EIPIP Meeting 8

Transcript

hello everyone let's get started on a IP IP meeting number eight does anyone want to run the meeting today otherwise I'm happy to run it going once going twice and I'm running the meeting sold the Hudson it's sold Hudson okay so the agenda we have today the first item is the e IP centric model subgroup the what the next steps are for that wha who's was that from last time was that James James it was to have a group that's similar to any ap editor

has merged permissions under a stricter criteria yeah that's right I think we can move that to it another meeting yeah I was thinking it won't fit in to today's meeting most of the stuff we have going on yep we're gonna leave it as something to address later okay moving AFI to its own VIP oh hold on a sec I think xyx joined hey can you hear us Alex

yeah I can hear you guys but I must just trying to listen okay no problem all right we're on agenda item number two now moving EFI to its own a IP and reference that an EIP one if I remember correctly the idea behind this is not to have too much stuff an EIP one so we did and also to allow for quicker iteration on the EFI process and Evette are separated from what would be I guess the hard fork process versus the EIP one processes it would be that's EFI would be an it Sony IP I think this also was something James had brought up before so

if you want to take it James or anyone else my memory is we were we were undecided which direction we wanted to take and we kind of talked about both and then didn't ultimately come to a conclusion like what whether it's have more information in the IP one and have bare-bones registration in if I or having more information in the EFI EIP and have that one evolve into the iCard for coordination process that is is yet to be determined and leave and push more information into that EIP okay hands on that I may come in a

certain opinion just maybe just a historical background I think so when Nick Johnson was like really active in the IP in the IPS and I think a lot of the things the way they are right now were influenced by Nick and his opinion was I mean practically his opinion was what what we are still trying to achieve to decouple like EIP one the process of specifications versus deployment and because of that reason he suggested not to have any of those in the

p1 and that was the the result of that was having that IP whatever their the hard work meta VIPs what is the name two three three or something like that the formal process of hard work there's nothing like that and we try to exactly describe the the hard work process in that document and not in the IP one but I think it at some point later he was on the opinion that it's just bad to have them separate and should be combined into a single one yeah I'm not sure if any of this makes any sense or is useful I just wanted to give like you know some some look back why why things are the way they are I

think that's helpful I think it'd be cool if we got Nick's opinion I guess updated opinion I should message him about that I know you probably can't join the meetings because of time zones but it would be cool to get his opinion on some of the I agree with it I feel like that's a good next step for this honestly cuz it's I don't know exactly which way to put it yeah and there was a huge discussion last time so I I don't know if we'll figure it out this meeting necessarily and we have some new items that we can bring up that are kind of more at the top of everyone's mind is what I'm getting the feeling of if someone else has feedback do they want

in oh yeah great feedback on this item I just want to add like that sounds like a good next step because we have discussed this topic quite a few time in this call and we have both kind of both opinions oh yeah all right next up the EIP IP survey Edson is there anything any updates on this one yeah so I didn't get through the survey last time I just got through one item an updated I sling it out to every a IP author that had three IP and final which means the survey kind of has like a little sampling bias cuz I

didn't send it out to ones that only have it in draft but that's okay I think so I I can set it out to everyone who drafts it might take a little longer or we could start finalizing this so right now is the lesson drafts is pretty long yeah the drafts one is really long and hmm yeah the drafts one is just really long I don't think it's worth it but it's it's up to you obviously it's it's your it's your survey so the survey should be finalized within a week or two so by the

next meeting it should be final but the answers fit in pretty much the same categories as they did from the previous time when the longest released those categories are formalizing decision making and then something that called throughput we're just like the capacity to push a piece to completion and then the last one is clarity there's a lot of ones like small suggestions that all make the process a little clearer such as adding use cases through ie ip's figuring out who did who to talk to if you want to push the EIP to completion

and stuff like that and throughput is like we need more EAP editors we need more AP champions so it's onboarding and then decision making is formalize decision making trying to reduce politics stuff like that so we have a couple ways you go about them we could do like the higher order ones we should be this is making first addressing those that addressing the throughput and then addressing Hardy lost or we can get them all at once or we do the easier ones which it's the clarity ones just kind of like

simplicity to see IP one and then do onboarding or throughput and then do the higher order changes or we can just see them all at once I think we should do them in an order I don't know which order that is so if we were going about today's meeting today's meetings mostly focused on decision making which is the genetics heard today so if we were to do the smaller ones might end up changing it if we had enough change the shrinking process so I think doing our order ones will be like we said the beer pieces in place first

