Edit to Final Proposals 0:00
Pooja Welcome to EIPIP meeting 102. This is issue number 326 on Ethcatherders EIPIP github repository. We have a few pull requests added here for discussion, which are edits to the final proposal. There is a list of potential spam and some community proposals. Those have been added to the issue on EIP GitHub repository. We'll take a look at call for input and discuss some of the earlier meeting decisions or look into the progress where we are at, starting with the first item, which is to discuss open issues, PRs, and other topics.
Here I have tried to consolidate a list of currently active pull requests for proposals which are already in final status. Sharing the first one, which is for ERC GitHub repository. The PR number is 304. I wonder what editors think about all these pull requests.
Sam I'm okay merging it; it's just spelling corrections. So.
Pooja Anyone not in favor of merging? Okay, the next one is PR number 317 that is for updating ERC 7231.
Sam Yep, so similarly, I'm okay with this one.
Pooja Very well, moving on to the next one, which is PR number 367. This is for updating ERC 5585.
Sam So this is changing a username again. Yeah, we probably need a call for input for this one. I can go and open that. Pooja All right, I think there is a call for input open for something similar. We can bring it back for discussing when, yeah, when we are there or are we trying to consider individual call for input for individual pull requests, meaning are we considering it case by case?
Sam I think case by case makes the most sense.
Pooja Okay, okay, so for this one, for PR 367, the decision here would be like you would be opening a call for input and we'll collect input.
Sam Yep.
Pooja Okay, perfect. The next one listed here is PR 342, which is for updating ERC 2098. All right, I haven't seen this one.
Sam Sorry, just give me one second. Yeah, I have no idea if this is valid or not. We'll need to wait for Rickm to comment.
Potential Spam 4:20
Pooja Very well, the next one I see that it is already closed, so we can skip. I've added a couple of potential spam. I don't know when I added I was able to find this issue but now it is a 404 the number is 8352 on EIP GitHub repository.
Bumblefudge I think it only 404s if the user that opened it is marked as a Spam account by GitHub, if it had been closed by the opener or something it wouldn't be 404.
Pooja Okay that makes sense. Very well, that is already gone, so we can perhaps take a look into another one is 8371. I'm sorry I think by mistake I wrote the wrong number but the next one is 8371, which is again some kind of suggestion it looks like spam so.
Sam Yeah I just deleted it.
Pooja Perfect one of our team contributors created a pull request for RIP repository to add boiler plate to enable that repository to be functioning like we have EIP and ERC so user will be able to fetch data and add it to eips.ethereum.org but this is a PR and needs review by RIP editor. I don't see anyone on call today but yes if anyone gets a chance and wants to add input or feedback, please feel free to look, this is pull request number 17 on RIP GitHub repository. Moving ahead…
Sam We have sorry that's for us to look at or for RIP editors?
Pooja I mean either way would be helpful because this is just adding boiler plate to enable RP repository, I think since we've done work with EIP and ERC, both will be similar, so would be nice if someone can look and add a review comment that would also give confidence to RIP editors, I chatted with one editor yesterday but he's fairly new and definitely looking for support from this team, he could not join this meeting because of holiday at his place hopefully he'll join future EIPIP meetings.
Sam Sounds good.
Bumblefudge What do we know if boiler plate was just cut and pasted from EIP or ERC repo?
Pooja My best guess is it should be very similar to EIP ERC repo. Yes I haven't reviewed the proposal I'm in pull request here.
Pooja Looks like a giant copy paste from some jackal site with exact same setup I'm just trying to figure out how it would be reviewable.
Pooja Right, the idea is we want to have those repositories because ERC was a fork of EIP it has exact set so was convenient to be used, but RIP was from base we would want it on similar page so would be easier to pull out data from there. Feel free to add comments if it feels like not a good PR we should not let them merge this one, but yeah we could use guidance here.
