EIPIP Meeting 77

Transcript

welcome to eipip meeting 77 I have shared agenda and chat the first item listed here is new contract interface and EIP should be required to include a privacy consideration section I believe we discussed this in the past I should have mentioned it in the section 2 but recently it was requested by Twitter to maybe have more discussion on that Victor if you would like to maybe quickly recap and why do we want to have it here for discussion today yeah um so I think last time I was not there uh and uh the question here is that if we have something other than privacy

consideration where do they go it seems like current status current layout is quite rigid I'm proposing that we have several options either have a privacy section independent ones or have a other other considerations by itself as an excellent section as a fallback catch-all um so that's generally the idea all right um I don't see Sam on the call but if I remember correctly um I guess he wasn't in favor of having a privacy consideration as a part of EIP I wonder what are other thoughts

that the present editors today yeah I'd also rather not have the section I thought we'd discussed this a couple calls ago so I don't know why we're like rehashing old things my my proposal is to have a other considerations as a catch-all I think the sections are adequate right now you mean others consideration is added now no I'm saying the sections that we have currently are adequate at the moment so we know that uh it's on

um it's it's not not all EIP need a consideration for uh privacy but if someone needs a privacy consideration in some of the case what's the best uh section to go in the security considerations that is what I tell uh not the right thing to do because a lot of non-technical and people consider security the same as complete security and privacy and we as a standard body especially in the crypto space I I feel that is not a good uh example to set up that we would probably ask people to put privacy into security

section I mean ultimately this is a blockchain and there's not much privacy at all so I think that anytime there is uh you know extraordinary scenario of breaches of privacy this would fit perfectly in the security consideration section what do you think if uh we increasingly see uh incoming protocols or bystanders addressing uh ZK uh privacy preserving scenarios in that case do you still consider that as security space I mean we'll see if that happens but I don't think that most Proto most ZK

protocols need to make eips about their ZK protocol and describe what the Privacy is are of their protocol so my question is what is preventing us from having a other consideration as a fallback what is the argument against that like are we predicting that that our section will never be needed and in a first one that needs to miss it and will never appear I mean for first like I don't want to have a section that's just extremely generic that people can use to mean privacy that people can mean to use to some other type of consideration like so I don't think that having just a catch-all is a good idea and second so I don't think

that we should be changing the EIP format right now it's like something that again and again editors wants to change this process but it's not being requested really by users of the process whenever we start seeing tons of eaps putting privacy considerations in the security section and they're telling us this doesn't make that much sense then we should consider changing it but like I don't think that this is a good idea to just keep proactively changing this process so this was from authors this was a request from the author stands for one and second what are other possible considerations that you will worry people this person is involved in

the EIP process this person is involved in the ietf process yeah he might also be an author but it's you know something that somebody who's already involved in processes is trying to change um Once Upon a Time and not that long ago people keep telling me things have changed and I'm going really has not been that long authors were allowed to put an appendix uh more perhapsibly more than one appendix on our proposal so there was a place to put things that were important to discuss but did not exactly fit one of our predefined procrustean

uh backup people know what a procrustian bad is it I don't know remember when we had an appendix so I'm guessing it's been at least two or three years gee and that's like a century right uh it's a pretty common thing in documents to just let there be an appendix it's you know other considerations call it what you want but it's an appendix and then the author can lay out important material that doesn't fit our procrasti in bed that's it was a Greek myth about somebody who ran a roadside something and I forget all the

details but it was sort of this bed of nails I think uh that he you had to lay in the bed and if you didn't fit you would be scrunched or scratched until you did fit um so some somewhere in the format it's good to have it come all out rather than get a bad EIP where someone scrunched something into a section it didn't really belong in um and then later say oh well we've got this stuff put in security systems it really isn't a security issue um and now we have these fatty IPS um where is it we have oh some of our eips

are showing up with appendices about privacy um and maybe we do need a privacy section I didn't think we really did until I saw it a long list of VIPs in particular considerations I hadn't thought of um so clearly there are reips for which there are privacy considerations and for for some of them they actually are security as well so yes for the zek for the ZK stuff it's a lot of it's all about maintaining privacy and if they fail to maintain privacy in a ways that they're supposed to it's a security problem

