through the work um of creating yet another EIP and Crea you know having all these VIPs that don't do anything but say we approve this Source yeah because I don't want to approve sources in general just just because for particular EIP we decided that this particular low quality link was the best that we could do it doesn't mean that we're blessing that source for all time we're just saying in this case this particular low quality length was the best we could do um and I I'm giving the wording we have now

which is that it says should not and not must not so you know if it still gives us the freedom on a case-by-case basis to approve a link well then I have to start really digging in because I'm not quite sure what obviously allow means because I'm not a lawyer um that's been a problem with the assets all along um some some things are obviously recopyable and other things um you know who's gonna judge there um yeah as soon as you move the assets you pulled them out of their original context so that that's a hard call um

so you're objecting to the like um the redistribution like first requirement I was just saying who's who's to say you gotta you step into a quagmar right away uh well I mean I think obviously redistributable is things like rfcs which say the distribution of this memo is unlimited like some things are very clear-cut allowed to be redistributed right that's that's where you need a pot that's where you need a policy or a clear judgment uh that says yes we can put this in assets because then we're acting as a publisher and we have to respect the copyright of what we're publishing

um it's that's a hassle but there it is okay so if we remove the requirement for um redistrict the redistribution requirement would you be okay with 57.57 yeah I just don't know quite how to State the requirement well that's fine we could just take it out for now and then figure it out I don't mind doing that um [Music] the editors can do it anybody can do it

okay but is but that's a long process right I I mean there's a long process it doesn't I mean it's really only three to five links that I think were like coming up all the time that I mean once we get the ability to link to the consensus specs to dois to rfcs I think like most of the problems go away uh what about go eat what about ethereum we shouldn't link to a guests which you don't need to get why is that when people point that hey this is a working implementation and wouldn't that be a better version than a reference patient that has not been code tested no we need to be moving to using the execution spec

but you can add it as a rapid implementation right and people have that incline in inclination to add various implementation links there and also it's a stronger argument saying hey these three clients have already implemented I just don't think that's something that should really be existing in the IP we can revisit like modifying the EAP template I think these are generally things that should exist and The Magician's thread like here's implementations mm-hmm okay so you don't you don't think that needs to be at as a as a source I don't think we can allow go ethereum as a reference implementation because it is

GBL right I mean traditionally we've like had the list of like here implementations and people can just like click the link to them yeah but we have the execution specs now so I think yeah exactly we should stop doing that what about Lucy let's say let's say some of the storage has claim of backward compatibility arguments and that this is because we make this decision kind of compiler has this behavior and that's why we need to be careful of this security consideration or anything

if there's a reason to link to something like we can open uh EIP to add it as a permeable origin if like I really don't see there being more than like 10 of these things at the extreme like how many times like we've gotten by over the past year without external links so I I think we can get by allowing some external links without too much trouble well if you like force people to not link to things like you have two choice either they would they they can not submit an EIP which is happening or that is it's that becomes segment or uh they would just remove linked and reduce the

quality of their articulations that's what's happening too uh in uh like web to provide object provider like I I don't mean we generally shouldn't allow everyone to submit an EIP like there needs to be some rigor for what is accepted and I think that having a link policy that is a bit restrictive keeps the quality of the aps a bit higher like just letting someone willy-nilly link to Twitter to blog posts and stuff I think creates poor quality use so as a great example of that the um the merge EIP um was just awful it had links to like tweets and random blog posts by vitalik and like at least three of the links

were dead and it's just like we need to not do that right like we aren't a normal standards organization because like there are no restrictions on who can publish eips so we need to have like a streamlined process for keeping the quality up and that's kind of my argument for for 57.57 now we we needed to do a lot better job of editing that yeah that would be my argument like right we can make suggestions say hey they're not like stable they're social media they're not part of the standard that what I agree like the the hard cases are for example like OE like apparently I think always should be and and also other client implementation

should be allowed to be linked and then you you it's a no it's a no-brainer and they should not be I just don't think this is really related to 175757 like we should debate this at another time but like I honestly don't want to leave this call again without making a decision I think it's uh I think it's an example as that like we are accepting five seven sites like that with the sconces of default and I'm what what I'm referring to is if we accept 577 then default is not accepting bill is unless it's approved but I'm looking I'm I'm more inclined to have another version that is more open default is allowed unless it is being spread down like in those cases in those middle

grounds I like to be more open I'm I'm I'm using it as an example not to say it's relevant directly but indirectly it is what they thought will play out I think we've already seen like the editors are against that we don't want to like curate a list of like non-acceptable sources that's a lot more work than a small list of acceptable sources yeah I would agree I think the idea of having five seven five seven is I mean from where I'm seeing is to make it difficult for people to have uh like external resources uh added to the EIP we generally speaking we are not uh the group doesn't seem to be in favor of

