EIPIP Meeting 87

Transcript

welcome to eipip meeting number 87 I have shared agenda in chat this is issue number 255 at eipip GitHub repository we have a few item for discussion uh with respect to open issues and PR I think there is a new proposal as well um and then we will continue discussing items from the past meeting we do have a updates on EIP is inside and weap editing office hours so starting with the very first item which is requested by Sam Wilson here it's about ethereum Improvement proposal Charter so over to you Sam sure so I've shared this around with um

I think all the editors um so I think everybody should be fairly aware of it I just wanted to bring it up here and make sure that we want to adopt it or at least ask if we want to adopt it and if we do um what EIP number we want to assign to it um anybody opposed oh wait wait I'm just I'm still finding the document sorry oh no worries I can you know link it we we talked about it I was very much in favor of the mission statement and the rest was looked like a lot of detail that I didn't really

didn't really review um and wouldn't want to just adopt all of that at once yeah no worries no pressure for that but the mission statement something close to it very much I would want to start there all right so I guess we can um table this until the next eipip I didn't I didn't want to table it oh okay wondering if we have something close to consensus on the mission statement because that's sort of the starting point it seems

um I I think we do um uh I think Matt is here um and uh gender is here too um do we we all agree on the mission statement okay so at least we are good with the mission statement and what we don't is the next one oh sorry that's a part of mission so what we do and what we don't that's fair so I guess the next part would be on

um the idea of topic groups so that would probably be uh so quick summary topic groups are uh like subsections of people that handle proposals up until last call um and these can contain editors they might not contain the same people as the editors they set their own processes and all that then we have rules for making decisions on reaching rough consensus um we have a new elected role called the janitor that can decide when rough consensus has been reached um rules for removing editors so that's kind of new

um yeah and then a lot of content from each one so those are that's pretty much a quick summary of of this document well I would love to see the mission statement go in on its own because the rest the rest is a lot of details that could change we might want to experiment but some of them others we might not agree on but if we agree on a mission statement it sort of stands alone is

something that we're not going to be wanting to uh change a lot but whether topic groups work out whether we agree on a janitor role Etc that seems much more needs more working out and could change more over time as we get experience with it sure so would you like to see this as like an EIP added to eat one what are you thinking oh well I know we talked and I said the mission statement should be eip0 when you say in do you mean break this into a few PR's and just have one for

yeah be zero and then maybe the rest could go into two or three different PRS in the efe one I think the mission statement stands alone the rest of it are ways of organizing our process that are likely to change over time uh that we may not even all agree on at this point um but don't I don't know if they need to be documented as theips or not um but they're certainly not of the same care they're not the same as a mission statement I'm repeating myself here so but

sorry I'll be I'll be more precise I was just asking like what what are next steps if if people are generally interested in this for the different parts to move at different speeds should they be different like is there something other than a PR on eip1 that the non-mission statement part of this could do next to get more review and I mean I I I'm personally um I I think part of the impetus for this was that all core devs is uh trying to become something like what this document describes as the topic group and I very much want

all of our devs to like have some uh like recognize their desires and structure in this uh so that was sort of my my personal interest in it but I I'm just wondering what next steps are if people like the general idea and want to refine it together where do we do that how does that work I think that's a question for you Greg how would you like to see it

move forward I was muted um the same way on going discussion goes on for anything on the Discord and among ourselves um and if if something is solid enough you want to make a PR we probably should I think uh pandas about here today the panda myself and you have all got partly partly formatting and partly uh substantial things going against the ip1

some of mine I really wouldn't want to check in right now they're just theirs when you put it up as a PR it's clear what you're trying to do so you might want to do that with some of this or you might we might want to discuss it more um as it as you have it now I don't have a strong opinion on that um okay I like Tim's suggestion here which is half of it should go and eat one and a half can go in the editor guidebook so I can split this up into two pull requests and then we can

discuss on on GitHub and we can see where we go from there is that uh does that sound good with everybody perfect all right so we moved past through this really quick thank you all editors uh for making this happen and the next one here is about special number assignment um there are two pull requests one to create a proposal and draft another one to move another proposal in review and uh these proposals were reviewed in the last EIP

editing officer but some thought that it would be a good idea to get more thoughts on it from all of the EIP editors and we are also joined by the EIP author of both the proposals so if there are any question we can have in here as well Sam if you would like to maybe briefly explain the issue and then we can discuss sure so these are two eips that are intended to supersede older versions that have gone to final um the EIP author wants to use a related number for these proposals and they have precedence that uh I don't know the EIP number offhand but where we've done it before and I just wanted to get everybody's feelings about