Community Proposals Added to Issues 8:15
Moving ahead we have a bunch of community proposals added to issue section on EIP GitHub repository. I don't know how much we will be able to discuss here today but have added entire list. The first one mentioned is about living EIP, it's a proposal about living EIP, I wonder if people have any thoughts they can share here or maybe add as a comment.
Sam So what Sam asking for here they're asking for a way to link to an EIP or what… Bumblefudge It kinda feels like he's asking for a hash link or something?
Sam But where?
Bumblefudge Yeah I guess I can just ask that so as a reference.
Gajinder I mean one way to do that is for the EIP to carry last version of this particular EIP as a header and basically permalink to it and then you can click to go back.
Sam Oh so you can look at older versions kind of thing?
Gajinder Yeah so basically latest version will carry previous version and basically as a header as a preamble as previous version calling a permanent link.
Pooja So if I understand correctly I mean not exactly this but how proposals work on GitHub repository here we do have history of all existing versions like if we get into double bracket symbol next to name of proposal we'll get into all history and I'm not very sure but this could be solved with proposal we received earlier about versioning in one of comments to that proposal I mentioned we can perhaps have version update number for all proposals, including living of course.
Sam That would definitely solve this problem.
Gajinder Yeah version update naively could be just the git commit right?
Sam Yeah
Pooja Yes. Exactly.
Bumblefudge It almost sounds like what they're asking for is a uniform notation like that it's kind of strangely worded but it's like some identifier should be made as an optional reference passive voice not sure who gets to make one or who specifies syntax or something but it sounds like example given is like EIP 1 March 2024 should be some standard way to write that like some symbol like it sounds like a query parameter thing it sounds like they want to be able to say yeah and they even mentioned commit specific GitHub URL as something not recommended by w3c but they want something functionally equivalent to that? I don't know.
Sam Yeah I think we just need more information from Sam before we can deal with this.
Bumblefudge Right does that make sense?
Pooja Sounds good yeah I just wanted to bring all these proposals here so we can start interacting for proposals which are good and which can be implemented. Let's hope for some response and we'll look into it in the next meeting.
Sam Sounds good.
Pooja The next one is another proposal for citation for EIPs issue number is 8292.
Sam That one it's a good idea. No objection from me.
Pooja It would be good idea to have next step mentioned for proposer here, so he can proceed with proposal, make respective PR and then we can discuss pull request.
Sam Sure yeah.
Victor Sam are you typing that response?
Sam I got that.
Victor You got it.
Pooja Okay so the next one here is with respect to EIPs and ERC split. I think there were recent comments added by William ? yeah what people think.
Victor I think he wants to clarify our intention is to finish split, which I understand and given our consensus, I agree we should proceed with split and large part is done. He identified specific task list. I think we should review whether these are good tasks, reasonable to be an open item.
Sam what's your view on that?
Sam I mean I'm Still Holding Out for some kind of agreement on working groups so all would be done over there I think.
Victor So you plan is to wait for working group splits or working group set establishment and then come back to revisit this work plan is that understanding?
Sam Yeah exactly like I think everything here is taken care of already in EIPs WG repo, so yeah it would be, once we get editors to agree on moving to working groups then all would be taken care of already.
Victor Reasonable do you want me to leave that message I'm in agreement with you should wait.
Sam I'll leave a comment to that.
Victor Ok.
Pooja Very well so the next one here is add last updated information to EIP ERC page which is issue number 8282, is it similar to what we discussed about versioning?
Sam Yeah actually that's already taken care of in working group stuff so I'll leave a comment to that effect.
Pooja Sounds good. Sam Yeah sorry that's unsatisfying answer but yeah that sounds good anyway yeah I mean as long as proposals are receiving comments from editors or people think they are receiving updates it's good so we can move it forward like whatever is next step people can think about it or if something is already being done in parallel which will take care of it at least they will be satisfied so that's helpful now.
Victor I think question in last link 8282 does not involve split between EIP and ERC or establishment with working group. I think they're asking if they can automatically or manually add last change date of an EIP.