that makes sense all right yeah I think yeah bigger pieces in place first would be just fine with me yeah or the next few items are part of that this is your making process where it starts with separating them and once we have them separate formalizing what artwork or nation process is got it okay and so this all is on the well I guess we've come to the decision that

we're separating the hard for coordination processes from the EIP standardization processes that's am i right on that everyone most of the things or maybe part of them is available there in the talk that is shared by James it's the brainstorming document so I think we can use that as a reference and prioritize our work coming at what we would want to do and yes I think I have seen that thing somewhere too like making it the the separation of the IP

process and the heart for coordination I guess it's a agenda item number five yeah anyone else have comments or opinions I would disagree that separating them out is the general consensus okay so that's gonna be item five that we keep talking about that so okay anything else on the survey I think Adsense a good idea to do the hi I think you said high order ones first yeah one last thing on the survey there was a few

comments that people liked about the current process let me see if I'm gonna go through them real quick sure that'd be great people like that it's legitimate that it's a formal process let me open this up people like that it focuses on the technical aspects that's well-defined that the barrier to entry is low that anyone that wants to get involved can get involved and it's transparent and it has a high bar of acceptance so it allows for fair inter review so these are is this about

decision-making or am i or is this decision you just made this is just what people currently like about the process oh just the process not just not generally decision okay okay anyone else have comments on this item we should record that somewhere to say these are things we should keep as well as we're looking at the changes okay that's a good idea would that be in the notes I guess either in the notes or we could put it into the VIP one goals and things that we had thought I know

this just feels like it needs to go somewhere so we can make sure we don't lose that those pieces okay we're talking about a brainstorming document that are later in the call that me and James iterated on a little bit that we wanted to kind of share what we some of our thoughts and so we can add it to there that'd be one one place and then also on the notes would be good anyone any other comments just a verification it's and you're doing notes for today's meeting right it's not us yeah cool thanks awesome okay number four making decision making a sync from the all core

dev calls so this would be this should just be being recorded yes it is okay I didn't see the light anywhere oh you're right oh I am recording it on YouTube okay great sorry the rep no problem so making decision making a sync from the core dev calls I think this is the same thing we've talked about a couple of times in the last few items is and we're still it's still an undecided thing that we're trying to get through also hey yeah I think on that point like you know we just mentioned say trying to get

trying to get mix Johnson's opinion and and he can't come to these calls so I feel like in general we should try and move if we're moving the hard for coordination process like out of the EIP process then trying to see what are things we can do to make both those process less because it feels like it's probably easier for the EITS than the hard for coordination just so it's I guess yeah more inclusive and also it's things tend to be much clearer and right thing they're not calls like it's easier to figure out you know what was actually said this table explicitly and just a search for stuff whereas calls are quite

hard for all those things um yeah so I yeah I think like as we kind of move these processes we should really try and figure out how we can make them more async yeah okay good points other people this is feedback from this area also the one frustration was that the decision-making process was too reliant on live calls I guess it was because not everyone who once again well could get enrolled duty time okay I agree with that assessment that we need something

like pushing stuff more to the etherium Magicians forms for example or maybe a series of subtopic he I pee chat rooms or stuff like that artim lost time recommended zoo look that's right and I actually worked with them or really he took he took he took lead on this but he made a zoo lip and I joined it I haven't seen any progress on that and I've been pretty loud about my feedback that I don't think we could get people to move to zoo lip just because everybody's either on get her discord so getting a whole new tool involved would be a lot of friction not impossible that a lot of friction I think

I want to like will be more in favor of going to it magician itself like that that's a place we have been using for a for a while and I think that maybe one of the best place to do that okay yeah that that's definitely a good idea it's just like changing the IP one to say definitely go through the motions instead of go through one of three or four places yeah in EAB one it is mentioned as a recommendation that you create a post at each position and it is highly recommended to create a post at

magician and you can also share it at Reddit and Twitter and other places we might just want to work with the words there instead of recommendation like we might want to come up with word that can make it more as a process instead of giving the freedom over there maybe I mean that's my team I agree with that okay any other comments on this item okay the next one is separation of the EIP process from heart for coordination and we have ax ax c IP status model and I think James I think you just posted

yours down in the comments right or is that a different item yeah okay so in the comments of the call of the agenda is James's model and then xx models here so can we have someone kind of give an overview of what these two things are I think the stemmed from a conversation within the chat yeah I can give my perspective briefly so I think my perspective is pretty much in line with a lot of the concepts which have been brought up on this call and I guess brought up earlier but discussed on this call so my ideal flow would decouple

