EIPIP Meeting 76

Transcript

welcome to aipap meeting 76 I've shared agenda and chat we have a few open issues and peers to discuss and there would be discussion continued from the past meeting I think one of the candidates started looking into eapw part issues so we'll discuss that on few other updates so starting with the item number one which is discuss open issues PRS and other topics so last week we received a comment uh from a username ABC like these are the first three alphabets I cannot write the full name but you can follow the comment on the agenda here so he is proposing to be

an EAP editor maybe an interim AIP editor who may be able to help out with the EIP number allocation I remember we discussed in the past for having a bot for a location of EIP number but we are not there yet so if editors may take a look at his proposal and yeah let us know what do we think about it I guess Panda paper went ahead and also created a pull request to update this request in eip1 once there is a consensus of having him on board I don't think adding somebody just to

assign EIP numbers is is good um Panda pip has started working on a bot to or like updating uh the merge bot for that so we'll see where that goes sounds good Matt do you have any thoughts on that yeah if you want to be an ERC editor or a full EIP editor so his proposal is like his offer is to offer my services as an EIP or ERC

Editor to help assign numbers quickly do you have a problem assigning numbers also not really it looks like uh he has intervened a few times he also has added a link to comments where he left his thoughts while uh discussing the number for the EIP yeah I mean if if it's his his only job is assigning numbers I don't really okay we need an Editor to do that he wants to review eaps and erc's I mean he has been involved for a pretty long time

so I could consider that but it doesn't sound like it's what he was proposing I'm sorry what is vid covered um okay okay so um no I I'm I mean if I understand this correct I I don't think the proposal is to be reviewing all the proposals as of now but only for the allocation part uh so let me go back with um with the discussion here today so if he tries to

extend his proposal to maybe look into more on to erc's and um then probably it could be considered again now we will have to look into all the criteria that has been listed earlier to become an ERC editor is that fair summary of the discussion today yeah thank you how many we're gonna add it at the uh like end of the meeting um like every past meetings I have started writing summary down there so we'll see uh what is the response Panda mentioned that he would be joining a bit late so if he has

anything further to add about his peer uh yeah we can talk then moving on to the next item is full spell check so um I remember it was uh discussed in ethereum Caterers Discord about uh the spelling error um yeah matter you mentioned okay not a problem Matt mentioned that can we have a full spell check I don't know if anyone would like to maybe talk about it and um if anyone has any proposal I don't know I get a tired I will spell

check set up for the execution apis Repository uh it just doesn't work perfectly there's plenty of times where you have compound words that are words and it says that they're not and then you have to manually add them so it's not really ideal but whatever we have right now is missing a lot of words and so I would like to find something that's at least better all right Jose um I'm not sure if you have any proposal for this uh like would you be interested in poking into it or looking into it hello Happy Day first of all uh yes well I was just

wondering if we can just work to make Richard the dictionary for code spell which is barely now 42 000 Words which is very small uh uh I don't know we can just take every every IP proposal go around collect the collect this parents that are not into the the mispelling words that are not included in the code spell

um puller request for I don't know every time that we call it I would say 100 or 200 or 500. to unproposable requests to call the spell to include that word so in that way we can just it's going to take time but I guess that in the the in the midterm we will be we will be covering all these basic misspelled words that are not included in the code spell so he said a long way to go but it's a proposal I don't know if maybe we can I was also thinking and

include the library with at least 200 000 words into the EIP bot um we we create one of what we create an action to to check that was considered I mean months ago months ago but we the UA editors decide to go with the code spell which is fine but uh indeed this is a very poor vocabulary word code spell has right now so either we increment during the time the vocabulary or we we just add the a new action to the AP board with the bigger vocabulary

that's what it is I'm not 100 sure like going by each and every proposal and having um like every word added in code spell uh like how long would that take do we have an automated solution for that from what I've seen on the good spell repository um they generally merge PRS that just add new misspellings quite quickly so if we want to just if we have a PR that has a bunch of their spellings just give it