but it's not exactly the kind of security problem that we're usually dealing with so it is confusing I I wouldn't bind a non-normative privacy section I'm not quite sure where to go with that and so I'm really happy to just um say that yes there can be an appendix but in general when we put this process together just a few years ago over and over and I can't find the logs because we did it on Skype and it evaporated but over and over it was these are strong suggestions um as the IPS come in

yeah we can loosen up the format for any given the IP to fit that EIP better um and that eliminates a whole bunch of arguments about changing the format um in anticipation of stuff that hasn't happened yet but um anyway I'm rambling yeah um thank you um Greg and then um I I agree which correct in that I've seen at uh VIP consideration comes up in some of the cases I'm I felt resonate with a lot of other editors that's uh it's not generally needed so I okay for

it to be it foreign optional ones I also paste in a Google search as well as um in our Discord channel for you to see that Eid erc's and EIP that has mentioned privacy in their uh text uh examples includes uh restricted ethereum provider API and just injection for EIP for privacy consideration um app keys and application specific quality contracts including author by Dan Finley and also steals addresses that is recently a topic as well so this scenario has increasingly seen that uh

some of our Eis EIP especially ERC side has touched uh has changed some of the perspective about potential use case for privacy uh professional considerations about quite privacy and once that back for me is that we as editors provide an uh format in order to make it more consistent and useful for the authors to use but we are not there to uh to dictate what information is is should be included and what information should not be included by the Format itself the format serves the purpose and so that's

why I'm arguing that a one um one consideration could be useful to give authors more leeway because I still experience um carry a lot of memory when when I'm authoring a lot and and the rigid format has make it very hard for us to provide the full uh information about this something like adoptions existence adoptions are also considered uh can be put in that other considerations okay

um I think I mean like what I'm getting from the whole conversation is obviously there is a strong recommendation of having a section for other consideration at this point of time however people think that it would be a good idea to have a particular example in mind like if we are struggling with any proposal if we have a proposal uh to be like struggling with um adding the information I think that way it would be better for editors to weigh if we really need this thing and making the policy change in advance that can be abused if not properly explained to people can be a threat so uh what do you think Victor in in this case like uh as we kind of are discussing that there could be a

proposal let's wait for a proposal to be like that and have it discussed um maybe on issue section and then probably in the future meeting the I shared uh in the um in a Discord there are more than 10 existing ones date back to erc1385 mentioning about privacy and privacy is a strong it's important consideration I don't know what our other new the ircs or are we just ignoring that uh this has been unless a need from a um from EIP all together back but for such a long time so so my biggest argument

against this still is can can someone give me an example of a privacy concern that isn't also a security concern so privacy is usually uh depending on security so when asking that question it is very hard uh to kind of get you out of context answering okay but uh it's important that we don't conflate them that's why I think me and then a bunch of other authors uh could uh thinking my argument is and I wouldn't be all privacy concerns are a subset of security concerns and should be a subsection of the security consideration section uh all right it's not that simple it that

is some cases on a blockchain the fact that everything is visible is the whole point um it's not the check is in the mail it's the transaction is on the blockchain and there's no arguing about it everybody involved can look um and this is a feature other times it's a problem and people are inventing technology to do a better job of that and people are inventing whole blockchains and other technology that is much more and sometimes almost completely private so it just seems for some eips it actually is a security concern and needs

to be handled there and I think that would then show up in the motivation that that these privacy concerns are part of the point and if they fail it's a security issue then then there's this Middle Ground where where things have privacy implications that nobody thought about but they really are important and so an optional privacy section does uh yes motivate people to look at that in those cases where it matters in other cases it doesn't even the security section sometimes yep I just sort of

scratch my head and go um there are no implications here except the usual ones of you know there better not be bugs here um so I kind of go I kind of go on circles on this I see the points but I just keep coming back to the appendix further discussion not just an optional privacy but just some sort of optional section that people can use for these sorts of things that come up that sometimes are important only one EIP where people can put discussions of things that are important that don't fit our very rigid format and really the