this hard work management or any questions related to that and my flow only is concerned okay there's one exception but it's it's mostly concerned with the standardization of the specification text which in the IP is there there aren't that many major changes to you had things are happening today there is only basically one major change is that review step so right now the the problem I'm seeing is that we have a draft and then we have a last call and Blasco

supposed to be there the final version were not many I mean only maybe tiny typo changes are expected in the last call but nothing major and there's nothing in between and I heard it from from different people and I mean even from myself I had that feeling that in many cases drafts change so frequently or in such a way that it's barely recognizable you know what the traffic like a month prior and it's really hard for people who are not like hundred percent involved with that given you know IP or that given change proposal it's really

hard for them to tell when it's the right time to comment and many people well okay a bunch of people I talk to you expressed that they would be looking for some kind of a status where a draft is at a point that external reviewers are invited so that's basically the review stage that the draft cut to a kind of a stable position the the author's expect external professionals to look at the draft or you know the proposal and give feedback and the last call is just in last version of this review state when everybody is like pretty happy I think that's the the only

real change in it I didn't clarify this question regarding with drone versus abandoned because there was like a long discussion that's why I had with bit drone slash abandoned I think so I do understand that the abandoned name as it is some people might not be happy with the name itself which may be understandable I'm not sure if it's worth having two statuses like patron and abandoned but I think that with drone SS status might be a better name and for those so with drone I think people are happy who on the own accord

want to get get any IP patron they happy with the status of a drone and for those cases where any IP is just not looked after anymore I think we could just call it you know it's with drone in absence so I think single status is enough I don't think there's any other change here I see except it's gone what an active is now after the review state and that part confuses me is that supposed to replace accepted or redefine active so active no activists activists there today and active is a special one for registry yeah IP is which we don't really have I think the e ie EFI is a

registry yeah okay I get I get what you're saying now so it's detective it's just for a subset of the I of standard track II IDs or non-standard track e IP has got it yeah and except it is remove because that is exactly this this weird status which is part of the the hard work I see so final so the definition of final and here means that it is what it is agreed upon or it is in a hard for another network no no no this this flow only considers the state stability of the given the IP text so the specification final means that no change to the specification can have them except of

maybe error that changes so typos or you know special section listening box it in the spec but there's no change possible to rules defined in that given spec so if you want to translate this into a hard work process on top then what would happen is when I guess I guess the EAP centric process is what this would facilitate so under the EIP centric process the di P's go through different stages of maturity and when they reach a stage of final and they that means that everybody involved with that VIP is happy is tested it should work nobody

expects any changes and for hard Forks only finally IP should be considered and then if during this hard working process which may be a separate review process I'm not sure but if there will be a separate review process during hard work adoptions and somebody discovers there's some major issue with the given e IP then the e IP text it should not be changed because it is final but it is possible to create a new version of it under a new number which has the changes proposed at that point does does that make any sense yeah absolutely that makes perfect sense to me

let's do comments and questions on that and then we'll go over James's graph yeah I think it's good to have the text final be just that the spec is frozen because that way final could mean the same thing for every track yeah and I really like the idea of this like state which which calls for a broader community review because we've seen so many instances in the past where like people basically don't look at an e but build it's already scheduled for a hard fort and then you get like a flood of comments so if we can and at the same time I agree it's it's kind of unrealistic to expect everybody to look

at all the drafts so yeah I'm strongly in favor of a status like that I have two or three comments or maybe questions one is about this active so like do we need to keep active after review or should we put it like maybe after the last con because I think any IP even if it is active forever I mean it's not designed to be completed at any point of time it should be given a proper visibility and that can be attained when when or maybe when they are put in the last call the 14 days duration that is there that's for the visibility an RSS feed is also

there so that's kind of one thing about active the second thing I like the idea of withdrawn and abundant and as exit mentioned that withdrawn is more suitable word foot the abundant status that we have as of now I understand that abandoned was introduced just a year back I mean like last year in May itself it was introduced but it qualifies both the status one which is like the EIP has not been progressing for a while it is abandoned in a way that the EAP or third the original author did not worry to move it forward and second when VIP

water decides to withdraw it because even if the status are the explanation mentioned in the document it says that it is the abundant is the no longer pursued by the original author in any of the cases like whether it whether they don't have time interest or whether it is not the right direction to move so those were two things and one last thing about final and accepted I think as per the current EAP one the one difference between accepted and the final state is accepted it's still the accepted of the EIP for a heartful upgrade process and any IP is considered to be an final if