it on this call all right I'll start us off I don't think we should assign specific EIP numbers and we should just use whatever numbering system we would normally use and just to add here uh there is another comment by an EIP number allocating person Andrew I suppose he mentioned in the chat that any manual number

assignment should be limited to discourage your number spending and he seems also to be not in favor of having this number special number assignment what EIP is this current numbers are uh you can go ahead Puja if you want to oh no please yeah so current numbers are 7409 so this one would supersede 6381 which is public non-fundedable remote token Repository

and the other one is 7401 which would supersede 6059 which is burned gavern nestable tokens non-fungible tokens um where are they asking for special numbers I don't I don't see it in 7409 oh yeah so the PRS yeah in 74409 that this is where we opened the pr for it um and I can't find the one where we actually discussed it so um it was one of the closed ones because we

uh in the 6059 we actually found that the interface ID doesn't match the spec because we updated the implementation after discussions and we updated the interface ID and we missed one parameter to to be added there um okay I think I found the pr just give me a sec and so one one of the PRS where we attempted to fix that was seven three six six um

foreign we saw what happened with 820s so 1820 uh superseded because I think ERC 165 um had some changes with solidity version 5. um so we thought this would be okay to do yeah I don't see any discussion about

the number still thank you yeah what's the question that we're trying to answer here so the question is currently the Erp numbers usually are

assigned by the pr in which the proposal is opened uh well the question is whether or not we can assign the pr numbers to to match the PRS that these ones are super the proposals that these ones are superseding so basically the original PR is 6059 and what we're wondering is whether or not we can we can number the superseding PRS 7059 because no eips have that number 6509 that's not the original one because it's

an EIP issue about replacing require the bibliography six or five nine yeah I'm sorry and this one uh is replaced by seven um 7401. okay so I mean this is just the discussion

that we already had where the editor said that we wouldn't replace the number because it was already final yeah exactly so we opened a new proposal fixing the the issue and fixing right but we've already we've already said that we wouldn't change that EAP yeah so the dip 7401 I will are we talking about the same one you're talking about 6059 which is a final EAP yes and then we opened 7401 and what we're wandering is if we can change the number of 741 which is yeah exactly so it's 7401 supersedes

that one and what we're wandering is whether or not we can have the number 7059 so that it might that it's more similar yeah I mean I think I agree with Sam we should just do the same EIP numbering process that we have so whatever the EIP number reopened it as is the IP number okay okay yeah we we just thought it would be possible because this happened before with previous cips we do not want to reopen any numbering bytes yeah basically

foreign if I remember correctly the last time that I read the guidelines let's wait for the number to be assigned but what we I guess all of the authors do is just use the pr number so that one says 7409 is still in PR it's not even merged to master yet um could we at least they're using the pr number we're using the pr number until we reach 7500 and then we're switching to sequential

okay we we get a lot of questions about EIP numbers and if we don't take a hard stance on not changing them they kind of eat up all of our time so so sorry about being strict about it it's just I think that's the safest approach for us okay yeah I know I get it it's it's good to have a system in place so we were still hoping that we have a chance because you know president but hey thank you for your time thank you um it was decided in a couple of meetings ago about the thing that uh Lifeline just mentioned that we are

waiting till 7 500 and after that we are going to have sequential number assigning though the process of number assignment by EIP editors was in place for quite some time so we are just trying to be there and consistently make changes so people are also aware of the you know the process the thing that happened today thank you on so we are passed this and we can move on to the next item on the agenda which is discussion continued or updates from the past meeting and it is about EIP ERC GitHub repository um I'm sure there must have been a lot of discussion in the past meeting I don't know I was sent there

unfortunately but anyone um here on the call may like to uh you know take it from where we left in the last meeting I understand there is also an EIP which is in the last call and the last call date has also passed uh where are we on that or what do people generally think about it sure so first I'll talk about the EIP um last call date has passed but I didn't push it to final to give space for this EIP Charter um room to operate um there's been some some possibility because this is all as a core developer

my main concern is to get the repo split and the whole issue of governance is someone of a distraction and something we're willing to give space I'm willing to get space on I don't know about the other core devs the clear signal we got from the core devs though in the meetings we asked is they want the repository split they're kind of Silent on the whole governance issue other than they don't want people jumping in their meeting say I veto a decision you've made um so that's why I'm giving the charter space to grow because it's got that no veto provision and there's still space for it to grow to split the repos into there is at least one for the core devs topic group um all for all core devs and possibly other EIP repos um for other topic groups that may grow in the future