Sam Yes so it's not part of split just that feature is already implemented in my demo.
Victor You did yeah of last updated.
Sam Yep exactly so
Victor Like if it can be closed issue is already done just waiting to release.
Sam Right again if we decide to go with my implementation, it can be closed.
Victor I don't want to just close it because yeah I'd love to use your implementation.
Bumblefudge This seems very useful thing maybe if feature they're asking for is already in draft repo like EIP working group you could link to specific line where it's implemented you know. Yeah do that or whatever and then say this is currently in draft. Here's where you can go vote on it or show support because I don't yeah I think it's fine to let people know this working group split governance is blocking just operational stuff like there's already a draft that would solve this just point them to how they vote.
Sam Yeah
Victor I wonder if there is possibility to decouple that it seems it doesn't have to depend on working group split, it can actually be useful for both, right for both EIP and ERC.
Sam Yeah
Victor As long as we can come into consensus, like our consensus doesn't depend on split or anything.
Bumblefudge Right if split is rejected then same link to GitHub example could be copied separately by two different governors
Pooja Very well since this has been taken care of. Let's move on to next one which is issue number 8269, it's something suggesting abolishing IPv4 and IPv6,
Victor Proposing change of what?
Sam This is somebody who wants opening yeah
Victor Based on Ethereum address decentralized IP address so supposed to be I think so how did you… this is worthy question how do you envision solving IPv6 is yeah I really have I think this is a worthy question. How do you solve it?
Sam Yeah, I really have no idea. This sounds like it's supposed to be an EIP.
Victor It's supposed to be an RSC, that's it.
Sam I'm just going to close it with a little comment,
Pooja And they can maybe take the idea to Fellowship of Ethereum Magician, collect some input there, and if this looks like a potential proposal, they can eventually come up with the proposal.
Sam Exactly.
How to lower the number of open issues and pull requests? 21:54
Pooja Very well, this covers all the proposals listed here for today's discussion. Moving on to call for input. I had this one big question for editors joining this call: how to lower the number of open issues and pull requests? I was just trying to take a look at the chart that I created based on the EIPs Insight, of all open issues and pull requests since January, past 3 months.
It doesn't seem to be getting lower, it's getting higher, so we might want to maybe consider something or any suggestion on this part.
Sam I'm not sure how to handle this problem. I try to edit as much as I can, and I've been mentoring somebody else to hopefully add as an EIP editor eventually, but I don't know what we're supposed to do to review these things faster.
Victor I think there are several things that could help. One is that it's a little bit hard for me to kind of maintain a pipeline of things that I already started looking into. I kind of have to do search all the time, and also, I think it would be helpful if we can have some kind of way to prioritize, come up with a way to prioritize certain ERCs.
Like these ERCs seem to be more like reasonable to prioritize if we have scarce attention. So for the second one, I am currently thinking of like reaching out to people and constantly ask if they want to like notify if they have want to flag some of these existing ERCs as more prioritizing to their view. Maybe at some point I will ask them in a more open space. I've been reaching out to editors, to authors as well to get them to respond on the E FEMs and also invite them to the all core devs, and hopefully whoever engage more actively means that they're actively at authoring and we can also prioritize based on how responsive they are in terms of authoring. That's my two cents. I'd love to hear feedback advice.
Pooja So, I have noticed on the ERC side, we are receiving a bunch of new proposals which I understand if it is reviewed and receive editor’s comments that would be on authors to continue working on that. We are taking a lot of proposals, a lot of PR requests in editing office hour, and I understand Sam is already trying to respond to each one of them based on like whoever, who like, authors who are behind it. They want to join the meeting and they want to talk about it. So the major input or the major road blocker on ERC side are the new proposals which require a thorough review before it could be merged. But on the EIP side, if we notice there are mostly updates, we receive very few new proposals.