to me and I'll submit a PR that adds all the misspellings to the code spell repository and then I'll submit in the appear to the eip's repository updating it to the latest version of goods Bell okay so what do people think about the current proposal like so um are we are we planning to have like you know a list of purple something okay so there is this proposal to switch to something with a white list and use a specific extension for our words okay

um yeah if you would like to elaborate that some maybe because you know a chat messages are generally not available to people who are listening to the call okay not a problem um so uh it looks like it's I mean um it's noisy so he's trying to avoid what Sam mentioned it's like it might be easier to switch to something with the white list and use a specific extension for our words and he may have a couple of options as eapw so probably we can look into that and the other proposal by Panda paper I think is to provide him the list and he

would be merging it um quickly okay anyone has to add anything on this I know we don't have a perfect solution right now but there are quite a few options we may want to give it a try and bring it back if needed okay let's give it a try moving on to the next one is only check sibling headers for sameness I find this PR requested by uh Matt for merge I don't know what other editors think

the number is 6643 looks like it requires other yeah other editors your reviewers confirmation before the bot can merge it I mean it looks fine for me I'll I'll wait no the reason the reason why that's

there is because then the reason why that's not allowed is because otherwise you have duplicate ID tags in the HTML which is an error according to the HTML stuff aspect there so uh like client there is a reason why that check is there okay okay looks like because it is because it is approved it's Auto merging right now oh oops I guess we have it then it's it's a minor thing it it browsers won't

necessarily like uh smack me for it but like is generally a bad idea to have duplicate ID tags and yeah it is a jackal bug but okay so now that is merged I hope there is no reason to revert it um unless you strongly feel about it or anyone strongly feels about it I do not strongly feel about it I feel about it although I would like to be added uh use uh although I would like to be at a uniquely uh linked sections which would not be possible if you have duplicate sections

fair enough okay very well this is now merged um so I can get stun day and we can move on to the next one which is a discon discussion continued from the earlier meetings so um in the past meeting we found a few proposals coming up from William and trikon an author who is suggesting to um kind of provide some features or maybe improve the UI of present website I see there are a couple of pull requests but at the same time we also had a look on the new proposed upgrade for the EIP website um I see the pr are still open for RSS

feed and rewrite index I wonder what people think about it and where we are on the updated version of the uh website pull request are we discussing uh the adding of the Arts and speeds the ending of the filter page or my revise okay so let's start with the VR revive because I think that was just the last and then we can come back to RSS feed which is 6579 and to the index which is 6483 so what's you know worth learning about

my rewrite is that it actually does include both uh the edition of the filter page although it's adding a new page not actually overriding the index page here and it also does add the RSS it RSS feeds and it also adds atom feeds alongside them I'm sorry do we have a pull request for that I mean any PR number which can be looked into uh yeah I can pull that up okay and my next question would be like uh um do we have any issues with the present PR like why we could not merge

that uh is there anything I'm pretty sure that Litecoin objected to the fact that heat press is perhaps less you know than Jackal um however I feel like it's still pretty well known and compare and right now we have two people that can actually read and maintain the new wheatgrass website and right now uh we have and right now we also have to end right now we have well one person that can kind of read The Jackal website maybe to people that can kind of read the Jekyll website and make

small changes to it so in terms of actually being able to maintain it this is an improvement despite the fact that it's comparatively less well-known okay so the core Point here is to moving away from Jackal not to wheat price but to the JavaScript format is that the correct understanding yes awesome okay in that case uh like if any editor has thoughts on PR number six five one eight uh which uh Gavin just shared I have added that in agenda as well like where we are and if people have thought suggestion on having that

merged like friend mind uh specifying any new objections you might have you were the one that got subjected yeah I mean I think the objection is still the same I would rather focus on something that's extremely widely used I would rather avoid using JavaScript and focusing on just having markdown files I don't think that having more people being able to support this is necessarily a huge win because I don't think that these things should be changing too much I agree that these things should not