entire item yeah the ietf going all the way back and the ITF was very much a model for what we were doing their formats are nothing like as rigid as what we're trying to do um there's just a lot more freedom given to the author to present their material in the way that the author and the working group uh believe is best so if we're going to have such a rigid format we need a little bit about if we if if we feel the dependencies should be forbidden um then something you know just uh optional optional fruit or discussion

section something like that privacy is just one one such aspect that comes up um I would love to have a less yeah you know rigid um set of sections I think that the way the ietf does it is a you know ideal in a lot of ways the reality is that we have a lot of people who are able to and wants to permissionlessly create eips and so that ends up creating a lot of noise for people to you know search through and try and edit and if we were having the type of quality and the type of contributors of the ietf is having I think that it would

be okay but we we don't and so can can we have an example of what could go uh horribly wrong when we Face uh sawbacks given currently we're very rigid in blocking links what are other concerns that could be abused uh in this uh in in this section people can still put things in specification right like they can put some random things there what could not just to be worse it's also about frustration and fatigue of process change like at this point I don't know there isn't really anybody who still enjoys

being a part of this process because of how much it changes under their feeds and just adding more and more things like this is not for the vast majority of people who need to create eaps it's not something that they're happy I think people um so speaking of myself uh as an author what I and other authors that I see frustrated is adding restrictions uh and I haven't heard any authors complaining about having flexibility more flexibility was as what they complained um maybe I don't have the historical context and maybe editors will be very drained for new flexibilities but I

would love to hear what could uh be very bad in this case from a editor's perspective I mean we've already gone over it it's confusing it should be part of the security considerations it's not something that's super important for most eiffs and erases so it just doesn't need to be a section we don't need to change this aspect of it and I feel like we just keep debating in there's no progress but it seems like Sam and I have both said that this probably doesn't need to be a section we talked about it on another call and that was the outcome we didn't feel like it should be a section and I don't understand why we just every eapap call go over rehash old arguments

I think uh Greg and I are here today providing more of the author's side of the um of the of the feedback uh and then our general concept idea is to have flexibility and you mentioned that you want to have more flexibility um and you haven't I haven't heard by the way the arguments about um what this flexibility more flexible section could help uh could could bring wrong with it the only argument I currently heard is that we don't want change um and it's uh I think Greg also answered already about the argument that privacy is not always security sometimes privacy

um the the features it's just a it's a feature so sometimes it's a problem then just by secure design but it could have a privacy um implications these are examples that why we feel that security section considering section is not enough and I haven't heard about a counter argument about having other consideration works here uh further discussions other than we are tired of have seen changes and which I think um I've already gone into the other arguments like it doesn't make sense as a separate section from Sam and Ice point of view it's something that should live under the security consideration section and I guess in that case is that uh most

VIPs don't need this section well what about having other sexual other considerations because just like diversity not all of the eips need this particular consideration I don't think that other considerations make sense because I don't think it makes sense to have just a catch-all section to put whatever authors want to put in yeah I think I strongly I strongly think authors need a little bit of an out if you're going to have a really rigid format um yeah it's instead people stuff stuff into motivation and rationale that doesn't really belong there but you got to put it somewhere

or else you wind up uh macaw is gone unfortunately but we went through this with a long-running EIP where you know the rules kept getting Tighter and so my IEP kept not yeah I had to keep rewriting the editing to beat the new rules which yeah I mean that's extremely frustrating like having to update your EAP as the rules change but and I look I mostly agree that we should have an out I don't think we know how to do it properly and I don't think that having a generic out other considerations is the right approach if we were to do an out I would rather it be some sort of ad hoc situation where someone says I need to have a top level section that says this

and we approve that as something that is added to the EIP right now it doesn't feel like we have the manpower to like actually make that happen the way that we have this continuous integration setup it's not easy and we have a lot of junk just coming in from authors where they don't really care about the readability of their AIP and so they'll just do whatever they feel like doing so I just think that like the rigid system we have is kind of the best the worst best thing that we've come up with right now uh wait a minute for centuries in the publishing world you have appendices that that's where you put stuff that doesn't you know it doesn't fully fit

