ACTION 70.1: Need to have another discussion for Adds @xinbenlv as an EIP Editor (#5502)
ACTION 70.2: Pooja will Create a google form to have a feedback on website EIPsInsight.com
ACTION 70.3: Lightclient will discuss the EIP number allocation process in Discord and share a hackmd with EIP editors.
—------------------
Pooja Ranjan 0:00: Welcome to eipip meeting number 70. I have shared an agenda in chat, we have few items for discussion suggested by Sam and Victor. So have included only open items because by the time we have this meeting a few of them are already closed.
Update EIP-3475: Changing comments
Pooja Ranjan 0:24: So starting from the first item which is about updating EIP 3475. I'm sharing the link here in the chat for reference. It was suggested by Sam so Sam if you quickly like to give one minute intro or overview for this and then we can start discussing the issue.
Sam 0:41: Sure it's so. we're changing our final EIP and I just wanted to check if anybody has any opinions about it.
Pooja Ranjan 0:58: This looks okay yeah this looks like an EIT which was merged recently it's not been old.
Sam 1:07: But yeah they're mostly just changing the comments that sum with the examples.
Pooja Ranjan 1:26: I think I overspoken. Over to Light client. Matt can you please repeat.
Light Client 1:35: I was just saying I haven't reviewed this PR. so I'm just taking a look at it right now. I generally don't want to change final eips. So I don't know it feels like they should have had the comments that they wanted in there when they moved it to final.
xinbenlv 2:04: I think if this meeting is about uh General policy then maybe that will be even more helpful is that we lay out the principles of what when do we agreed on that is okay to modify it or not and then I think for individual loans if they can later be applied with those principles that editors agree with. We've had a good understanding of the purpose of the city.
Sam 2:39: Yeah it's it's process improvements and similar things. so my general policies don't edit EIPS.
Pooja Ranjan 2:52: Yeah So I was mentioning this in the last meeting, like sometimes when proposals are not getting enough reviews, probably on the review comment or we comment in General on discussion threads and it keeps moving from one status to another status chances of moving them into final. They move faster but we may miss some obvious points. I wonder if we should recommend that the editor should recommend any ballpark time period for consideration for these kind of proposals so we do not have to edit final eips but we make all the edits before that.
Sam 3:47: I think I'm on my client side with this. I don't think adding a time period is the right approach. I like it'll just slow it down and still know what is going to look at it .That's kind of why I started that peer review kind of process that I'm trying out. So we'll see if that helps catch some issues
Pooja Ranjan 4:09: That's a good point. I think I have added peer review in today's just because we can probably get more cards over there but just for information for people listening to this call generally speaking recommendation for changes in the final status proposals we have added a feedbacks from editors from earlier meeting and according to this a final EIT May accept non-normative changes. However it is again best to avoid any changes to the final proposal. So if there are more than like smaller changes it was recommended earlier to come up with a new proposal altogether than just trying to edit these proposals but obviously given this proposal this is relatively new and we can obviously collect feedback from more editors.
Sam 5:13: And we could also just leave it. I don't really think we need to have a decision on it. It's not hurting anybody if the pr is open.
Pooja Ranjan 5:23: Sounds good. All right moving on to the next one is Eip tags level topic I suppose. This was suggested by Victor. I'm sorry I'm sharing the link here in the chat so yeah Victor if you would like to give one minute intro and then it can be easier for people it is.
Xinbenlv 5:50: Let me check. Oh! I don't think I'd suggest this topic but yeah maybe it's kind of people. But I can understand the interest of adding tags but yeah maybe it will end up. Able to explain a bit more. I have lost you and I've not seen this proposal again.
Pooja Ranjan 6:28: Looks like this has been added to issue number 6037. This is a proposal so yeah if people can give their feedback thoughts on the issue we can take it from there. If there is any comment for today.
Sam 6:47: Yeah I'll leave a comment on the issue.