But even if they are open, they are open for quite some time. So I'm just wondering is there a way we can speed up the updates, not the new proposal. I mean like I understand new proposal will require more time to be reviewed.
Gajinder I think as long as people are basically doing something with updates and editor has reviewed it at some particular moment, it is fine.
Pooja I'm not sure if that can be merged directly if the updates are there or can it be?
Gajinder So if people, if it's in the draft status and people are pushing on draft, I think it's autoing and if for example someone else, if there is an author change then it lingers on.
Sam oh it doesn't get merged automatically?
Gajinder So drafts, if you push on drafts, it get merged automatically, yeah for example if I author and the status is draft and I basically push on a draft, I create a PR on draft as soon as the CI is green it gets merged.
Sam Okay so it's not broken at least that's good.
Gajinder Yeah so I think the only open updates that I have seen mostly are about status changes or they are about adding some author to it, which is okay.
Pooja And I see some changes are being pushed even for the final proposals which are like kind of fixing reference test. I'm just taking an example here, this is pull request number 8390 which is for an EIP 152 that's currently in the final start. It seems like the author is trying to update reference test here, small PR, I'm not sure the utility right now, but how do we deal about these, do we need to invite the authors to maybe approve them and that gets into merge or because these are already final proposals.
Sam Sorry what was the question again?
Pooja So how do we want to approach the final proposals like pull request for e is in final status here?
I think if it's a trivial change like it's an obvious typo just merge it as an editor and if it's anything that's possibly controversial, open a call for input that's kind of what I think on those.
Pooja It doesn't seem to belong to either of the category so it's like adding some of the reference test.
Sam It's possibly controversial so open a call for input.
Sam This is the final one right?
Sam It is exactly yeah.
Victor If it's final they're extending bits in the test case for that. Are we talking about 8390 is pr request?
Pooja That's right. yes
Victor Okay all right yeah I think that's okay, we should be able to accommodate that. Should we make a call for request call input?
Sam Yah I think so if we're modifying a final EIP and it's not like trivial we should probably open a call for input.
Victor Okay should we ask them to do it or should we do it?
Sam Yeah whatever is easier, like if you don't mind making it just make it for them and then it's easier.
Victor Okay, I can help them make that. I need your template though. I love the way how you make all call for input I couldn't make that table.
Sam Oh
Victor can you if you have added access can you add an issue template there
Pooja So oh is there an issue template?
Victor Yeah I was about to suggest that. Can we make it?
Sam Yeah can we yeah I've never done that
Victor Yeah somebody need to give Sam the edit which I don't have so if someone can help with that, that would be great.
Pooja I think Sam you should have the permissions but in case you do not then please do let me know.
Sam Yeah I don't think I do I can't it
Pooja Yeah okay I'll update it later today.
Sam Awesome
Victor Thank you I'll wait for that to start the full request to the call for input. I'll put it in my to-do list.
Pooja All right, so that was some open questions with respect to open issues and pull requests. We hope to see this number getting down because now we have already reached to the mark of 100, which is like before we enter into exact three digit.
Other discussions and updates from past meetings 31:42
Let's try to handle this as soon as possible, with that we can perhaps move on to call for inputs, I see the first three call for inputs are already closed so we have added the results since we could not meet two weeks earlier I have just added the result here for people to follow and perhaps we can discuss some of the new call for inputs which were open in the last two weeks. I see the first one listed here is number 320 by Vend if I am correct, would you like to maybe provide background and year where we are
Gajinder Its not really initiated by me but I read in that so I think its initiated by
Pooja Sam, yeah right
Gajinder Yeah, I’m just in strong favor.
Sam Sorry mute button there, we’re looking at issue 317?
Pooja Issue 320.
Sam 320, okay. Yeah so if somebody wants to make a link to capes, Im kind of against it because they haven’t been around for ten years and I’m concerned about giving legitimacy to standards organizations instead of just copying their documents. I don’t know if anyone else has any thoughts on the topic?