having allowed all the external links so if external link has to be there there should be certain processes in place and this sounds like a good one I'm in good middle ground from at least we can give it a try for next three months no and as it's written I it's not acceptable make which part do you not accept there's two aspects to it what I really don't like is forcing the author to make a separate EIP to allow for a source you're not forcing the author anybody can make it right but I don't want them it's just clutter

um it makes sense for the editors the editors to maintain a small list of sources in the ip1 that just says these are acceptable sources don't worry about it you will also have a list in eip1 so and so like Ryan I I think when you say everyone anyone can make the petition in reality is that the author is being blocked from submitting those links into their EIP and they either have to do it themselves or they have to submit it yeah right that's the reality if we say hey any editor is striking down our games to make one then we can copy saying that that doesn't add the two editors for an alternative work but we

don't we all know that's not gonna happen so I think Greg made a develop point this is a hurdle and this will end up in tactics and in practice making authors submit those VIP or have to give up the links and remove the little things that is the point of this EIP it is supposed to be restrictive it is not supposed to be trivial to add links to eaps I honestly don't care whether or not it's an EIP or if it's an update eip1 I think it's better than their eaps because if we rely on just making a PRT one then we're like further increasing our Reliance on like this GitHub

infrastructure and it's not easy for us to like have the history or like the rationale if we're adding things and making decisions like I get it we already use GitHub for a lot of things in this case I think it's good if we can have this as like a separate artifact but if this is like the thing that stopping 57 from happening and I think we should just remove the concept of of having Source or origin eips and just say you have to open a PR to equal one to change it and we can discuss on the pr thread I mean favor that is better all right I'll make that change all right what else is blocking 5757 uh free thoughts and free access

distribution that uh send do you use that when when you say remove the requirement for distribution of that that is removed uh so no I I I'm not ever going to back away from requiring free access to an EIP there are too many IPS like links but the requirement for redistribution that's the um so like if there's a requirement in 5757 that says sources should not allow redistributing in the assets directory um and I think Greg had an issue with that because of context like if it's on the is that right so I can remove that I don't really I don't understand what it's saying there

um just pointing out that on the one hand it's good to have things in assets on the other hand there's both legal aspects as to whether we had a right to put it there um so that's where a list really helps that we've judged as editors that we don't have a problem publishing things there um because you don't want the author randomly putting things there uh it is part of what we publish um and when you put things there there is a you have taken them out of context but that's where I keep wanting a reference section with a full citation so that the

implementer can find larger context easily enough um there doesn't need to be only one Link in the reference multiple links are appreciated yeah so in the BLS example the the canonical link to the Publisher's page was paywalled but the DOI link went to the same page but the ePrint server had a free copy and the print server is a pretty stable Source I I don't think 10 years or I don't think there's any particular definition of stable we can

give but it's a judgment call and he prints pretty good um so are we hung up here on the redistribution aspect or on the paid wall aspect I'm just saying there's decisions the editors are going to have to make and I don't think we can need to set up all this policy in advance just say that you know we can agree that there's a list of sources that we simply approve I I think we've got some number already in mind that aren't controversial to us um any other links we do just have to take up as judgment calls that really haven't been that many of them and

whether to add whether to add a particular source to the eip1 is an editorial editor's decision the the author doesn't need to be involved and I can't see creating separate eips for every change that we make the P1 it's it's it is still an editor decision um and we said we're not going to do the eip's it's going to be a PR to eip1 the reality is is that sometimes the author is going to have to make the pr and advocate for that link like if an editor generally reviews the pr and says I don't think this is a good link the author is going to need to Advocate like it shouldn't necessarily be our jobs like advocate for every single link but I think not having the IP makes it

simpler for them that okay that's the core of our disagreement um allowing a particular link for particular EIP should not say that that is a good source for all eips yeah but we've like already discussed that what you're describing is how we like previously managed the links for eaps and the editors as a whole are like against this and so we're trying to find a compromise and I think like the compromise that we're like trying to zero in on is creating a list of sources that we think are good for all eip's foreign it's not perfect but I don't know if

we're going to be able to get agreement on like a per EIP acceptance list well it hit me personally where I wanted to link to a paper by touring it actually wasn't paywalled and there was a strong objection to linking to that paper um is it do eyed um uh yeah there was a DOI for it there was a list so yeah I mean it was fine but um yeah so I think we should allow the DOI links yeah so so what I was suggesting what like how I would do the DOI if we were using the old style 5757 where it has its own individual EIP but

we're not doing that so let's not open that back up again but if we were my idea for dois was to have like the title author uh publication date the DOI number and just any arbitrary link to a free copy of the paper that is how I would do the DOI like reference section um but then I I don't like I really don't want to go into like these super specific details because like I don't think that we should be linking to any arbitrary link I think we need to like have a you know General link to the DOI object and expect people to go find it okay because like I don't because I mean lots of professors will like put a paper on their on their like University web page and like I don't want to sit have people