Peer review - Jr. Reviewer, Domain specific reviewers, Copyeditor Discord Discussion
Pooja Ranjan 6:53: All right, that will lead us to the peer review discussion on calculus. Discord there was this discussion for peer review. Should the proposal get more reviews? There was also a proposal of a Junior reviewer probably Romance by domain specific reviewer and copy editor kind of thing. So yeah Sam you mentioned that you are already working in that direction so if you can sort of.
Sam 7:22: So I think adding another level of editors is not useful unless we have some kind of a Q system. If we just have people who are you know copy editing or whatever but we don't have a way to flag an EIP is ready for like senior editor review then I don't think it's actually going to help but it's not going to make anything easier. So I think if we wanted to do multiple levels of editors and then like eips get promoted that I might be okay with just adding Junior editors. I think it's just not really going to help that much people can already comment on PRS and provide feedback if they want to. But I have tried to organise a peer review list, so there's a hack MD that I've given to the editors of people who have volunteered to read and comment on the technical side of EIPs. This is in response to Greg's comment that we don't have it up here reviewers or we don't get enough peer reviews. So it's broken down into a few categories like nfts and execution clients stuff like that and yeah if you like merger PR from draft or or merge a draft PR. nope that's wrong too. Merging EIP that is in draft. Tag somebody from that list and so far it's been working reasonably well. I've gotten two people to reply with peer review feedback and uh yeah see people seem genuinely pretty excited to work on it. So yeah just a new resource for editors so feel free to go and start using it .
Light Client 9:13: What's the Avenue for sharing this information? Is it on like Discord or telegram reviewers? GitHub No I mean like how like what is your process right now for like connecting the reviewers with.
Sam 9:28: Oh! I think, like I said there's a hack MD so I just grab. somebody from a relevant topic makes a comment on the discussion thread with them. You can just username and then they usually
Xinbenlv 9:42: okay yeah it's very informal there's no real process for it yeah
Light Client 9:48: Yeah that's really cool.
Sam 9:53: How'd you have the list?
light Client 9:57: I have it on Discord somewhere. I need to find it.
Sam 10:01: Yeah I'll maybe be something more formal at some point butfor now I think we can deal with this
Xinbenlv 10:10: Yeah I really like the idea of having peer reviews, provides better sense of contributions and also Advocate some sentiments in the author group that it's actually your responsibility to research and consult and ask for peer reviews. That's what I'm trying to deal with some of the new eip's and then so we can over time in the process look at erc's see who they nominate and then so it's a peer-nominated peer review list that we can grow and also I don't agree with the like clients about maybe we could think about where we can publish that list. So people get more visibility of hey there's a thing in your video and you can contribute here because you add on your species the value of that type of thing.
Sam 11:12: Yeah I'll work on the message. I'm posting a little bit because there's already a call for authors to also sign up for the list but I'll refine them a little bit more and yeah because I think getting more people to participate is important and getting authors to nominate people is also probably fairly useful.
Xinbenlv 11:33: Yeah I think that we can borrow the poison and cat herders alongside. They have very good experience and solicitude.
Sam 11:51: very true
Pooja Ranjan 11:57: um well thank you no thank you Victor and thanks Sam for this initiative I mean this is definitely a good idea. The issue of not getting enough reviews or maybe not getting enough for constructive feedback was always mentioned by EAP authors so especially for new Waters who are trying to do it for the first time so it seems very valuable for them to get it more reviews and um I guess if we have this list readily available. we will start sharing it with new Authors that if you would like to tag any offer in the available reviews that would be nice. You can get more reviews there okay. I see a comment over here Moody if you would like to mention that I guess it's generally a suggestion yeah but please go ahead.
Moody 12:54: Yeah I'm just one thing we would like to do even swap is just start contributing more to eips that are related to like smart contract interfaces.
Sam 13:09: We would love that.
