EIPIP Meeting 79

Transcript

[Music] foreign 79 I have just shared agenda in chat so we have few open pull requests one or two issues to be discussed and there are a few suggestions left and comment so I have tried to add them all here for discussion today thank you everyone for joining so uh the first pull request that is here is update eip1 strengthening wording of status update it is a PR 6894

looks like it is already approved by editors okay okay I think there are some more comments left saying I think you are the last person to add some comments on that would you like to maybe talk about the changes that you are recommending here or is it just fine yeah so uh I mean those are minor comments but just changing the wording uh and one of the things I'm suggesting is that uh so we use word free based instead of

updated whenever to basically reflect the status of any IP uh to the different to the different PRS that are still pending so that the commit uh the on PR history the commits look still look good all right makes sense the author to need it or otherwise I hope it will be merged before the next call moving on uh the next one is uh number is 6840 it's about stale last call deadline so a user has

shared a list of proposals which um have passed their deadline and the question is what should we do about it I see a comment from Sam Wilson suggesting that it should be there um and anyone can maybe create a new pull request to move it to the final status but there is another proposal here uh perhaps a bot should move them back into review after six months I am wondering what other editors think about moving or changing their status back to review if not addressed for six months in last call seems fine to me

okay so um I'm taking that the bot can move it back to review but the question is like bot already moves it to Steel right I'm not sure how it acts on last call oops [Music] my understanding is I may be wrong but as per my understanding or the present bought treat all of the EIP proposal or any of the pull request uh in in okay in the repository in the pull request form move it to stagnant and

sometimes the status is changed or stagnant so if someone wants to bring it back it has to bring it back from stagnant to whatever the last call it to whatever the last status it was so here the suggestion would be instead of moving it to stagnant status uh it will be moved back to the review status are we okay with it or we still want to move it to a stagnant irrespective of the present status of the EIP maybe after another three four months we can move it to segment if it's nothing happens in review all right um

that sounds good to me maybe we can look forward for a pull request for a specific change that is suggesting that is being suggested here and we can take it from there um we are just joined by Sam as well so um if I can quickly catch his thought as as well before writing summary for this meeting Sam we were discussing EA issue number 6840 where Panda beef has suggested to move proposals from last call to review after six

months passed the deadline um I don't really have a problem with it at a rather neutral about it yeah that seems like a general understanding here so as a summary I'm gonna mention that we can hope for a pull request to have this change updated my bot very well moving on to the next one is dependency part I think Matt mentioned this as a comment I'm assuming that he may want to look for some change mat if you would like to give us an overview and what changes are expected here I just want a quieter bot like this

thing is creating so many PRS and it's just not really that important to be updating all these dependencies every time the author decides to push something to master so I don't know what our bot situation was before I don't know what the landscape of the Bots look like but I think that this mend renovate bot is too much I don't see panda on the call Wonder anyone else has any information about the spot we can probably open a PR to make it do it less frequently I don't think that would be an issue or even if it batched the changes once a

month or once every two weeks that would be fine as well it's just every time the author decides they want to push to master we get another PR okay so looks like sorry I was muted okay it looks like um the recommendation here is to update the depend bar to kind of do the batch or only for status change not for any other PR is that the correct understanding Matt oh this this is for the like dependencies not for Eeps so it's like

it'll it'll make a PR to update it when somebody changes Jekyll for example I'll make a an issue to get Panda to configure it so that it does it once a week it looks like we can do that thanks thank you moving on to the next one is uh hello Bab as external resources I don't see Twitter on the call this was proposed by him so probably we can take it later today I hope he joins

I have added a few pull requests here those are two update proposals of Shanghai Shanghai upgrade proposal uh to move to the final status I'm assuming at present they are waiting for authors to approve but considering these proposals are already deployed and they are final I wonder if editors can force merge them or we have to wait for authors to approve it all right I'll ping artists on Discord

and we'll wait for them for another week or so if not then we can reach out to editors see if we can force merge them next one is a pull request number 6556 so I believe this pull request is for eip5507 that was merged yesterday during the EIP editing office hour however I do not see the status change on the eips.ethereum.org I wonder if that is a bug yesterday there were two proposals which were merged but I see this issue with only one uh what was the um issue again or the

the beep keep number is 5507 that was moved to last call but that is not showing as is on eips.etm.org it still shows and review status thank you I'll look into it yeah thank you um that's all on discussion for like new topics moving on to number two that is discussion continued from earlier meetings um Greg requested for yellow paper discussion

um Greg you mentioned in the chat with some issue related to microphone is is it okay I mean are you able to hear us now um uh Victor's not on the call so I think it won't be as useful to discuss it without it he's uh he's been reaching out to um to uh people who've been contributing and just trying to see who's who's still interested in it and I I'll probably bring it up at the next uh ACD meeting um just find out if there's any interest in it and try and push itself myself

because I just think it would be a huge loss to the community yeah all right we can obviously bring it back in the next meeting uh when Victor is around um having said that that's gonna make our meeting the shortest one for today um moving on to the item number three yeah I I don't mind discussing it now I just think it'll be more useful than the Victor's here totally up to you if you would like to share anything about it it's fine let's wait for a vector