need changing much at all nonetheless it is possible to change this and to customize it way more than the Jackal website this has support for in fact post build hooks I had support for a lot of different Hooks and yeah a curious question here so the pr that we have received earlier for like more RSS feed and rewrite index filters

were they affecting the current uh website the current page that we have in any way like they were just Improvement suggestions weren't they yes um but if we choose to do the website uh website rewrite then those do not need to be merged because the website we write contains both of them right but it could be working in the meantime right unless there is any you know issues I think we should merge both of them yeah I mean like we can merge and in the meantime we can discuss about this uh migration that we are talking about it it doesn't look like we have

like a full agreement and everything is in place so for that time being that could be done what do other people think um I mean it's just my thought what do other people think um I haven't actually looked in depth into this uh PR but it looks like it's switching it from like a plain static HTML page to like a JavaScript search is that correct uh do you mean the new um sorry do you

mean six five one eight six four eight three 6483 okay I think uh Gavin you had a chance to look into this I found out yeah that that is my understanding of what it does I don't like how it deletes all the existing Authority I see uh those ones but I mean having the filter is really nice my concern here is is this going to hurt our Google ability like since it's gonna be hidden behind JavaScript now ah yes you are right it will so at the very least we should keep the whole page

that's an interesting point yeah we we have to keep at least keep the whole page you are right there okay and I see that it is like uh with all other filters except that all page so if we keep the oil base disk good work non-erc.xml okay um do we think leaving a comment on this PR for author would make sense why I'm discussing this review in fact thank you well I'm discussing this is because I'm hoping that if we are allowing PRS to be coming up from Community we

are encouraging people to come up with suggestion and it would not be solely on the editors to like bring up changes and things like that so while we are waiting for bringing a major overhaul maybe we can allow a minor pull requests which are coming from Community to add some improvement to the present website okay so this is done and uh do we have any thoughts and comments on RSS feed I think there is an open Action for uh the proposal here so um I I hear um Sam here that uh

uh giving permission to third party link for email could be a concern but I don't know like it seems like that is something recommended or being used Wiley where are we on that I understand a third party permission third party link permission totally but do we have strong feeling and we should not allow or should we start this because I have found okay one argument I want to give in favor of allowing this is we have found that the protocol um information that is now being disseminated with the email and it's been very helpful for people to receiving notification for blog.ethereum.org so if we can have RSS

feed like this and we can start sending email notification that could help more users to be aware of what's going on in the background oh for sure it's just like I don't want to commit necessarily to supporting the service so do we have any other alternative I don't know maybe we can check with uh protocol team I can check with team and all like what kind of services they are using if not this one but generally speaking are we open to that it's a big question I would be open to using the third third party service to email RSS updates right right it's not that I'm against

every third party service I'm just against like like if we want to pick one that we want to use and go with that that's fine but like I don't think any of us have looked into this in depth and I don't know if this is the one we want to go with that make a lot of sense okay uh so um I will try to check with the protocol team what kind of email Services they are using right now and well maybe uh check with the author itself if they have any I mean in this proposal uh if he has any thought on implementing the one that is being already used for sending out ethereum blog posts yeah that's a good suggestion here

fair enough to conclude we could not make any decision on 6483 it will be discussed similarly we do not have any consensus on 6579 just uh some next steps that we should be looking into it more in detail and uh it looks like we do not have 6518 consensus as well unless people are like you know having more thoughts on merging it today sorry which PR are we on again yours six five one eight to the best it's the merge conflicts