Moody 13:13: But I think as a company we don't like have like a good feed of what's going in that's relevant to us and there's a lot of eips and some of them or most of them probably aren't relevant to us. So like it'd be nice to have, so today for a GitHub PRS for example, we have slack channels and then we have a GitHub uh application that we can subscribe to certain repos, commits output requests Etc. It'd be really cool to have something similar for EIPs where we could just type a command to subscribe to. Yeah please and just get like the abstract dropped into the channel.Yeah I bought drops in pull requests summaries into the slack Channel and so it's pretty easy to know what you need to click. So just if there's something that other companies can also use, I feel that would help a lot with just getting more participation but I'm not sure exactly how it's best built. It seems a GitHub action would have to be creative though.
Sam 14:32: That posts to Discord or something
Moody 14:35: Yeah yeah it would be unfortunate if I had to be per org. So maybe there should be EIP editor maintained Slack application or something like that so that people can just come and register this like application and then subscribe to eips
Sam 15:00: So could we ping you for eips that we think might be relevant to you or would you want something automated. There aren't that many eips I think we get maybe 15 a month or something like that or is it more than that. Yeah I think around there.
Light Client 15:19: yeah
Sam 15:21: I think we can manually ping you. It's just we need to know who to pay and what username to use and what topics they'd be interested in.
Moody 15:26: yeah I mean that that works for just unit swap but I'm imagining if open C and other developers also want to get well.If you want to get participation from many different applications specs. it's just helpful to have a tool where we can set it up and then also I'm not necessarily going to be the one who reads it. It could be anyone who's interested in that particular topic. At the unisoft team, it's really nice to have just a slack Channel where you can see the abstracts and choose which ones you click.
Sam 16:02: Yeah that makes sense. I'll see what we can set up. I'll do a little bit of research there.
Pooja Ranjan 16:09: So I have a question here. I like this information that could be useful for the application team at what level this information you are looking for. Because there could be you know numerous things going out so if there is any specific requirement maybe at any specific status.
Moody 16:31: I think it's like a merger. I guess it'd be nice to people who configure it but probably right away just like merged eips there and draft being able to choose a category and then a subcategory for the subscription and then I think the most important thing to just have in the message that goes to the slide channel would be like the abstract. But yeah the more customizable the better because I'm getting on multiple Channels with different people in the channels. Everyone could sort of customizable I want to see.
Pooja Ranjan 17:15: Right, I can think of something like this. Maybe we can create a GitHub channel that could be automated by a bar in which they can probably add ERC specific comments or a merge when it happens could be added over there. But customization we may want to look further into it and just FYI as Light client was mentioning, we do have an RSS feed available on eipstvm.org. I'm sharing the link right here that is for last call only so in case that is helpful at least for the time being any ERC proposal getting into last call that means that is there for another 14 days. Team can probably add TSC back stocks.
Moody 18:03: Yeah I think we could build something on top of it or I guess we could there's probably an RSS. Slackbot already that exists
Light Client 18:14: Yeah I mean I think if that exists I think that would be the best way to go forward. I think we can expose different things lately. We want to have an RSS feed just for application stuff. We could do that and yeah I think that would be better just so that it's pretty. Yeah agnostic and it's just here's a place to consume this information.
Moody 18:40: Yeah if you could just break it out by category and subcategory that'd be really cool. Actually it might be possible. I guess this is built by Jekyll, maybe you could have it by status too. It was not just the last call right.
Pooja Ranjan 19:04: this is a good idea
Light Client 19:07: it looks like there's ways of adding RSO speeds to slack, so I think this is a very good way of moving forward with this.
Moody 19:24: So I guess the action item would be having those different side channels and we can and then on our side. We can subscribe to the one that exists.
Sam 19:37: Yeah we'll see what we can do to get the RSS feeds to be more verbose or have more content in them.
*Moody 19:43: Yeah thank you
Pooja Ranjan 19:50: Thank you, so yeah this is a very good discussion here. I probably wish you to look into getting more RSS feeds depending upon category and Status. Right now we have it only for the last call. Thank you diagram for sharing the article. I hope that would be helpful for people who are interested in looking into building up their song.