like being oh this was the free source or maybe you were linking to stuff that you know is paid content and we shouldn't allow like links like that there's like legal concerns there I think we should just link to the DOI object identifier website so so then how do you verify that there is a free publication available like I mean I think that we need to remove the must uh for it not being paid have like a very strict requirement of should not but if it has a DOI identifier it's almost always accessible and some mechanism for free and there's not I just don't think there's really a way around this I have seen a review I think we should

not require it to be like completely free like I I want it but uh I don't think that requirement can help improve the things over overnight questions would you be willing to relax it must not link to a paid content and just have it be extremely strict should not that would help a lot yes yeah sure I think it's a dumb idea I don't think core devs are ever going to pay for access to something they're not they're not definitely not so I don't think

there's any point in allowing non-free resources because I mean it's just it's not about I mean I don't ever want to allow non-free resources but there is a problem where like how do we uniformly link to DLI objects and also ensure there is a free link without also running into like potential legal concerns like redistributing copyrighted material well because we won't be redistributing it somebody else will that's that's the point but I yeah but I also like don't like the idea of just like you know I don't want to put a library Genesis Link in the IP repository I don't want to put a link to a professor's website in the IPS repository I would rather just link to the DOI object and just assume that people like know how to like access that information

I mean I think that's just like it's a really worse than having a link to the free copy and the DOI number I can I can live with that if there's a DOI number there's a whole organization that maintains links um if there's a full citation Google will usually find you free links um there's libraries I don't mind I don't mind if we have to to resolve this I don't mind pushing onto the implementer a bit of work to go find this I think it's a fantasy that an implementer can just sit down with an EIP and Wham Obama implemented it's hard work

um but as long as there's a way to find the information Google does I I would prefer there that they be allowed to include the link but um like to avoid the impasse where I was I simply removed the link and put the citation in line and the uh the bot quit complaining and uh emerged so um okay say uh it so I I guess in the interest of holding up this discussion anymore uh I'll change it to it should not but

um I mean I want you to advocate for every single source that there's like a free accessible um you know resource and I we can talk about exactly how to format that and I think I would probably be okay if like the default link was to the deal I object but we had like a list of like free links to all of the things that are linked we can figure out the exact yeah exactly the way that that works I'm happy to do that um yeah I mean I think that we're good to move forward 577 in that case like we resolved the separate EIP issue we're going to do it as a PR and Thief one and we've resolved the like um redistribution I don't know if we have to remove it

it's already it should not to me like it doesn't need to be removed but we can remove it and then for the paid content I think it should not would be profitable and I think that like you know generally editors should always advocate for free resources sounds good so if we have to summarize the there would be small changes to the current proposal of 5757 but we are as a group uh looking forward to have that merge so just to enumerate the changes I'm going to make and then if I miss something please speak up now um I am going to remove the EIP per origin section and it'll just be a PR

into each one um we will figure out a way to specify free links for DOI objects and I will remove the non-redistribution requirement is there anything else that I need to change it's good to me Greg if you have anything to add or you or you're fine with this number of changes that Sam listed I think I'm fine and yeah I could I can try to review the the document after the changes have happened um so I don't quite understand the document as written so once the changes are there

I think I'll be able to understand better um perfect okay it's my fault I've been busy trying to find money Eternal living so this is this is not uh yeah let me busy inventing the technology that we're trying to sell uh to get the money during a living so this is slipped down though not a problem one last question to the group do we think that we may need a breakout room for uh like with the changes so I will be making some changes and we can discuss that somewhere before the next eipip meeting I think one already sort of happened on

all core devs but um but the answer is probably yes okay I don't want to have a breakout room all right I honestly think we should merge 57.57 as is it's a draft we need to start moving it to final and we'll yeah you're right yeah we'll Roxanne make the changes and we can review the train changes directly to it we're at draft stage get something in right and I think that would even help with some eapw changes that Sam has already uh working on so we can have that proposal merged as draft yeah a lot a lot of this a lot of this the

community can argue about during review that's what review is for uh Sam are you going to represent the food source in the format of regular expression is there any formal way that you want to establish yes um I would love regularly I would love regular expression um that makes it really easy in epw but uh it's probably going to be more complicated than that okay yeah just like I I I don't have strong preference but maybe eipw is much easier yeah yeah nothing else all right thanks for the great efforts

talk to you all in two weeks thank you Andrea have a good night and yeah again thank you for the efforts even though I Grumble about them hey it wouldn't be covered in so people didn't Grumble so yeah I I hate that proposal but I really appreciate your efforts all right guys see you all in two weeks and we can continue discussing on cathode is Discord or ether and it is called wherever possible have a good one everyone yeah thank you thanks for hoping bye