I agree with Greg I think Victor should be here not a problem so we will bring it back in the next meeting if he does not join before we end up the car so the next item is eapw bot issues I suppose there were some testing pending um Jose on the call if you would like to provide any updates on that hello yeah well sun is here either so I think that we are already done with the testing I believe that we are almost there ah some maybe you can contribute or correct me thank you

this is for the location number five precisely uh yeah I mean we're this is your your PR um you know where we are on it um okay Victor's here yeah thank you Victor for joining uh we were very sorry yeah waiting for you for two items that you have added here for discussion today one is um allow B IPS as external sources and yellow paper

um I think we are done with major sections only eaps and site is left there on a agenda so if you would like to maybe talk about the uh the bib as external resources that was on the first item yeah uh so I'd like to propose the bips external source as allowed external Source uh I believe that when we talk about uh the link uh permission file when as Sam was drafting five seven five seven it was a specific uh turn saying that external source that needs to be stable for uh 10 years I think that term would propose we were using

VIP as one of the example for external so I was under impression that VIP was allowed uh it turns out that the last eib editing office hour author some author was proposing to refer to VIP I believe is PIP 39 um and it was not allowed I think it's reasonable that a lot of um things in EIP was referring to some VIP as early as eip1 we have referring to vip1 and also uh there is a hierarchical deterministic wallet

um that was referring to vip32 so generally I think there's it's not harmful um to refer to VIP stable enough and then it's a legitimate source so I like to propose it to be allowed as an external source I have no objections I think it's it's reasonable it's in a git repository right it is yeah so go for it make a PR for it I think and unless somebody else objects I don't object awesome that was pretty quick so um I think kavi should be just expecting

a pull request to make that change in eib-1 the next item we were waiting was the discussion of yellow paper discussion continued from earlier meeting yeah if you would like to share like new updates on that yeah I know you were reaching out Victor um Victor you may be muted if you're talking

oh oh so um so thanks to uh Tim Baco and Greg uh who point out the last known uh maintainers of yellow paper um and uh the people uh Andrew responded snake saber has not responded Andrew says that he took his best knowledge doesn't know anyone else other than him has um continued to maintain yellow paper after him uh he himself loved to help but he is having personal life commitments so that he he will be have if someone is interested in uh continue to maintain it uh he's into he will be

happy to help review help give the those people up to speed um and then I'm still waiting for Nick saber to respond but my understanding is that's one um EIP yellow paper is not being actively maintained uh which is like obvious and the second is that that people who uh from Team Baker and from uh other uh a few of other a handful of other uh um are called developers they're interested in help out reviewing um so this is the updates um and now there's the subjective part of my personal feeling

um I think I'm with Greg that's um having a mathematical way of representation um out there as like yellow paper helps bridge the gap between um between the ethereum and specific execution spec which is the developer side as with the researchers within the ethereum ecosystem and also in the Eco in Academia so there's high value there um and uh I do understand there's a uh uh a controversy for allowing linking to yellow paper at this current state um but uh I think it would be beneficial

I'm proposing to allow it to be linked today but I I think it would be good for us to look into how can we uh facilitating uh re resuming of editing for yellow paper uh my that's my subjective feeling and my proposed next step is to connect with the uh all core devs and the um any um and the consensus uh sync meeting to to see throughout the interest for people who are currently developing in this space for the core development whether they are they're interested uh

any volunteers uh who love to come over and either review or directly add it to the L paper and then we can start Reviving it we might need to get some help from the ethereum foundation to set up our git repository permissions to start that conversation um I wonder in that case uh with who is the best person to talk to should it be oja or who do we know is the best to kind of set up get repository permissions to yellow paper who do you want to give permissions to I mean just talk to me I guess I can figure it out

oh yeah um I think I can yeah then we can um continue the conversation basically uh we want people uh want to have a few people who are um interested in helping out start to propose permissions uh propose uh pull request and then people who are committed to review them uh have the permission to uh to review them ideally a bot can help uh in that case so we can make it easy even more easier to add and remove people who uh have the review

permission or if if a bot is not available yet um you can we can um set them to be to just use GitHub roles of in the first place so yeah should should it be you uh Sam yeah we can we can talk offline I can I can connect you with the right people yeah okay um yeah that's that's my uh my up the the updates and then also my I share my subjective uh feeling um I need feedback comments uh but I think clearly the

if we had the yellow paper going whoever's whoever's taking responsibility for that leads to coordinate with the executable uh reference the reference implementation and the eips um I would see the yellow paper as being at the very end of that process I don't think that's a problem and I don't think referring to it now is a problem there has to be some care taken most of it doesn't change in any given upgrade you know most of it remains valid and referring to it is is the only way to express