Victor I’m in strong favor of allowing link to that. You know my stance.
Gajinder I mean ten years is a big time in this industry and ethereum haven’t been around for that time so what has it…
Sam I mean its been around for a couple of years now
Bumblefudge Sorry, I’m having bad audio, what was the question, just how long it’s been around? My question around the legitimacy thing is that’s a very much a value judgement that I support the EIP editors not making, but I feel like it’s sort of its required by the process to having to approve one by one authorities or domain names?
Sam Yeah so, like officially, the only objection I have is on the length of time that it’s been around. Unofficially I’m concerned about giving legitimacy to standards bodies that we don’t necessarily think are legitimate but that’s kind of an off the books objection, I won’t like hold up the process based on that. If Gajinder and Victor, you both think that capes have been around long enough and you feel like they're you know available then, we can go ahead and approve this call for input.
Gajinder I'm not really particular about this particular thing in general I'm of the opinion that maybe we should be more welcoming and allowing as much as we can given they meet certain criteria and criteria shouldn't be 10 years.
I mean this is quite of criteria criteria should be in terms of they're not fraud and the contender is not bogus. I think if basic sanity can be met then probably we should try to allow as many links as possible and then basically it will also not people will also not infer legitimacy from it because if our stated policy is to allow most of the things and only to gatekeep what we think is bogus and bad, it won't basically you know act as a stamp of approval to these bodies.
Sam That makes sense so I guess the only official rules question left to answer is do you think these links will stop working eventually or do you think they'll be around for the long term?
Victor I'm less concerned about the link stability here uh there's internet archive and other tooling and ipfs we can help use to kind of ensure the link stability even ERC's are now in a danger of of REM removing itself we end up having to move things, so yeah I generally am in favor of opening up more flexibility for authors to link. I feel that being able to link is important for authors to think and also to welcome interoperability.
Gajinder So you're both raising the points that are kind of different like you're arguing that our links policy should be changed and I'm asking does this link meet our current policy so if you guys say that you don't think these links are going to disappear then we can merge this right now if you guys want to open a discussion about changing our link policy that's a different discussion.
Gajinder Yeah so I'm I haven't actually looked into this particular thing so I would’t basically say that this is okay or this is not I mean I would basically rely on someone else input on it.
Sam So EIP 5757 is our policy for links, as long as we meet the three requirements, there you can link to a particular version um it has a history of availability and it's free to read then, we can link to it. So as long as you both of you say that it meets those three criteria we can have these links.
Victor I don't see any reason that they don't uh for now but yeah if there's any concern I'm happy to kind of help to help to them to see if if they can be resolved.
Gajinder And yeah I said I don't know this organization so I don't have a particular opinion on this, I was just trying to chime in in general
Victor You do know that if that domain names are having a limit of renewal for 10 years so requiring something to be 10 year, it's probably need to update our policy but yeah
Sam Yeah so the policy says it is a sufficient but not necessary so like we can like if it's existed for 10 years we can say that it'll probably exist for another 10 years but it's not necessary to have it exist for 10 years, it's kind of like a guideline.
Victor If you want to P to have Case Case by case and I think there's no reason for us to believe it wouldn't exist for 10 years uh if you want the general concept I think the only thing I know about ethereum that has last for more than 10 years is yellow paper and it now it it start to become uh deep deprecated in our policy, so I don't think anything actually last 10 years if you want to look at it.
Sam Yeah yeah exactly um we can yeah so I'm hearing that both of you want to merge this and that both of you either Gajinder you don't know the you don't know it well enough to argue the specific points and Victor you think that it has existed long enough and you think it's going to exist forever is that kind of a reasonable summary of
Victor I agree yeah I do I think you you summarize my opinion right
Sam cool well then I am fine with this.
Victor Thank you.
Pooja So does this mean that we are going to add CIP to the list of links that we are allowing? Perfect all right moving on to the next one which is the issue number 325 at ethcat so it's again started by Sam Wilson Sam would you want to maybe provide a summary of that?