so because of that development in the charter I wanted to not push it to final to give it room to adapt to whatever the the EIP process uh makes room for but to be clear the the core devs haven't changed their opinion we need two separate websites and two separate GitHub repositories and everything else is just rearranging the deck chairs that's the critical asset that we want and we're willing to and I'm willing you know I can't speak for the courtes on this but I'm willing to see other changes in the organization be the compromise because the initial split was a full process split it always has been from the beginning but if what's going to move the needle is to allow this Charter to move forward that I thought had full

support from all of the editors and was it was shared amongst others before this meeting I thought they had full support of all the editors um that's why I'm holding off on it either I was also approached by ethereum.org people and they were wondering like uh what are we going to do here like the main question was about ERC I know the initial proposal by Matt was also suggesting something like that um that we can have ercs.ethm.org but I am not sure if we are there yet and yeah I already have

registered the sub domain okay okay yeah those people were like asking me can like what are we deciding here so I mentioned them that it is under discussion and hopefully we will be looking for ercf.ethereum.com so I'm good that we are good there so I'm willing to split into two tracks there's the repo split and there's the governance issue and totally decouple those if we can get the repost split move forward we got the checklist we've got everything going and we can we can mull over what the governance looks like separate of this but I really want the split to happen before we have to do serious discussions about what's going on in Prague and what's going in an Electra

I like it settled and done before we have serious discussions about that I'm perfectly okay with that let's do it all right so just to be completely clear about this um Lifeline you're in favor of splitting the repos yes or no yes okay and uh get Ginger you're okay with splitting the repos yeah I'm okay okay and Greg you're okay with splitting the repos as long as we stay one organization yes okay and I won't stand in the way of

that all right I'll update the EIP I have to um pull all the mentions of organization split out of it clarify so it's just a structural split and then restart the final column thank you very much Daniel thank you and don't is it a meta proposal I think it's a meta proposal it's a meta proposal okay so yeah you don't need to follow the last call deadline that strictly um once we decide something we can just make it final so all right um I'm also flying out on a trip to Indianapolis to watch my kid at Drum Corps so um hold it against me we won't one thing I want to point it out here

just because we generated discuss process process here and I know uh the uh like proposal is not getting into like final right now and we are waiting few more days about it unfortunately I noticed that this proposal missed review status and because this is a meta proposal I would like to have that in place if possible and while we are waiting for this thing to be closed move into final status what do people generally think I mean this is not a precedent that something from last call can go to review or I think it is but never seen for meta when when I edit it I'll put an interview status and I'll let other people push it through the final Works free

perfect thank you so much all right uh so as a summary for a discussion Point number two here we are agreeing that there would be a structural split that means there would be a repo split but there would be the same people more or less organizing uh the or managing the eipa dating part so there would not be an organizational split and by that do we agree that the proposal created by Matt the pr for splitting the repo should be merged or we are hoping to wait like three more days a week or whatever where we are on that I mean at minimum we have to update the

pr because the pr is generated by Script and it's now out of days but to do the split like I think it would be nice to have a synchronous call with it you know at least Panda pip on there since he's kind of runs most of the CI and we're essentially gonna have to pause merging like turn all the bots off so that nothing gets merged to the Eeps repo and then create a clone of it which is the RC's repo and then do the run the script to remove the ercs from the Eeps and remove the Eeps from the erc's and then we can turn the Bots back on and try and migrate over the open PRS to their respective repos

okay cool do we need somebody from EF devops on there too or is it mostly just an us thing I have the repo set up and we're admin on it so I don't think we need any devops people I think it's just us yeah we can we can set up a call for that um awesome very well so I'm assuming that this call could be outside this EIT AP meeting whenever some light plant and Panda paper are in printing they have time they can get this call coordinated and we can get the result by the next eipip meeting um yeah I think that makes sense right there was one other thing that I

wanted to discuss but it just slipped my mind now mine will get back when when I I get it back again okay oh yes I got it now so the thing was like uh just to be clear what we are trying to do is just remove the ERC and all other VIPs will be right there in the other repo there's no change in the um letting part the discussion that happened earlier right I think so so part of this goes forward I think to when the charter settles um I would like to see it be topic groups going to EIP um the topic group for core and all

other topic groups go into ERC until other topic groups form and possibly create their own repo if they want to like foresee there might be a wallet topic group forming I could see a layer two topic group forming um so I would you know like I said the precedent that as a topic group you can get your own top level domain if you're willing to manage it and run the process otherwise they settle in erc's yeah I think that should be technically possible um and I I don't think there'd be much proposition to having unique domains but I mean that we can all figure that out like it should be pretty straightforward sounds good to me uh it looks like we