it is implemented by some clients and the status can be changed only after the upgrade or adoption about your first well first I very much support or like that the way this flow goes and it fits really well with how I wish things have would go the part about having review after or having active after last call like thinking about how I've approached the writing the EFI one I would I would like it to be i I've written it as it's in draft and then I go through and make it right and then I can make it be active I can make it be in review and then that's

requesting other people hey it's at a point that you should look at it and then it goes into active and if I need to make any changes I can make those changes and then put it back into review and so people know they need to look at it again and then it can go back into active and that that feels like it fits really well my comment against that would be the purpose of last call is to make it into that RSS feed so people know that there needs to be it needs to be looked at even though at that point there should only be minor changes there's the possibility that a last call can bring up major technical changes as my understanding yeah if the I don't think that's a really good reason to

have last call like we should make a feed for review okay I think would be or make the feeds fit the process rather than make the process fit their current feeds yeah that can be changed that's a good point actually there is a maybe a year and a half old PR which was never finished - you have an RSS feed for every single state yeah and if we do have review I think it would make sense to also at least and but I mean it's not that hard technically to have a feed for every single one but one comment on active itself I think active is like a strange kind and yeah I'm not even sure the only so originally it was only used

for EIP one just a signal that the IP one is can be changed so it's never final and that I think active was extended to to the idea of using for registries and the only one right now is EFI but there was a discussion to maybe have a chain ID registry but it never materialized but I'm not sure what would be the right process for forgetting to active I think we should rather describe the limited set of circumstances of what kind of VIP can become active and I would really

just say the CIP one and registries are the only ones and I mean I wish we wouldn't have like special ways in this graph but active is one special kind I'm not sure we can get rid of it yeah I don't think it's good to get rid of it either because we need to be able to not have to make go through extra steps in the process and make AIP superseded every time we want to change something small about EIP one or the EFI process that kind of is a lot more bureaucracy for no no gain in my opinion to have extra steps when it's something that's

so fluid the reason why I was thinking it to be after the last call or maybe the next stage a state after the last call is because as for the current ie IP one it says that some of the I mean other than a IP one no other a IP at this moment is in this state acting so if in future if we come up with some informational and process CIP is just like the efi that we are talking about it says that the e ib is never meant to be completed but we can at least follow the you know steps for a IP is to be there so that was the thought that it may be after the last call and we can go

I trade the changes that may be suggested during this last constant so let me make sure I'm getting your comment correctly we sorry I'm just processing it okay could you repeat the last part again my suggestion for moving its active status after the last call worse because these particular kind of VIPs those are entering into the CIP process flow are not ever meant to be completed at this point of time we have only one AIP EAP one so that is there

and I am not sure what the process was followed at that time but if in future we want to come up with another other informational a IPS or the process key IPS to be provided the status of active at least they should follow the initial process of an EIP and last call maybe providing more visibility but I'm not sure if there is RSS for every other state so that can be there but I was thinking that last call should be I mean like the better previous state for active status of any ABI I think your reasoning makes sense but I would put a

country reasoning so there's no particular reason I put active there I think I just put it there somehow but I have a counter reasoning after we have explained this why it may make sense to stay there so last call in the regular flow last call is the last step after you expect it to make final and the reason for last call is that you really want to get it right because once something gets to final you cannot make any changes to it however this is not the case with active because active specifically says that changes to that text can happen and so maybe because of that reason last call may not be needed I would

agree it's a it's an extra it's a necessary extra step because last call and final kind of company that make sense I think I think the thing that's gonna help poojas argument though is the fact that we don't have a step between review and active to to identify what is it becomes active again does that make sense well that that I think should really be up to the actual registry or whatever it is like each each one I don't know defining like putting a last call in between review that's special for active yeah I don't think I think the EFI list is basically it was on the call stated

and so it's updated like and if it was a chain ID a chain day there's a way that the chain ID stuff gets decided and it would just be updated when it needs to be so each registry or EIP one would have its own champions and those champions decide how it gets updated right yeah or or processes for for making sure that they kept up to date and some changes I don't think would need to go back to review like if I was adding in another chain ID opcode retain ID or something or if I was adding one e IP to EFI it shouldn't go back to review but if I was adding a step to the EFI process or changing the formatting of certain things or adding clarification clarifying language then I can put it