to actually Express certain Concepts is normative yeah fighting in Python code down down executable yeah it's really a difficult way to express the state in state transition state to it now rather than weighed out and uncertain process I'll be in support for that I know I do

know that uh salmon Matas have uh strong concern uh about linking to it um which is we we try to discuss last time and uh we um believe that we're not uh bringing him back uh this topic back up until uh certain time passed or as things too significantly change because even though Greg you and I uh really believe that yellow paper should be linkable um I I don't think we have uh make a strong enough case to convince them yet um

so I've got a couple proposals which are in withdrawn status um but heavily depend on the yellow paper they're incomprehensible without it um even though they're withdrawn I want to do a little bit more work on them so that they're left in a correct and consistent State um simply as as to published documentation of those Concepts and is the bot going to let me um let me work on those or is it going to refuse to let me merge them back are they withdrawn or stagnant

they're currently withdrawn yes so then they're all the same place as final so you won't be able to edit them regardless of whether there's yellow paper or not um but to be clear on this particular point I think we should actually allow links to the yellow paper I don't know if I've said that in a while um I think the yellow paper meets the criteria set out in 57-57 oh so I basically I should have left and stagnant yeah yeah withdrawn rather the same immune immutability like guarantees is final as far as oh yeah because I wanted them withdrawn to make clear that they were not being

proposed um give a video if it's there um but I wanted to uh to leave I wanted to put the correct validation algorithm yet um so that as uh as a record of the vital uh model Concepts it would it would be correct okay um I mean I'd still open the pr and then we can talk about it I'd like right right it'll be some time before I have time but essentially at the very end I translated the validation algorithm going broke it

um same did I understand you correctly that in one particular case you are allowing yellow paper to be linked uh what is that particular in one particular case like I think the yellow paper is a valid origin of like to link to according to the rules in 1557 so it should be allowed okay I'm going to make a proposal to add a bip and then waiting for uh see if Matt is has changed the uh the position or uh to allow the yellow paper already open

okay so then math is Mappy only one who's currently opposing it or do we know other people's stance maybe we can uh like you know add comments on the pull request which is

already existing there right so we can collect signal on that if all editors have prove it or like most of the editors have prove it should go in right uh it will but I think we want to reach like consensus before we make any any changes like that okay it sounds like um um we have some way forward with respect to yellow paper as well as with respect to

VIP uh external link I mean VIP being added as a link in in eips any other thing that you would like to mention or discuss today vector that's that's all the the all the topic I I brought up I think I don't I don't have other topics like I believe very well um anyone else would like to say anything before we move on to the next item okay cool

um I'm gonna add summary after this call in the agenda itself and I'm taking that Victor maybe looking into creating new pull requests to add or update eip1 for external source next one is um EAB is Insight monthly APS status reporting uh so far we have uh seven Final eibs in this month there are seven proposals in last call including um uh those four on the course side which we are hoping to get merged soon and uh three other proposals which are in last call are gonna meet a deadline soon

enough proposals are ERC 6220 which is 18th of April it was yesterday so author can create new pull requests to move it to the final status if there are no significant feedback from Community or from editor on either on fam or on the GitHub pull request itself the next is ERC 6-0 the next is erc6105 no intermediary nft trading protocol the deadline was April 4th so author can anytime change it to the funnel status another ERC is 6381 deadline is May 2nd anyone having thoughts on this proposal

getting into final this is public non-fungible token emote repository please share your thoughts feedback as soon as possible before the deadline period is over so author can take a look and the last on the list is erc5507 refundable token though this proposal is not showing the last con deadline on eaps.ethium.org as of now uh but the deadline is May 2nd so if you are interested in this proposal and you have feedback common starts to be shared with authors this is the time before it moves into final because we are discouraging people to make any changes after the proposal gets into funnel so please take

a look and you can find this on how can we add it here in the link as well as the website added here next one is EAP editing office server I have added the recording for last meeting that happened yesterday meeting for uh meeting 15. um and uh agenda for meeting 16 is all already up if you have any pull requests in the GitHub or repository and you are not sure why it is not being merged please reach out to us on or please add a comment to the agenda and we'll discuss it you are also welcome to discuss the same before the meeting on

cat heard his Discord yeah please share your questions comments so that can be addressed as soon as possible but if in any case it is not addressed for uh till the meeting is there please join the meeting and editor Samuelson will help you out with the problem hopefully that will be resolved and your proposal will be merged um that's all from the agenda I'm quickly taking a look at this summary from the last meeting looks like we have already addressed all the issues from the last meeting

yeah we do have some time if anyone has anything to bring up discuss cool um thank you everyone for joining us today hope to see you in two weeks the meeting will be at 1400 UTC have a great one everyone thank you bye thank you thank you foreign