Sam Sure thing, so this is changing author's username in 1193 if I'm correct.
Pooja That's right yes yeah
Sam Okay, yeah I think I'll just read through this and we like decide what the consensus is so we have me we have lightclient in favor, Victor what's your thoughts on this?
Victor I'm generally in favor of of allowing editor yeah allowing author update them regardless how we generate that consensus and if we go with uh what like L you want I think at discretion I'm in favor of it if we can go even further we can publish a policy and go by that policy that's even better but yeah let's allow authors to go for it.
Sam Okay and reading your comment gender it sounds like um you are okay updating this as well right?
Gajinder Yep
Sam Okay cool.
Pooja So the decision is in favor of the proposal and it will be merged is that correct understanding?
Sam Yep
Pooja Perfect and it seems like and also Victor just mentioned that uh he is in favor of having uh some general policy around it and from the last meeting 101, I don't know if there was some call for input to be created Victor do you want to take that one as well?
Victor Yeah um I think a general uh said my feeling is that it would be better for us to kind of declare why we agree to update their username and for me is because authors should hold that power, we bar we just for that and if we can agree on that kind of policy then we can take that as a policy if we cannot then I'm okay that we back down to at discretion but I can see that uh one of our contributor, I don't know how to pronounce his name I new Weekly News editor I never try to pronounce yeah AB
Pooja I see I say ABC ABC o oh
Victor Yeah you know who I'm talking about. So I think he has a strong opinion to not have no policy like he wants to have a policy and I can resonate with that a lot so I’d like to discuss with you guys
Pooja I understand this is not directly affecting the response or the result of the issue number 325, but if you would like to maybe go ahead and create a call for input which was recommended in an earlier meeting, we can perhaps take it better in that. I mean like we can collect feedback response in that one
Victor I did.
Pooja You did?
Victor I am sorry I probably forgot to include that in today’s meeting agenda because it was open two weeks ago
Pooja Can you please number that?
Victor Yeah, I can
Pooja Oh, its already listed, I have updated it, we’ll get there then.
Victor So I am in favor of option 3. I think Sam you don’t want to create a new, you want to remain using a consensus ? one time
Sam Yep
Victor And Gajinder, I think your response is simple reject, I don’t really understand what that it, can you help me understand what that is
Gajinder Why do we want to update the list again? I think we have been through a particular kind of this PR where we have—
Victor just don't let people update their name at all?
Gajinder No, update their name but not change the list of authors.
Sam So don't let people add or remove authors but let them change their username?
Gajinder Yeah, if it's simple to verify it's the same person.
Sam Okay,
Victor So no new author, no removal of authors, but it's okay to update their name, it's okay to update their handles.
Gajinder Yeah, I guess because, for example, as somebody mentioned on that other PR, someone else has taken up their handle and if that happens then it is basically, you know, a bit, so basically misrepresentation has already happened if and we should or that author should be allowed to correct that.
Victor Okay, I can agree with you on that. I'm fine either way, so I can second you on that. My first question for you is do you think that it would be approved by editor discretion or consensus? Or do you think it would be authors?
Gajinder It can't be author because there needs to be a make a checker principle over here so maker can't be the Checker here.
Victor Maker cannot be the Checker but the other people, if they have other people on that author list, can validate them.
Gajinder I mean it's a way of outsourcing the tasks that we have and making it easier and anyway, we will rely upon social consensus to actually figure out whether it's the same person or not, so maybe it's okay.
Victor So am I hearing it right that if the author says, if the group of authors says that is the right handle to update, we should just approve it? We don't need like editor discretion?
Gajinder I mean unless editor sense something fishy then maybe they can sort of ask for more proof but in general yeah, there is no other way. I mean we can't go and do a KYC of the person right so we have to rely on social consensus for this.