the flow of the document it's not the usual format it's definitely don't think they're privacy considerations should be something in an appendix like if it's important then it should be the main body but the point is that should be it's a place it's a place you put things that don't fit the current format um right now we use labor time pardon I I feel like we use we use Link we try to link to things that don't fit the format like generally my experience appendices have things like something that fits outside of like The Narrative of that document so it might be oh you refer to some hash function here in the appendix you can read exactly how that hash function is implemented or

something of that sort and for that or just use hyperlinks but our link you can't link to almost anything where are you supposed to put what you linked to plus you have a process for adding links that's a of a lot of work I think it is I'm not saying that this is process is great but this is the process that we're kind of ended up at and we can't just change it every three months no it's easy to lose tightening it up is a pain loose you know relaxing or restriction that got put on um right is is easy optional manage all of the Bots an

optional further discussion section just any sort of optional thing at the end where the author can put stuff that I strongly disagree with having a catch-all section whatever its name is I think if they're going to have additional sections that aren't part of the like ordained set then they should be named and they should be specific to what the author is trying to convey and then I think you're proposing that this section will be one-off exception uh what ad hoc approved if I do I understand it correctly I'm saying I don't think that right now we have the ability to actually pull it off okay I think we can I partly reacting to

my experience of of the death of 2315. which was probably the right decision given that it motivated eof um but was personally very painful and part of the pain was that appeared that a lot of people on that call some of them had never read the EIP and a lot of them apparently had read nothing but the EIP despite the links to other things to do so to the extent that you can't get everything important in the EIP you're really making it difficult um [Music] you know we've got a hard link policy um and then a hard format and then it's

like we'll put it somewhere else but where do I put it that I can link to it and will people bother following the link um if you have an appendix you give it a name you just say you can add some name sections at the end um I just I'm not I'm not I'm not seeing that the huge objection here yeah it yeah dot I'm not seeing it creates a whole lot of X of extra work I think it's easier to have a section at the end than to have people squeeze these things into sections they don't belong in and then you're going well this isn't really motivation this isn't really rationale

and then it's like well okay but where do I put it I think the uh the opposite is probably the bigger problem where you end up with motivation and rationale in this third section and we have to tell people to move it into where it's supposed to be but I mean it I guess I'm not as opposed to a generic section as I am to a privacy consideration section but I I don't want to give authors more freedom because like it's already hard enough keeping them consistent like as it is we're driving authors away because it's too much trouble so I people wind up putting out pack MDS and then it's like

will somebody please tell me where the latest hack MD is for this proposal you know and it's like I mean the people who have to make eips are going to continue making eip's and the people who don't have to make eaps it's a little bit harder for them to convert what they're trying to explain into the format that's probably a win at that stage I think I think that's uh that's uh I that that's not the case we have seen um Nick Johnson move to eip-e-n-s-i-p we have seen uh fallbian uh moving to use um locksco uh IPS without updating 71725 we've seen started this chain a

long time ago like he's not involved with ethereum really to change its protocol we have seen Dan Findlay and uh and Rick Mall complaining about EIP process uh that make it very hard to drop the IPS and giving people more freedom gives us more authors basically it's very hard there's always a spectrum of authors who are here to contribute to eips who are not here to contribute to you who have to do EIP here anyway but uh as a standard body I feel that um we're here to serve the authors and and not there to kind of think that how how to make it

only easier for the formats and that's why it's um I'm proposing to give this more flexibility and I do understand that you personally don't want to give um to add this um that are the considerations and and Sam doesn't and then um Greg and I are in favor um I think we can we might not have consensus today but we can see how the consensus can can move forward and obviously EIP is not only um done by authors I strongly believe that the stake the major stakeholders are actually authors and adopters so um how about we summarize what our each believe individual beliefs are and then put it out there for authors and other

stakeholders to come in I don't think we should be dictators or dictator groups and in this space and if no one starts authoring AIP or adopting eips then basically rendering EIP programs worthless so how how do you like that we just put down what we believed so far and see in the don't active with other people's inputs can we kind of converge into consensus and it's okay to to to take a longer discussion maybe three months a year from now to see how this evolved into sorry to interrupt here I think we are completely moving into a different direction we need to come back on the track so we can probably take a look on