I'll just go ahead yeah right the best of my understanding we do not have a full consensus here right now maybe we can start collecting more thoughts and feedbacks and support for this to be much will try to change light against mine and come back in two weeks for this PR if that makes sense okay moving ahead uh so we already discussed moving away from Jekyll um that's basically discussing 6518 and the next one here is um five four five seven which is update 712 fix each sign type

data or definition so in the last meeting we discussed this but we did not reach any consensus there what to do like should we keep it open should we like just close it because we don't want to change any uh anything to this proposal yeah to restate my argument that since there is obviously an error here and there is nothing that could feasibly Implement both specifications that choosing the one that is clearly correct is the right move so you may be in support of merging this

pull request so I think the reason we didn't merge this is because of the authors oh yeah we're waiting on author approval should we just override author approval for this one that is five four five seven that's right yep yep I remember it now the author wasn't reachable at the time okay so could we have that tag enabled I don't think the tag is enabled for authors here yeah it's not it's not labeled as

waiting on author's review so can any of the editor make manually add that label so author can also get notified uh the author should already have been notified and the label is already added by the Box I think you removed it yeah because I can see two weeks ago you removed it really yeah Panda pick one removed the a Dash review label two weeks ago well that was a mistake oops yeah okay not a problem okay now let's move on so I don't intend to bring it back in the

next meeting unless we see any Improvement in that I hope when we get author's approval it could be merged um yeah we'll take it from there okay uh I think this in concluded all of the discussion from the past meeting I know why I did that it's because on that call we came to a consensus that we would manually merge it okay yeah yeah I think I'm I'm okay with

merging this um and I'll do it right now if Matt doesn't object yeah if you guys are okay with merging it then go ahead you're very well so this will be manually merged tool okay now we can move on to the next item which is eibw bot issues um this item has been suggested by Jose Jose if you would like to provide an overview of what you are looking into it and if there is any progress on issue

number five that is listed here I managed to to do the CI I'm going to be testing the running I'm gonna create a test case I'm going to be testing the running during this weekend so I guess that I hope to have a final solution already tested by Monday or maybe Tuesday that's pretty much for issue five the EIP Double B button thanks again for your help it's been it's been good any timing thank you thank you okay and this pull request 66 is it the

one coming for for this issue number five yes yeah I can see that thank you Jose uh yeah please keep us posted on whatever progress you are making on uh like issues I see there are quite a number of open issues so I hope that we can start taking on it one by one and Sam if there are any priority like if you can Define then it would be best that Jose can work with you and look into the issues which are on higher priority side sure I can do that thank you okay moving ahead we have eaps inside I'm trying to open the website for some

reason it's uh yeah finally it came up so we have two proposals in final one in last call one in review and four new proposals added this month I know the website is not the puff not in perfect status till date we did it last month but for some reason now it's giving some error for last call and final uh eibs will try to fix it but yeah that's all the status as per date like March 8th we have four new proposal added in the EAP repository and two have been moved to the final status okay

the next one is the EAP editing officer unfortunately we could not have our meeting last Tuesday that is yesterday but we have added a pull request for authors who reached out to us for us for some kind of help or attention from editor and those have been listed in the agenda for meeting number 13. I hope EAP editors may take a look whenever they get chance and whatever will be open by our next meeting we'll try to have that added so EIP authors if you have any question comment concern related to your pull requests that you have made and you're

trying to understand something may be able to talk to EIP editors directly regarding your PR please feel free to join the EIP editing office hour that happens every other Tuesday so it will be around two weeks from now at 1500 UTC people living in United States please make a note of this uh there would be a DSD saving ending so uh the time would be changing it would not be as per your like a clock uh not 10 it would be nine no sorry 11 A.M yeah it would be 11 am EST Zone so yeah the time would be changed for this meeting as well for eipip meeting

which is 1400 UTC right now which is 9 00 am on EST and it would be 10 am from the next meeting onward I don't see any further Ada item added in the agenda so looks like it's going to be a short meeting and the next meeting is proposed on March 22nd at 140c anyone has anything to add share yeah did we remember to discuss uh adding uh what's his name yeah Andrew is an editor okay yeah um yeah we did discuss uh briefly uh so

um what editors think here is like if we would like to have on board we would like to have a data on board for reviewing ercs are not only just for the allocation of numbers so um we need to check with the ABC uh if he is open for uh reviewing as a reviewer he has indicated that he is um okay so from the comment it looked like he's more into um supporting with the EIP number allocation yes he says until it cannot be automated or numbers are sold then I offer my services as an Erp or ERC Editor to help assign numbers quickly

yeah so if we were trying to understand the services offered if it is for overall review of a proposal and not limited to assigning number um then that seems like a good idea so we might want to encourage him to maybe um to have reviewed the proposal as well okay I thought I thought the bot was just going to assign the numbers and be done well it will be assigning the numbers okay okay so that's a work in progress that's a work in progress I think Kevin is already working on bot but for the meantime yeah