will be going ahead with the whatever is the present destruction now and we can revisit Sam's proposal in our next meeting and I'm assuming that it may take a month or two to get everything fully implemented but at least that is there in the process so yeah I understand the idea of having great topic groups that that would be great to have and um the next item here listed here is a 7230 are we still looking to discuss this um this is a PR by Greg Greg do you want to discuss any specific point here I think we are good on the ERC EIP split um

yeah I simply haven't had time to split it up um there's a fair amount of overlap between the topic group notion and the working group notion and that's where I wanted some time uh partly just time to say I'm to straighten that out uh the working group I laid it out in some detail but it's not clear that's the best way to do it and it's not clear until I talked with Sam quite what he had in mind as to how that related to the topic group and there's also issues with both of our proposals as to uh topic groups that only come together real briefly versus

ones that are standing um um Repose domains things that just came up briefly here but somewhere we need details so the working group part needs to be discussed with Sam as I said um the uh there's two parts um for the change suggestions on uh links and I don't think Sam had any trouble with asking for better citations and I think there's some there's still disagreement on how much to loosen up the standards uh for informative

references in uh in the rationale of motivation um so I don't know if we want to get into that now um how about we schedule a call before the next eipip like you and I and we can go over both proposals and try to come to some sort of consensus on it who else has strong opinions one way or the other I'm just the guy but I have strong opinions if you want to have an odd if you want an odd number of people there

to break and he died I'd be glad to come I just I wanted to sort of know if it's if it's down to Sam and I discussing it or if there's other editors that are uh very much against loosening them up or just in general that's the level of consensus right now loosening up constraints on links in the rationale section specifically yeah the normative the normative section um

pretty much if it's normative it has to be there um and it doesn't have to be there it's not normative um but for informative links um that's where I'd like to loosen it up more and I think that's where authors are complaining that we hack away at their motivation and rationale and if they can't if they can't get links they're just left making bald assertions of fact that nothing to back it up um but we don't we don't want to just open it up so completely

um we've got a lot of hold a lot of old VIPs with a whole bunch of links in them that are half dead at this point so and that's where we wanted to make sure we've got full citations uh so that a Google search will likely likely find you to document if the if the link went dead um a DOI if you can get one Etc um but not restrict authors to you know here's the list and um you'll have to argue like hell to get anything else onto it um I would imagine Victor may have some thoughts so it would be a good idea like

uh in my mind that if you can mention it on Discord and anyone interested may join you and Sam whenever the call is happening um all right uh so for this item as well uh we uh are taking it here like um Sam Greg and whoever else is interested in discussing this uh update to Eid one with respect to two PR that was discussed in the earlier meeting uh may join the meeting and we can expect some resolution some decision or whatever the consensus is in the next meeting so I will keep that as an update for the next

VIP meeting okay moving on to the next item here it is EIP is inside for the month of August as I can see it here we have one final EIP there is one proposal which is in the last call I'm trying to uh just take a look yeah proposal 6492 signature validation for uh pre-deploy contract okay and the last date mentioned here is August 29th so anyone having any opinion thoughts or any uh Improvement suggestion with

respect to specs text or anything else please try to get it done before the deadline passes EAP editors are being strict and stricter these days so you may not get the opportunity to update the proposal even for the smaller things like I mean obviously there is a flexibility of it but we would like to avoid even smaller changes going in the proposal after it is moved to the funnel status we have received a four proposal in review and I suppose there is one more test track um in addition to that uh I wanted to uh share that eapsinsight.com is uh changing like they are having a version two of it though the website is not deployed so I have added a virtual link

of that for a quick reference but we should be expecting everything on the eaps inside very soon and uh Sam of some of your earlier requests are also included in it um yeah I would love to General feedbacks on that and I will list you uh what are the changes added here and that's all on eipfs inside thing uh next is EAP editing office r I have added that according to meeting 22 that happened yesterday it's really great to hear from all new Authors they are trying to learn the process and thank you so much Sam for Patiently answer all those questions it's really great to have you on one hour office

hour so that's there and the next meeting for EIT editing office hour is scheduled for two weeks from now but on Tuesday at 1500 UTC I'll be uploading the agenda for it very soon and I think that's all from the agenda item listed for today anyone has anything that they would like to bring it up for today we have some time if people would like to discuss anything very well so thank you everyone for joining us today uh we hope to have a discussion

continued on Discord and see you all in the next meeting two weeks from now have a great one everyone see you thanks bye