back to review and have that signal to people to to say hey there's been significant changes and you should you should look before we move it back to active okay I like that idea that each one has its own process as long as that process is defined in the EIP itself so like if you have the chain ID e IP you can have a little blurb in there that just says like a process section or I don't want to make a whole new section of any IP though but basically somewhere and in the end the IP say this is how it's updated basically I mean I have no like over my dead body kind of feeling about this process it was just a

suggestion but I'm willing to do by the registration of Dijkstra this might be one of the first major things almost all of us have agreed on I'm happy about that we did it we did it we solved it we saw them did it read it we did it okay so James did you want to go over your graph real quick it's very similar to Alex's yes you go one quick question here I'm just generally not seen I mean I get I'm kind of an outsider and don't really understand all the court have stuff but I'm not seeing any decisions level to sit and it sounds like all the stuff your guy is talking about is we don't

make decisions anywhere in this stuff where do we make decisions it sounds like something if it gets into an EFI registry or something then it's eligible for inclusion and where does that fit on this and and what kind of decision happens to get into final and and and and and and another question along the same lines where does prog power fit on this map yeah that's a good question and my answer would be the reason we're separating out the decision-making processes is because there are so many and it's very dependent on the track and type of the IP that we're separating them out right now so this is the what we're getting right now is the EIP flow separate from the decision-making process because for quarry IPS we have

the efi sub e IP or I should say registry e IP style that determines things like the core dev call besides what quarry IPS go into different statuses yet for e rc we have different rules for that one so the whole how our decisions made if we tried to combine them it would make this graph absolutely crazy and so we're keeping that separate right now and we may not even change how things are decided right now unless they really need to be decided differently which we haven't even started thinking about another another comment on that one of the frustrations among a lot of

people that I was seeing was the politics in the AP process it's kind of difficult to understand him by that but I think one way to facilitate that frustration was to isolate the politics part of it from the EAP process itself so put it in its own section where it's addressed formerly versus in putting it in Sangha within the EPI process and that would be separating it out into its own process yeah as a lot as far as the decision-making process I think it's we should keep it with EFI and have the ii-if I'd be the start of the decision-making process for hard works

and for Cory IP is in general - yeah did that answer your question Brent I think so the problem is is I'm not familiar with enough so a lot of this extra complexity is hard for me to get my mind around so I just need to listen you guys more and stuff like that thanks for helping me try and keep up to speed with you guys no problem it's this is takes a long time - for everything and also I mean I don't even get it all I don't think anyone else gets it all and could someone answer the question does it does proc bail fit anywhere on this map I can answer that it would be in final because the specifications final but it wouldn't

be reflected it would have it be reflected as not going into maintenance as part of the other process that's not on this list okay so so but in other words it would this list it would be in final but there would be another place where it says it's not eligible for inclusion is that it would be it's not really determined what it would be called yet but it would be in the separate process that that information like the specification is final really they should be making a new API at this point act now that this has been clarified so in other words we're explicitly separating that decision from this and there's gonna be some other process that would tell so in other words prog power would be in final but there would be

some other status system graph for decision-making system which would show it hasn't been eligible for inclusion or has been removed for eligible or something like that whatever it ends up being I think this is more of a point that we are trying to separate the hardwork process and the EIP process so it is good in the EIP process the status is final but it may not be going too hard for maybe or may not be going that is going to be a separate process so as James mentioned that the profile should be I mean like maybe fitting into the final status so that may be good from the ei B's point of view okay sounds good it still just makes me nervous everyone's afraid of touching decisions

and let's just kick the can down the street and hopefully yeah we were kind of that way now we're at the point where it's like there's a necessary separation so let's deal with what we can first okay cool all right James you want to go over your graph and then you said something a second ago yeah the this stem from the conversation of inactive versus abandoned and sort of things and I've had some time to think about it since and the graph is the same other than that it has an initial status for being inactive and the reason I would add that is what I'd like to have added to the EIP bot or whatever is if a certain amount of time has passed and no

one has touched an EIP that's in draft or in review it should be marked as something saying that it's not being worked on right now so the community knows what's kind of active being looked at not active as the yappi status but actively being developed or has been kind of left by the wayside so inactive would be a status for if the robot applies the status and then withdrawn would be for when people just apply rough rick remove an EIP for consideration and the reasoning I think that's important is it signals why it's in the state it is and that's good for authors and the community trying to understand where things are and how they got there I'd