to the other issues or the topics that we have we are here to discuss uh but just for this particular topic it is obviously clear that we do not have a consensus we do have four or four editors on call and half of them are in favor and half of them are strongly not in favor but uh the proposal I mean we do have option of appendices here people are thinking of what can be in section that can probably provide authors uh this option to write this but I believe when we are talking about standard the flexibility should also have a limit to it and we cannot say that we are like uh distracting authors because the number of proposals every month we get is a way

more than it was earlier and the numbers of proposals that dies in stagnant status is like a really huge number so we really do not have to have a lot of proposals just getting in for the purposes of editors to keep on reviewing with a lot of sections added and if needed on case to case basis this can be like you know addressed I would highly recommend uh discussing this issue further in the issue itself because we do not have a clear consensus on this call and uh yeah any any final comment anybody would like to like suggest or say just to wrap up on this topic so we can move ahead with the rest of the other discussion issue

I better not start I'll go on for 10 more minutes okay in that case let's move on to the next one I think that is the best option to move on here um I think uh the next topic that we have is about customizable editors um it's proposed by Panda Peep and it's a proposal for enhancement um it says that in EIP review bot currently there are predefined editors group depending on the type and category and he is trying to propose a stop cap solution um before implementing tags that we have a slightly more customizable editor list

for peer reviewers wonder what people think about it understand what the what the goal is yeah same I don't know what like if you don't have tags how do you narrow down the list more so that's why I posted my comment um I think um the next number I mean like the next not exactly the next one there is another proposal that is coming up for um ABC um um so uh the number is six five seven five if we can probably take a look there I think both are kind of

interrelated and it's also suggesting of an intermediary EIP um role here not exactly what bot would be doing but kind of a role that can be useful if they are not completely editor I'm sorry if I have mixed two things please correct me over here two develop Gap is is this um am I muted or not um is this really needed I thought GitHub

already made it possible for any given EIP to uh you know Market that that you know any particular person's approval was needed to to move it forward in the system so unfortunately only people with the right access to the repository can be requested as reviewers um so that's what so the EP review bot kind of handles that for us um yeah it's dumb you can't like like you can't request Greg as a reviewer because you're I don't think you have right access to the repository no that's just that's a sore point but that's a

different one yeah yeah that'd be great if we could do that but we we kind of work around it but this is my right access was taken away accidentally then it was never given back you know which actually sort of demotivated Me demotivated me from I completely understand that yeah but I can't get when something's broken then I have to wait a day or two for some other Editor to will you please Force this in anyway um I'm still not sure it it still takes one of us with right permission to finally

get things like from one cat yeah from one stage to the next so I don't does this need to be so formalized um maybe we can wait we can wait for uh the proposal to provide provide them more context of The Proposal I see comment from couple of editors saying like what this exactly would look like and what is the proposal sorry um Greg if I interrupted please go ahead no problem all right so it sounds like there's there's just technical issues with how the GitHub process works and

um I'll leave it at that yeah probably uh panda is uh looking into a lot of changes around bots so yeah it's related to GitHub processes my understanding as well so the important thing is just making it possible to to get reviewers for particular proposals in so we don't have to be trying to bring in bringing in more editors in general when for any given ERC there might be very few people who are actually interested and for any given person who might want to edit there might be very few erc's that they're actually interested in right right

all right moving ahead with the next one which is upgrade to men renovate from tip and Bot um I already see some comments here from one of the editor um The Proposal here is to allow opening PRS to upgrade CI components and provide some more information on what changed anyone particularly have strong opinion about it looks like it's another enhancement proposal yeah these are just technical bot changes so I don't think most of the editors will care yeah you know I mean it's good that these