Pooja Ranjan 20:16: All right moving on to item number two. This is from discussion contributions for earlier meetings There were two items suggested by Victor but it looks the one 5980 is already merged. So we are here with another one which is adding Twitter as an EIP editor. Yeah Victor if you would like to share more from where we were last time. we visited this item and where we are now and then again maybe yeah have opinion of other editors
Xinbenlv 20:53: Oh yeah I think that last time while we were discussing having me as an editor. I think it is kind of nominated as a practice and supporting Sanders and support too. But I think that PR was merged on maturity but you didn't get to hear What platform thing and then so I'll kind of realise that. I haven't worked with a lifetime for long enough to kind of show what I do. I have some if I wear a half-up attitude. so I think after two months. I think it's because I work with a supply like mine a little bit more and I just want to get it out with other people in the room.
Sam 22:01: How do you cut out can I show your people?
Xinbenlv 22:06: oh no I'm done speaking okay I guess I'll Pace today man. I just can't put it out there on the table
Sam 22:15: Yeah okay so I think the only thing that's changed on my friend is and I don't want this to come across as like offensive or anything but I am somewhat concerned about philosophical alignment and I do want to have a more focused discussion about that and you know from from like a um editor perspective I think you're great you do really good work you give good feedback. You attend the process more than most editors do so. I think my only concern is making sure that you know we want to build the same thing. I'm not exactly sure how to approach that kind of a discussion and I'm not sure if we should do it without more editors and if Matt isn't here then I don't know if Matt is still here.
Light Client 23:10: Yeah I mean I think that I agree with you. Sam I think you've been great with the editing part of the process but amazingly. Yeah I just think that editors should be more involved with ethereum as a whole and more philosophically aligned with ethereum's values and I'm not sure if the alignment is there currently.
Sam 23:48: so to like turn this into an actual like actionable thing that we can talk about what kind of alignment things are you most concerned about and then Victor what would you say like how do you feel about those things.
Xinbenlv 24:02: yeah of course I'm happy to hear it um but uh what you have in mind.
Sam 24:09: so the biggest example for me is the discussion about linking to non-free resources and you know I think you and Greg are fairly aligned on it which is interesting because Greg's already an editor but for me it's like you know it should be as cheap as possible to build ethereum and you know free and open access and not linking to paywall sources and everything. And I think you are a little bit more relaxed on that kind of a thing and that's actually what made me a little bit concerned about philosophical alignment so I wanted to talk about things like licensing and all of that so that's where I'm coming from I don't know if Matt's feeling the same or not.
Light Client 24:52: Yeah I feel similarly and for me I also feel like the ERC that you authored a few months ago about creating a standard for applications to understand sanction lists that to me I find like concerning coming from somebody who is like wanting to be an editor because I feel like this is like very much against the values of ethereum overall and yeah that's another piece of concern for me
Xinbenlv 25:31: So let me first address where I come from and then what I think my philosophy is that you can assess whether that is what you're looking for. So I come from contributing to Wikipedia and then so I have a passion about being open and I do have a few essays about open contributor communities and then being open in a sense that it's in a sense that I felt that we need to allow people to contribute as easily as possible. so that's to begin with and some of our policies align with that some of our policies didn't like. I personally felt it in line with that because sometimes when we are in close requirements for example like samples we debate about external links or whether the link needs to be free. I felt like that you have a strong sense of requiring the Solace to be accessible, which I totally agree with. I kind of hold the philosophical approach that we take these kinds of things gradually we allow people. Instead of having a hard time of hey if you're not free you're not entering, We are going to build isolated Islands to avoid us interacting with any people. who are not strictly the same deals with us which is more of a life like I think it's more of the Gnu or GPL type of philosophy philosophy I'm more on the MIT licensed the SDA licence side. Let Me Be Free. If you're a good guy , I want you to be able to use this. I want you to be able to contribute with us but if you happen to be a bad guy. I'm kind of okay to being abused a little bit so long as you don't get into us that's my type of thing so but we will hoping to build a gradient of incentives so that people will do the good things that's why when I talk to you, hey how about we do if you have a free list if you have a free version cheaper version you should link to the cheaper version so we build this gradient of incentive so