Sam Okay, yeah I agree with you. If we use a call for input, each editor can use whatever criteria they want to make the determination, so like if I want to, you know, send an email to the person and make sure that they confirm the change is correct or if I want to talk to all the other authors and make sure they all agree, like then I can use that to inform my vote on the call for input, like I think that's easy enough cuz for example if all the authors on a poll request Say Hey I want to change this person's username but I email the person and the person says they don't want to change their username, I'm going to follow what the per the email says and not what the rest of the authors say.
Gajinder Yep that probably makes sense.
Victor Okay, that's fine, I can see the concern there um I'm okay to not insist if you both wanted that way so you mean you want to make it still a editor consensus?
Sam Yeah, absolutely. Like I don’t think we need to special case this anymore, than we already do, we make a call for input, everybody put their opinion in, then they decide how to handle the author username change.
Victor Okay, I am a little bit concerned but I’m okay to not insist. If you both want it that way, I can say that we agree that it will be call for inputs, Victor reserves opinion,
Sam We can we'll just follow this like we do for all the other calls for input, so on April 29th I'll look at this this issue and then um make a call based on what comments people have left, and I think that's and
Victor In that case I'm going to say if the authors want to add an author, I can still have the rights to to allow that right?
Sam You can make a call for input and we can talk about it absolutely.
Victor Okay
Sam Yep yeah so it's like for things that are not controversial like for example like fixing an obvious typo we don't need to call for input but for things that you think might be controversial you should make a call for input, otherwise you'll piss people off.
Victor Sometimes it's hard to know where yeah
Sam I know.
Victor Yeah I guess we can do this if someone wants to do it we can kind of go ahead and do it unless two people raise their concern and then that's an obvious controversy?
Sam So you're proposing a change to our like decision-making process or specifically just for this?
Victor Never mind I was thinking that our attention together is very scarce and anything that we put on that require our C would just hold our operation and let's say if we have more time we should be unblocking the split so we shouldn't be discussing the username updates for like three consecutive EIPIP meeting while holding the other things that you probably think more important on hold and especially you put in tremendous time to implement this EIPW and all toolings and then you're waiting for other people to approve it I'm 100% in favor of like moving forward.
Gajinder But how frequent do you think that these are going to be I think it's going to be very sparse?
Sam It's like we get 20 after an airdrop and then it stops until the next airdrop.
Victor It will come more often given the given the protocol guild approach has become a common thing and I think it would come more often. But it's okay if it comes up more times and then we realize this a blocker will definitely bring up and discuss it again.
Sam Sounds good uh so I think we're looking at 327 now call for input change solidity in 7201, it's changing a tiny bit of solidity, please leave your comments on the CFI. I'm just going to go quickly here because we already discussed 329, 331 what is this one so 331 is another change of username one, yeah please just leave your comments on it and I'll sort that out on May 2nd and then have the last one, which is typo correction PR so this is whether we merge 8254 or not. So again leave your comments on those PRs or issues rather and that's it for call for inputs and
Pooja Sam if you may check your permissions I hope you should be able to create the template for like going forward people can just use the issue template to create this call for input okay I'll take a look thanks very well we are about time I would just quickly take a look at if there are any pending action items, we have updated the HackMD for EIPs Insight for this month and we already have discussed the increasing PR number we will perhaps take a look in the next meeting if there is in a way to bring it down from the earlier meeting there was this one just trying to check, item number five there is an action item for updating ERC 7201 fixed solidity formula, Sam Wilson will create a call for input for this fold request wondering if we have covered this or this is yet to be created y that was already?
Sam Yep, that's created. Yeah it's a 327.
Pooja Okay very well and I think uh Victor one is 329 which is again coming from the earlier meeting so we are good with that and that covers almost everything, especially the main items on the agenda. Thank you everyone for joining us here we hope to see you in two weeks and please feel free to add any action item or any issue that people would like to discuss in future meetings we create the agenda right after this meeting.
- Pooja
- Gajinder
- Sam
- Victor