issues are mentioned here and we are also bringing it up in the meeting so people who may have concern who may have thoughts or maybe even some suggestions for a better enhancement they can come forward and probably add their thoughts here so yeah I think it's a good one that it is being created as an issue to be discussed in the meeting all right uh moving on to the next section discussion continued from the earlier meeting okay uh in the last meeting we discussed about RSS feed uh looks like uh a lot of conversation happened after that and currently uh when I checked last it was approved by Panda I wonder any editor has any strong

opinion on this one or can we go ahead and merge this PR seems fun no objections all right I think I don't know Sam Matt either of you can may be able to merge it like whenever you get a chance it's not needed to be done right now yeah if you don't have objection on that I have a question I didn't ask like well can we or what what happened to Greg's um write access can who is the right person

to talk to to get to fix that it doesn't matter anymore um not immediately but over the next over the next month or so I'll probably need to be backing out of this because uh a startup I've been working on has has gotten funding and my congratulations congratulations I was talking to Puja before we came on it's a project involving a dam in Paraguay it's the second biggest Hydro facility in the world and it makes more electricity and anybody knows what to do with and so we're uh uh probably going to use the ethereum

blockchain plus some new blockchain like technology we've added to set up a computational Marketplace to uh usefully suck up that power uh because their legislature does doesn't want the power used for Bitcoin mining um and uh it's so it's going to be really cool but you know how startups go it'll it's basically going to be every waking hour for quite a while well congratulations Greg and um just uh just to answer a Victor's question Victor I think this is the like uh the axis is attributed whenever a written

needs that that is there whoever is actively editing they have these exercises so probably it's better managed right now and as Greg mentioned that he is totally fine with it so yeah I think we can move on the next one here is uh again yeah um deep contributor he cannot join the meeting because he lives in Australia he said that unfortunately it's not possible for me to join but he requested to um take a look at comment 6575 and he is Keen to give this a trial ERC editor run

I wonder what people think about this proposal I'm generally in favor I'm fine with doing a trial period um getting them to do like maybe let's say 30 days of editing and then uh when they run into other editors just get them to note the comments and make sure they're doing good work and then if they are then we can add them as an editor I think so but uh curious to do this trial period other than notification that he or she is engaged

in this um trial editing does the individual need any kind of special permission access or anything in general nope just leave comments as if you were an editor and that's about it um what's our well I think the um app that's the name I guess um mentioned that he's only interested in signing numbers and not kind of generally editing the content is that the case or do I understand I think we talked about it at the last call that if all he wants to do is assign numbers that's not really something we would be open to accepting right now but if he wants to generally edit and it's only like 30 minutes an

hour a week then that's something that we would be interested in trialing he said about 30 minutes a day um and could do uh you know number assignment guidance on how to comply with the automation typos but not technical stuff which sounds right yeah that's what I thought yeah yeah generally you can you can start editing uh and then and you can read to your review um feedback and uh I would love to see yeah the the work and work for more with with lithium to be able to comment on this as um from the reviewing side yeah it's not I don't think we need a official kind of trial kind of thing you

can we can we should promote a idea that anyone can come in and provide a review help will provide editorial support um like um this this should not be filled that they have to ask for permission for us to do that so long as they are providing useful feedback they can always contribute that and then yeah so I don't think they actually need any uh program or approval from this group and then obviously which it's our job to kind of identify those who are doing really good and active and to invite them onto the the editor groups and to be an official and bear some Duty after like the responsibility yeah afterwards

generally I agree what you are suggesting here Victor uh like anybody can do these things but I really appreciate this individual notifying us because when someone is making a special notification of that then there are more eyes to what's there you know review comments and everything else probably uh he has in mind I don't know for sure like maybe he wanted to be an editor in future which is which would be good for us and having this notification is helpful but definitely it is open for anyone to come and provide feedback yep so all right I and I think uh um from this meeting we can obviously communicate it to the individual that uh

he should be good to go and um let's start this uh 30 days trial period from here on all right thank you the next one here is uh ethereum magician discussion of criteria of advanced EIP status a straw man proposal I think we also discussed this in the past but I guess it was requested again for today's discussion by Victor um yeah Victor we have 10 minutes if we can quickly like have a small intro for the past and what changed since then to have it discussed in the in this meeting