agree with all that except I don't like the name inactive because that implies that it is related to the active status yeah and I don't I I honestly don't know if active should be called active so the I don't have a better word for active that that's because I've thought about that before too where it's like what is active even mean but anything else but active would kind of be get get kind of weird yeah I haven't figured that out either but I I don't want to have the connotation of them being connected either so I would I would want to resolve either one of those directions okay so I'll go ahead Alex yeah I think we discussed this as December January

there would be nice to automate these I think it was like the first when the first round of like with John abandoned discussions we had yep and and I think it's it's a great idea even went back when we discussed it but lately I started to maybe come to a different opinion from a technical standpoint I mean just going back in in general I'm not the happiest at the VIP number assignment is attached to the pro request number or the issue number which is the same because it's just so inflated as people try to especially

people who are not familiar with git they struggle with git and and try to submit a change which grows into like 15 different peers and stuff is just getting inflated and I wonder you know if you purely I mean it yeah you haven't clarified and I don't think anyone would fully know what would be how would it be determined that something is is connected if we purely look at the I mean what the pot could look at is really when was the file last fortified that's the only thing the bot could really look at and that only means that if somebody just creates a PR and changes a single letter or changes whitespace just that's a new new space somewhere in the file then it's it's

active again wouldn't this you know this automatic process of marking them inactive based on like last change date wouldn't that really just become like erasing to people submitting PRS to just change something so it becomes active again and we just keep inflating the numbers the so the inflating the numbers one is definitely an issue and I'm wondering if that suggests that that's something that should be solved first before happening and I can like it's some way of deciding the IP numbers that won't be inflated by the PR could solve that the as far as the editing goes if an author is the one who is going back in and making the

change then I think that means it's still like having that bump happen as long as the the the explosion of PR numbers isn't is solved by some other thing that we discussed at some point then I don't mind if an author comes in and just changes one thing to make sure that it stays in review because that means that he's looking at the room that he's actively looking at the repository and a lot of them I think would just fall to inactive and then no one and only authors really can make an edit or EIP editors and any IP editor wouldn't have a reason to keep it active and if an author isn't there to keep it going then that's the definition of inactive I

think that regardless of what we come to as far as a IP numbering there's a good reason to have two separate statuses because one of them implies that it was the author's decision to withdraw it and the other one implies that it is an active due to the author like completely not dealing with it anymore so like abandoning it and I think that's an important distinction because otherwise people are going to be like if there's withdrawn statuses people are going to make assumptions it's one or the other and there's nowhere in the EIP that we can say this is why it got closed except for that status we can't we could point them to like a PR or the bots or

something like that but people that's like too many extra steps so people are just going to assume withdrawn means what the traditional definition of withdrawn is what difference does it really make for for an outside viewer they can accuse someone of being like lazy with their EIP they could say that that person didn't care when really it was withdrawn because of reasons so like if I see the status withdrawn and I'm like well what happened here I can email that person because their emails in the header and say why did you decide to withdraw the CIP rather than if it's abandoned I can say well I don't know if I should email

them their email might not even be active anymore for the CIP they haven't touched it in the while there's no use of me talking to them that's like one case what a status they're only in the best solution or even in happy one we have I think the decision URL and notes and feels like that which are not utilized but I wish they would be and on the same note you know we could have and many other like specification processes outside of it you make use of such extra fields so they don't try to inflate the number of statuses rather they they describe you know in text what was the

reason so as an example if we would have just a single veteran status which signals both patron by the author and with drone by inactivity we could still have a field which properly I mean eventually it would be nice it would be some kind of a URL to the decision text which explains why it happened but initially we could just have the text say this was which oh no automatically by the box on this date or it could state the reason from the author IVA drawn this because I don't think it's a good idea anymore wouldn't that be a better solution than just having two status fields which I mean they do

explain a bit of the story but they don't explain everything that's that's good I would like more of the story explained so you're saying just to make sure I understand your suggestion the bot itself would do a PR on the EIP if it gets abandoned and it says this was abandoned on this date otherwise if it's withdrawn one of this step needs to be the author saying why it's withdrawn right yeah I mean you know yeah I'm kind of like babbling but the let me just open EIP one here I can I have just taste it I had to look forward earlier there is one more thing here mentioned in the EIP one is about

transferring the EIP Russia I mean that is related to abundant static I think it's the further explanation of that in that it mentions that the transfer of this ownership can happen in two circumstances the one is can be written in trap can we just finish the previous yeah yeah sure I mean I was just trying to come up to your point only I mean I found that was like mention in the yep you went so please go ahead I'm sorry to interrupt you know just before you know we gonna tangent so I just found it so there's this field this extra field in the IP one which is not used right now sorry for the background noise okay I think it's better so and more tries okay

so the I can I can hear you fine there's this field called resolution on EAP one it's under this e IP header preamble there's requires replaces superseded by and the last one is resolution a URL pointing to the resolution of the CIP now this is not used but we could actually make use of this and say that for every every vid thrown status there needs to be a resolution field which explains why it became patron I like that idea I think it's already in there so there's not much work that has to be done one common with in regards to the PR I know