I keep seeing it surface again I'm going wait a minute I thought I thought this decision was already made so I think the pull request that has been created which is um 6575 may not be merged just yet uh we will leave comment for user ABC and if is open to that then probably will have to go through the checklist that we have for ERC editors and we'll have him on board if that makes sense anything else people would like to share

or discuss for today's meeting all right uh sorry I was I was late um have we discussed anything uh updates on the plan for introducing more peer reviewers not really I know that stands is leading this effort and um yeah look forward to see what could we do to help out I still think that this is really related to the detect to the tags thing and we should try to implement both of these simultaneously

okay so I remember mentioning uh this particular topic a few weeks ago and we were discussing that the present list of peer Reviewer is not very effective we may have to come up with a new list of reviewers and if anybody in the community is interested in helping us with reviewing eits which are coming into repository may please reach out to Sam he will add it add the abuser to the list and we can continue having more reviewers added to this list so we can get other eips reviewed faster but I wonder if whichever you may have any other

suggestion thought or I don't know there was this meeting um in Denver if we have anything coming up from there if you may have met people who would be willing to do that yeah I think generally there are a lot of interest that we just want to make sure that we do it right we receive good passion from VIP authors that are interested in both um continue to support this program with their authoring and potentially reviewing and also um I gave a presentation of EIC rep to invite sharing reference implementation in a more structural way uh also get a lot of bonds

um and I know that Sam was not there I I personally felt that having a good peer review program is great and then I said the current status of big list of peer reviewers have been a year um I love to kind of learn with Sam and uh see how can we kind of work out a a pivot to bring on more success on that but I love to hear other editors uh opinion or kind of guidance on how that could be improved thank you

so my biggest complaint is that a lot of the people who have volunteered to do it don't actually leave any comments so I feel kind of a little pointless and pinging them in the first place so can I kind of find some time to chat with you I guess that not every editors are particularly interested in this pocket but I surely feel very very passionate about the direction that you have shared so can I kind of find time to chat with you and then maybe we can of course have some different sorry about our outcome yeah I'm not sure of the way to go but

for quite a while I thought we need more peer review especially on the ERC side to take the load off um because there's just too many of them that cover way too wide a range of interest for anyone at it or to necessarily know about or care about but if there's some way I think for an ERC to come in and just as a matter of course there needs to be a a peer review or volunteering to um to help deal with that ERC um on through the process um well something like Panda Pips um tags I think would be pretty useful for that

because then peer reviewers could like subscribe to the tags they're interested in and then um get a notification uh but that would require you know either defining a list of categories or letting people be free form and that's kind of a problem I'm thinking uh uh basically being able to um any five me five final eips uh whose authors all all agree uh that some that their final AIP should be a tagged can create a new tag that's my idea that number can also be tweaked if need

be so we can have it based on status as well right like on which a status we think that adding peer reviewer would add value review maybe yeah review yeah the review and last call is well like right so yeah okay yeah I think um but but like the the problem is not everybody who reviews ERC like a lot of ERC reviewers like what I collected volunteers would only review like a a sudden narrow slice right like some of them are only interested in like nfts specifically or some of them are interested in like you know the peer-to-peer layer of the networking stack and it's like all right but we don't have any great like where to have granularity on that but that's the point this could be one