that's the type of thing and then the other thing is like clients. when I address the jurisdiction and that's not what I meant to them to sanction or to help sanction. I want this to be clear that the purpose is avoiding or massively avoiding people trying to do sections on the core level. You will see an application layer in the form of sanction. Okay any time and anyhow and then my feel is that if we build a safer net so that at least people who are concerned of their jurisdictions can still use ethereum then they're not they will be less pressure on kind of asking the core to change or to be able to sanction transactions so what my view here is that I take a two-layer approach on the core. We should be very strong about non-sanction we should be resistance of sexual and even build a strong algorithm to to add incentive to against sanction censorship but on the application layer. We should realise that there's companies that want to have their own jurisdictions some of the doubt or there might be countries that in that night so that's kind of my philosophical views but let me take one step back and I think the court might believe uh is even more important than these two. I think it's considered more of a details if I may say my core belief is community should be open to contributors but it's not freely open the entry evaluators should be based on contributions. Just Apache Community has this principle that everyone can contribute but Authority comes from but Authority and Trust are earned not uh for bikes for granted it's earned by contributions so that's what I I believe one open contributor Community admission and the step and the second deal that's not philosophically is that I believe in. Consensus it's strongly impure consensus so that's why I kind of create the voting standard and and like at least not trying to like advocate for voting schedule on channel governance and if you see a lot of my EIP authorship it's all about kind of how you help governance so that people can do it decentralised but my view is that people should be able to come into consensus and at least um you should there's two ways to do that in society. it's either a more Major Tool it's Catholics and it's bizarre like classes Bazaar um these essays. I'll talk about the fact that I believe that I'm more confident and then in that sense we should be able to come to a consensus and that's why I was surprised by the hike. when I debate with a panda pit. You probably see my debate like I fight uh 100 in the discussion about external links or like quite strongly that I want people to be able to link because I come from a Wikipedia sense. I want to do a connected world not isolated work world of knowledge and then I was surprised by pentatives when he nominated me as editor even though I strongly disagree with him on how we should deal with links and that's why I felt I kind of being welcomed in the EIP process because even though some of the ideas we might disagree. I still felt that this group will come with a diversity of ideas, diversity of views so long as the core value as you might be concerned like so long as the core value. we agree upon and then for a core value. I believe uh for myself is that we should be open to contributors and we should be able to Value consensus like what I would not do is I will not try to depend when editors or when someone I work with creates a policy. I will not unilaterally act differently from the policy. I will try to interpret the policy as is as much as I can but I'll I'll find in a debate when I disagree with the policy but in actions I will follow the policy that even if I disagree with which I hope that if you work with me you will notice that I I'm enforcing when I noticed that people that added a group of tweet that there's no way to pause that's that's not where I come from I would disagree my view but once the discussion is done conclusion is up I will follow what the government's body that I'm participating with about the decisions that's the two core values I have and I'm I'm just talking here in order to hear what you think.
Sam 33:49: So I think you touched on the topic that I'm most concerned about and that is while I do think anybody should be able to contribute to the eips repository. I don't think that is the core purpose of it right. We're a little bit different from other standards organisations and from other communities because we the people who write eips are often not the people who are like, especially for core eips they're not the people who are going to be consuming them. So I think we need to focus on resiliency and accessibility and this like those things come before the openness to contribute contributions for me and I would rather turn away eips or proposals that don't meet our bar for Quality then have eips that don't meet those bars so I really don't like having any Links at all in the IPS. I think that it's going to like subvert the kind of my core idea of EIPs being a silo of information that isn't danger connected to anything else and I think that you know if you want to bring this idea of interconnected knowledge and and linking everything I think that's completely that's probably the biggest philosophical difference is that I want the eip's repository to stand alone not be linked to anything and only with that be able to recreate ethereum and I think that's a very different goal from what you want to have with the eips repository.