RFC they like comparing to our process they have once the once the standards in drafts they have a timer of 24 months that's two years that if it's not pushed to four hour our four-hour process it would be final that it would be re considered whether to be put into withdrawn automatically or to be reopened by the press of the author to continued so we could have PR based on not the last time I was edited but the time I was created and then the EPP bod keeping the author and if there's no response to get it

automatically be put to with drum by X number of months after it was created I like that automation personally and puja this is kind of related to what you were talking about a little bit right this idea of letting the author or the author being able to reactivate it yes I was actually thinking I mean like I was more towards exec up in Yin like making it withdrawn with automated bot or with personal like interest but both are going towards the same place like one thing that is missing here is as per VIP one if an EIP is in the status of

abandoned that can be pursued if we want like that is not I cannot find it in either of the diagram so that is one thing and another thing is like the abandoned VIP can change their ownership and this can occur in two circumstances number one when otter does not want to pursue it or they do not have time to do that or maybe if they don't agree with the direction it is moving so I think it is fulfilling all the criterias and just because it is done by Bo bought and done by person having two status maybe adding too much to EAP one so we can maybe broaden the definition of one and make

it like withdrawn slash abandoned or inactive or whatever we choose so I was going more towards having one status with a broader explanation to you yeah that sounds like what we're kind of all getting to is utilizing the resolution header more and making the instead of using a base withdrawn just having withdrawn and making sure that the definition correctly states what that means and what how to use the resolution header better the so x''k if they're if the PR explosion of a IP numbers was resolved

does that kind of resolve pieces of this or is this or is there other parts of this that it's not resolved that are important for you we're like what pieces are left I mean I'm personally just a bit worried and in you know having more more sit assist and then we definitely need there was the only reason I argued maybe against having patron independent separately because we are trying to just reduce the number of these different statuses and if we could make use of the resolution field to actually explain why that happened I think that may be much better because no more reasoning can be put

there than what the status on its own can explain and I think that the because uh if we make use of this resolution field then we don't even need the the inactive status because the resolution could just say in case of it's turned inactive the resolution could say this has been turned in active by the bots because there was no activity for two years or whatever okay the part I think we would miss from having it be separated as the status and this isn't me saying I want I'm like really pushing it for it to be one way or the other I'm just thinking out loud of what it what do we what's the trade-off for having it not have its own status is in the when navigating AI

piece there's a ton of them all over the place and there would be a lot more inactive ones and a lot less withdrawn ones and so perhaps the someone trying to understand where something is in the process you would still have to go into eg IP and figure out if it why what it was withdrawn or not what's wrong instead of having it be readily my visible from itself and I don't know what what is the justification for why as status should be existing or does that make sense like what like why we gotta give if the purpose it makes sense or not anyway

actually keep on no I think your your reason makes a lot of sense but I would say it would be possible to maybe display the resolution on that list on the page I'm not hundred percent sure I mean technically definitely could be displayed but maybe it would be too long I'm not sure but I would again maybe just ask the question who is the target audience to why would anybody if they see like a lot of patron versus inactive why would they care I think it's really up to the altar to if they see their stuff turn padrone by the bot its stay

responsibility to you to act on that and I mean does it really matter to to people watching the the website where is something was turned in active or withdrawn I think it would so one kind of controversial example was it would that I think illustrates this a little bit better like that block rewards the IP that I wrote forever ago if it was inactive people could still be worried that it might resurrect but if I had it in withdrawn they can be confident that I have withdrawn that and I can say it's because of feedback from the community and if someone that's only you it can be redirected if and if it's remember it

has to be a new it would well it'd have to be a new number and then it's I'm talking about the community members like maybe it doesn't need to be a new number but the community members who are looking at it can see very clearly that this was something that was proposed and it's no longer proposed and and it's of course it's on me for putting it up again but they the status of it on for their community sake is a clear upfront that the reason that it that it wasn't oh it just wasn't ignored and it's gonna come up again so I see two problems one maybe we should clarify at some point if the drone can be resurrected and I understood that any kind of bit wrong