on one you show up with an ERC and it's like okay find a peer reviewer right and that is the current like approach right we tell authors to find peer reviewers themselves we could help there's yeah the Rings are supposed to help the mere magicians being out there but um yeah not I don't care so much about a tag system just a policy that says people need help on this um it's part of the process I don't I don't know how to make it a stronger part of the process but it

yeah it needs to me this is a pretty standard thing for uh for professional journals to engage peer reviewers um and the same the same people don't have to review you know article after article after article they get chosen to review particular articles that they have expertise in yeah yeah that's what I'm saying like we have a list of people that we can assign that way I think I've shared the week around a few times but um yeah they don't reply that's that's the problem I've been having yeah well if an ERC author can't find even One reviewer than that it would seem to

indicate there's not a lot of community interest s yeah I was feeling the same with uh with Greg um I certainly hop on a new drop proposal and have you read the other EIC ERC for eips and then and like why they're different like do you intended to collaborate or compete with both are okay and then if so identify who you think might be the best peer reviewers to nominate them and see if you can get them to kind of give

you comments um so I that's what I have been doing and I wonder if that is the good thing to put moving forward I also want to bring up the uh the one after that I I met on James Smith from ethereum foundation on on each damper and he mentioned he had a effort trying to help EIP preserve archive history of discussions and so I have tagged Panda Pips new websites and so maybe we can invite him to kind of come

back and kind of give us a share of what the what he has in mind and see how we I generally feel that having preservation of discussion and of History more accessible also helps identifying peer reviewers and generating interests like on the ground irrelevant to that topic I think is a good thing to facilitate a discussion so generally speaking I think

the idea of getting it reviewed is is obviously needed people are looking for that but people who can be reached out should be from the group of authors who have already submitted it so the list I think is going to be helpful but instead of us pinging it would be making more sense if they are getting notified by some process maybe by the tag or something and they can subscribe to certain things and that would be way more effective um I don't know Victor if you would like to maybe because I know you have contacted a lot of EIP authors uh maybe discuss this

further and maybe next meeting we can come up with something that can be shared with vital Community like how do we want to take it further until we reached there I think we should be continuing with Sam's list and try to add more people more authors who can act as reviewers for proposals coming up to ethereum Repository Sam what's your take on publishing that list do you think it's worthy or do you think it's a good idea to publish that

list or not a good idea if I could come in and say that I think that probably it would the list would be a bit better if the GitHub user names were pinged every time that all of the reviews is uh reviews is uh GitHub uh usernames were pinged every time there was a relevant uh PR I bet that would get more uh more feedback so I'd like to avoid that because I don't want them reviewing on the PRS um why not well we want the technical discussion on the discussions 2 thread and oh yeah

editing discussion on the pr and since these are all technical reviews it makes sense to oh like what what I would love is every time a PR is put up for a an EIP to have a message posted in the discussion thread being like there's been a PR for this I think that'd be great but uh well I think that probably a lot of these people check GitHub more often than yeah so what if what if hear me help I stick the discussions to link uh in the actual uh EIP review bot comment so you'd say something like

[Music] um requesting the you know yeah yeah and then go review it on this link that'd be okay yeah but then we still need tags of some sort so we don't ping everybody who's like the entire ERC peer reviewer list in in the meantime I think I can do kind of a work around by parsing the gecko tags The Jackal Preamble and saying like oh it's an NFP proposal if it requires 721 or 1100 no like some heuristics yeah yeah okay let's talk about that a little bit more before you get like two in the Weeds on it but I think that's a

reasonable idea I think it would make sense uh Panda if you can maybe create an issue on that um issue in the repository so people can also add their thoughts this is a good idea we would like to have uh notifications sent out for people who are really interested into it not to all so while you are working on it and maybe kind of developing the idea more concrete uh if you create issue that would be also a kind of community notification very well thank you so yeah I think that is all for today's discussion I know we have meeting for UF in the next five minutes so any other final comment question anyone has we can take it today

very well thank you so much for joining I hope to see you all in two weeks at 1400 UTC have a good day everyone say thank you for organizing