Xinbenlv 35:41: I hear you and I respect what you say and then if that is what our glutenants of course. I'll follow that. Yeah I do see that in some cases people were refrained from being able to link to consensus back which we are addressed I know but I kind of want to use the friction like at the philosophical like at the level that we allow but yeah I agree with you. What this group wants or what the ethereums in general wants is what this EIP Repository is to be able to review and sell people being able to do ethereum itself. Yeah I can understand and then that I wouldn't contest that so that doesn't conflict with the core value that I have is for open contributors because if you look at it from the other perspective. It's allowing people who might not have internet access or might not be able to access the paywall to be able to contribute so I would say the link is more kind of detailed now core philosophy. I don't think it's conscious. Yeah I can adjust my understanding. I have to understand English
Sam 37:11: Yeah I mean so even if your personal beliefs don't exactly line up if you're willing to offer like if you're willing to approach the EIP process with the idea that like the goal of the EIP process is to create a body of standards that like Will Survive like an apocalypse then I think you know we can probably work together and I think you'd like I'd support your editorship whatever the right term is contributorship. I think well, like you know, like you become an editor. Oh yeah I think you know your personal beliefs aside if you're willing to operate on the eip's repository with the shared goal of creating a resilient, available like durable platform first and then your personal belief second I think you know I'd be totally fine with you being an editor.
Xinbenlv 37:59: Thank you and actually that's my according to me my core beliefs just like you said is that when you operate in a collaborating environment and then if you are acting as a rule enforcer you should enforce the rule made by people you should follow the value made by people together that's the core of the core for me um and then even even though you personally disagree with that and then I wonder if I make it clear that's exactly what I believe.
Sam 38:41: Damn no I think you made it clear so I hate to do this to you but I don't think that we can make a decision today I don't think we have enough like we need at least Greg or Panda or somebody else to chime in. So maybe we open a thread on Discord or something Just to gather everybody else's opinion it would be nice to have a third person that attends these meetings regularly.
Light Client 39:12: Yeah I mean we need to resolve that like the point of moving the meeting was for panda to come and I think yeah we should figure out a time for the panda to come.
Sam 39:20: Yeah and I mean like we were talking about having a special meeting for pandas and I tried to reach out and coordinate a date and that has gone nowhere so yeah we have to figure that out.
Light Client 39:36: I just want to say that I think maybe with panda being added as an editor like relatively quickly like maybe we set a bit of a precedent of editors being added fast and historically that's like not really the case. We've had people you know I think it was for me it was around a year Micah I was kind of doing stuff for multiple years before he became an editor I don't think that you know this has to be something that happens quickly I think that editors are people who are just deeply involved with the space anyways and you know are good Guardians the process because they like go through the process and they are they do the process.They understand it and so it feels like you know a little contrived. it's just add people as editors, just adding editors and not adding people who are, you know, really living through the process for like a long period of time.
Sam 40:33: If anybody's precedent for being added quickly it was me foreign.
Light client 40:40: Yeah but I mean you've also gone through the EIP process for a long time .
Sam 40:44: Oh yeah I think, I added myself in a week .So yeah I mean let's you know I think you've done a good job of making me feel more comfortable with it Victor. let's try to get you know everybody involved and have more of a discussion about it and hopefully we can come to a consensus soon. Xinbenlv 41:14: Of course! yeah thank you very much um just one last thing, I just want to have a chance to kind of discuss it throughout my client about the kind of did I address you. Did I address the concern or like do you want to discuss a little bit more about what the EIP about the jurisdiction and sovereignty is part of the question.