you know whether it's abandoned with drone inactive whatever it can be resurrected without changing the number that's question or topic one but the the second comment I have to this is aren't we in this particular example you give aren't be mixing the specification process with the hardwork process so why does it matter if it's via drone or or not with drone if it's not considered for a heart for it's not mixing the processes necessarily it's more people here's what the community would say so I'm this scenario it would be they'd be up in arms and saying oh this can be snuck in at any time or it will get snuck in they're doing that with prog power right now and I know that it's not

accurate what they're doing but they're conflating the definition of EIP one for their own narrative and if we can make it a little bit more strict it'll make it harder for them to do that because right now what they're saying is like like for instance there was a PR on prog how the other day and there was an entire reddit thread with 64 comments that said prog cows being snuck back in like stuff like that that's what we would have be avoiding by saying withdrawn because withdrawn is like and people's minds it makes more analysis there's a finality to it yeah because you can resurrect it right technically yes but I don't think the community

interprets on that level of tech technical technicality technicality yeah they're not they're not thinking about it that deeply and we're kind of trying to I mean the whole point of us doing this is to kind of make it a little bit more easy for people to understand more so than just you know tighten up the technical in my opinion but that's a whole nother conversation I guess I mean I think even though controversially if he can be in final and that just means the specs frozen withdrawal means the spec isn't being developed anymore so I was kind of in this weird limbo where it's not

frozen yet it's it's not like develop matera nuff to be frozen but it's not being worked on to be made final like enough like another AIP that was that would be withdrawn was Martin's previous EIP I don't remember exactly what it was but but the proposal of gas and oil soup like superseded it as being a better idea so he withdrew that EIP and and it would be clear to the community that because that is withdrawn and then so why would someone work on that idea again if something is inactive well maybe it's it's worth kind of working on again not we don't want

people having to go through and like look and read a whole pay web page of something just to get an idea of where things are going in the EIP process but it can be displayed on the listing as well ah so you mean the text for the resolution like you would grab the text from whatever whatever resolution URL it has yeah I mean to clarify I wouldn't do a resolution URL I would I mean just as a start I would just make it resolution text see a sentence can't cover it necessarily I don't think I think people would be angry they can't they like things could get misinterpreted for the

resolution sentence if they are only allowed a sentence to explain but there Victor on versus abandoned status is enough to make a distinction yes it's kind of described in a sentence no you would still be able to describe in a sentence but it would be a little bit easier to make that sentence be useful for something for other parts of the explanation because like you're going into that explanation knowing whether it was intentional or not so I think with Rome having two special meaningful with drone if the drone can be resurrected it makes zero sense if it drone is a final status that it cannot be ever resurrected as it is then I think there's more reason for such a status but if it I think that's

good yeah I'd be finalized you have to make it you have to make a new VIP if you want to pursue it but the only is such such status which actually is missing from any of this because it was used as part of the the hartford process is rejected we wouldn't need that in this case would we it would either be withdrawn with act withdrawn inactive or draft perpetually yeah we wouldn't this more like the case of like rejected by community or whatever because the process would have to reject it like the hard for coordination process rejecting

it is different than in the IPR withdrawing it and saying I'm done yeah that makes sense I'll have to think on it more and we're kind of over time so this is a good thing for us to pick up on next time then also figure out the other two also go over the other items on the agenda for next time because I don't want to keep people on too long but this was a really good discussion I think we kind of came to the conclusion that we like except for the withdrawn abandoned section of AK 6th grams this graph I guess because they're pretty much the same except for the inactive withdrawn section we were coming close to a resolution on that which would be a

big step just one thing before we leave one point I wanted to check with and secure like in this vid John abandon section there is nothing going back to the draft but as per the definition if people would want to somebody else would want to champion any other di P they can do that so is that something like missing or is that not going to be in veneer the process yeah I think i hastily put this one together by just reducing my old versions but in all versions I had all the DES missing directions so what's missing here is that from last call you could go back to review and I think from bit drone and

abandoned you could go back to draft but yeah I mean maybe for the next call all of these charts should be way more clarified in I think it was a good discussion starter but definitely wasn't like the in the final version this guy's up yeah totally okay well thanks everyone for joining we'll see you in two weeks on the 3rd of June I was about to say unless someone isn't gonna be here but I was like where's everyone even gonna go everyone's in their homes so okay well we'll see y'all in two weeks bye thank you you