yeah I just want to uh share a light on this uh strawman discussion maybe people are not um like fully agreed but I just want to kick off some discussion about equipment I usually I get asked by authors is that what is needed for advancing to the to the next status of the VIPs and it's pretty subjective up until this point and uh we see people saying like oh we need to wait more time or we need to have more good quality but like what is an or or good activities on using on on on foreign that it might be helpful for us to kind of formalize what is like um and um so that's why I put down this

um proposal to kick off the discussion and just want to get it out of the temperature in the room and see if it's either um something that we couldn't explore or not in favor at all or like maybe not so soon and we should discuss it like come back six months later do you have Link in in that and you put it in so it's easier for people to click thank you yeah I just shouldn't so what is the outcome of this thread that you're hoping to

to see happen so the outcome is that uh we identify the specific need um for erc's interface Network and core like core already have a a very defined way to finalize right um but what about other things do we just let people move it to final um or can we say that you will have to have this discussion and implementations to move to final if if we want to have any quality control that is not arbitrary by subjective matter in in additives heart but also a kind of

um but uh but have a concrete um bar of quality Central that's basically the idea the outcome is generally want to avoid concrete bars of quality control like some rigid guidelines about when things should move I'd rather it be generally something that we can you know just do as we feel as best as editors but I like having guidelines so that authors can have an idea of what is necessary and what is expected like that seems useful but I wouldn't want to frame this as if you do this

then you're barely Over the Bar and you get to move to the next level um I'm in favor of having guideline too and it's fully okay that is does not become a mandatory thing but a guideline is that a good understanding uh and good consensus I think so cool then the next step is uh what type of guidelines that we uh that we think in and this one is like a storm and discussion Stroman proposal to see if you um have suggestions to advise to change so I think the my biggest problem with

this particular proposal is that we can't really verify that implementations are independent right so I don't know like the author could just make three accounts implemented three times and then there you go it's done and setting barriers like that doesn't really help very much that's true that's totally true and then I think that's why I feel that Matt's comments on that's make it a guideline not just like this is how you do and then you advance um so we there's still we can still give them uh like visually or we should still review them anyway right but uh I'm in favor of and if you don't

have implementations like it's not useful like I think uh last call or Finals should pretty much kind of guideline that you you should at least have yourself and then one other which we might not be able to verify but at least implementations like we both agree that it's possible to do civil attack by creating implementation by themselves multiple ones but when I'm if I'm not clear is that uh well I think that if no one's if no implementation or no two implementations that is that is not seeing a good use of a stand a good place for a standard to be in

yeah like I I think if we had a guideline like that I would have a much easier time telling people no you can't standardize this because you have no one interested in it and like I would like to do that more often I'm just not entirely sure that this is a strong enough like rule to to stand those decisions on um but yeah we can definitely talk about it some more just remind me to take a look hunt Discord at some point and I'll I'll write up my thoughts on it cool yeah thanks we I think the the conclusion is in favor of continue the discussion and creating a guideline content to be decided is that an understanding

I think so yeah all right uh let's move on um now I just wanted to make a quick mention of this PR six five seven five I think that needs to be merged this is already in proposal form to just get that editor added and uh we have like a three four minutes left I don't know Jose if you would like to quickly give a update about the issue that uh as mentioned here do we have any progress or we have merged it where we are at hey hi thank you now just to remind Sam whenever you have the time Mr sanjos

take a look on the on the pr that's it yeah of course um it looks like it's still failing CI um but uh yeah I can take another look right and that's great thank you and I think um that's mostly all except for this eaps insight for eips inside I have added all details in the hack MD as well as the website is showing all correct data we do have five final eips there are eight proposals in last call for in review and there are 21 stagnant proposals and nine proposals are added as draft please take a look on either on

the website or on the hack MD to follow the details proposals in last call if you have any thoughts on those proposals please go ahead and make sure that you add your comment uh in the um discussion thread so author can maybe take a look before it is moved towards a final PR so uh that's all for today's discussion and I know many people have to jump off this call for the next meeting thank you everyone for joining us today hope to see you again in two weeks at 1400 UTC have a good one everyone thanks Peter thanks