Light Client 41:46: I don't want to discuss it more in this call. I think we should move on but I think from what I heard I just generally still don't feel like you're very aligned with things. I think that on-chain voting is not aligned. I think on-chain voting doesn't work very well in general and it's not like a good thing to be focusing on I think that trying to build this sanctions list to stop the core protocol from being sanctioned is the wrong approach.I think there are other approaches to avoid you know to create a platform that's censorship resistant andAlliant people who are aligned to understand this or who evolved or the processes are working on those things and so I think that you're outside the loop in that case.
Pooja Ranjan 42:39: So I can see there is a number assigned to it I guess it's a pull request number 5,7or 3 probably a weekend try to add more thoughts from other editors what they think at this point of time or do we need to have any other discussion thread. Okay I think we do have a place so let's call the request number, we can have it over there. But if we feel strongly to have another discussion threat in general opinion. Probably we can start with Fellowship of Athena magician hoping this is a good point to maybe move on to the next item in the agenda. At this point of time I just wanted to make sure Victor is comfortable with the discussion we had today.
Xinbenlv 43:45: yeah yeah of course thank you for having everybody to talk about it and share your friend feedback we look forward to. Yeah I have no discussions either I want to support or on some other calls
Pooja Ranjan 44:01: Thank you everyone so the next sub item here mentioned is EIP number allocation. We are very well aware that EIP number allocation is on EIP editors. They can allocate numbers we saw some cases of the spotting numbers and trying to snip a number which is not the right thing to do and the process there was not right. so I totally understand punishing number grabbing ideas or opportunities and allocating them a different number but I was wondering in general. Do we need to just remove the number because I've come across a case? Actually I came across more than one but I could find only one and the other one's last number is 555. so it was just a good issue number and it was mentioned that this is the condition number so we are just taking it off of the list however there was another PR which was 6000 and it seemed that author tried to trick so he was allocated a different EIP number. I am generally curious to understand, if someone is getting any number by the right process should or should not be there in any case. We should be EIP editor should be allocating a new number or is this a good idea to maybe remove the better numbers from the list.
Sam 45:36: I think the best solution is to build the bot we keep talking about.
Pooja Ranjan 45:45: I got that I wanted to quickly touch on that area as well. this EIP number part I may have missed but do we have a process in place? I just wanted to get to know that so we can start sharing it with people. We have and if anyone's interested right now we are just saying that we want an EIP number bot but what do we want to have in that and what is the process to do. We have many thoughts about it.
Sam 46:13: Sorry I just realised this k06a guy posted eight PR's to try and get six thousand.
Pooja Ranjan 46:20: That's right and that's why he didn't allocate that number. This is the right thing to do. But There are other cases in which someone is getting the good number for a genuine process and still it was not allocated to that person so yeah please go ahead.
Moody 46:45: Has it been discussed just actioning the numbers off or something.
Sam 46:57: Yeah Micah was an advocate for that.
Moody 46:59: I mean you could just have like an ens registry where people can just like buy it and then prove they own it and that could be how the bot assigns a number. An idea the funding can just go to grants or funding people's time for they spend on editing. It is just if people want it like why not let them have it but just have a better and more Fair Way of allocating that.
Light client 47:37: I think this is going to open up a lot of different things and I would rather avoid it. I would rather create an external counter for EIP numbers and just assign them individually.
Moody 47:53: I mean why not just make them random then have a bot assign random. Often America identifiers there says
Light Client 48:02: It just seems really stupid that we're having so many problems and debating numbers. There's so many standard bodies that just assign numbers. This isn't a problem but for some reason we're wanting to game the system and create a bunch of mechanisms around it.
Pooja Ranjan 48:25: Maybe this is something that I would like to bring to the Brink's meeting as well to collect more thoughts around what is the general process of the EIP number part that we are considering.
Sam 48:37: Yeah oh I think the only evaluation is the only implementation. we're considering for the EIP number bot is in the commit where it's merged um that's where the number is assigned the first draft is merged that's where the numbers assigned and it's assigned to the highest value plus one of an EIP that exists in the Repository.
Light Client 48:56: I mean I feel like we should just start doing this right now but use you know until we get the Bots just use a hack MD or a spreadsheet or something.
Moody 49:10: Would you mean how could you do that with a bot like are you gonna merge eips and then have the bot commit to master or main um immediately after.
Sam 49:24: No so the bot would create the merge commit and assign the EIP number in the merge command.
Light Client [49:34]((https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kMX1PSa2ew&t=2974s): Thoughts are cool I think we can set this up in five minutes for the hack MD and just with one editor assigns a number just do that like I think that's a good starting place you're wasting so many numbers by assigning by a PR crazy.
Sam 49:48: The only problem with that approach is you don't know what the number is going to be until you merge it right and well.
Light client 49:57: I'm not saying I don't think it has to be assigned at merge I think it could be assigned when editor reviews it and they'll just go look at that document and every time it never gets merged this is not like that big a deal it's way better than this world where we have where a person can just like bump the numbers yeah you know every number go ahead Moody.
Moody 50:22: Well people still try to game whatever process you have in hack MD.
Sam 50:26: It'll be less capable than what we have now though right because other people won't be able to see the hack MD where they can see the GitHub number.
Moody 50:37: Yeah I mean you could like why not just make it random do they have to be sequential.
Sam 50:47:no it's just a nice property to keep them sequential but we could make them random.
Light Client 50:56: I don't really keep them sequential like I think it gives a nice temporal property of things to you know to a degree you. Sam 51:02: Can know roughly how old the eip is based on the number
Light Client 51:05: Yeah it doesn't give that much information but it just feels like we go random then yeah we're pretty in a pretty adversarial mindset about the process which I think is not a not the right way to approach it.
Light Client 51:47: All right I'll post on Discord. I can't imagine that Panda pip is going to be against it and I don't think Greg cares.
Pooja Ranjan 51:57: All right so yeah yeah anyway education is. I think whatever process they agree should be fine, maybe we can have a small discussion on Discord.
Poojas Ranjan 52:16: All right I think that's all the time we had. I just quickly want to mention one other thing. The EIP is inside.com website actually it is eipsInsight.com the website is active right now it shows the latest month information. I'm going to quickly share the link here right now. It is showing the list of proposals in the draft final review last call and the stagnant total number of proposals and if we click into these proposals we will get to know the name and description plus the pull request number. It is basically an automation of the hack into a file that I was sharing earlier every month but this seems to be a more automated process and I think it is more reliable than the happening because secondly I don't do it every day but this is done by bot so hopefully this will help. I would be curious to hear more thoughts not in this call obviously from people if they would like to see some other stats related to EIP. We can probably add that so yeah to let us know if there are any other features that you would like to be added to Sam. Already shared a few and we have listed it here. Hopefully we can start looking into what is the right Hackmd so here we have added code and new properties to be added to this website. if there are any thoughts on this or any new thing that can be added to make it better the website.
Sam 53:57: What do you want feedback?
Pooja Ranjan 54:01: Oh no I'm just saying on on the present eip's inside website and if anything else can be added on that I have added whatever
Sam 54:10: where do you want feedback
Pooja Ranjan 54:12: Right now we can collect it on DM but definitely I will start uh I will start a form Google form in which people can add their feedback and I think this website contains that thing contact us there people can message
Sam 54:26: Sounds good
Pooja Ranjan 54:27: Okay thank you so much Shiva I should have thought of the form earlier but contact us can share the information with the team.
Sam 54:36: if you just have a GitHub issue or something that would also work.
Pooja Ranjan 54:42: yep We can do that, thank you.
Sam 54:44: Whatever works for you guys. yeah it looks great I'm really excited about it.
Pooja Ranjan 54:50: Well thank you everyone for joining us today I hope to share the recording very soon see you all in two weeks have a good one everyone
- Xinbenlv
- Moody
- Pooja Ranjan
- Sam Wilson
- Light Client