search

ethcatherders / EIPIP

EIP Improvement Process
81 stars 37 forks source link

EIPIP Meeting 77 #219

Closed poojaranjan closed 1 year ago

poojaranjan commented 1 year ago

Date and Time

Mar 22, 2023 at 14:00 UTC

Location

Zoom: TBA in the Discord #eip-editing channel

YouTube Live Stream/Recording: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4cwHXAawZxpLrRIkDlBjDUUrGgF91pQw

Agenda

1. Discuss Open Issues/PRs, and other topics

2. Discussion continued from earlier meetings

3. EIPW bot Issues

4. EIPs Insight - Monthly EIPs status reporting.

5. EIP Editing Office Hour

6. Review action items from earlier meetings

[Prev. meeting]

Next meeting - Apr 05, 2023?

abcoathup commented 1 year ago

Can you discuss: Add @abcoathup as a trial ERC editor: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/6575#issuecomment-1461055801 Or automate EIP number issuing.

I'm keen for PRs to get merged quickly and number issuance is one of the blockers.

The time of the meeting isn't compatible with living in Australia, so unfortunately can't attend.

xinbenlv commented 1 year ago

Topic: can we also add this to agenda: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/discussion-of-criteria-for-advancing-eip-status-a-straw-man-proposal/11995

Update: meeting brief notes about this

  1. Generally in favor of creating a guideline (but not a criteria) for EIP to advance status
  2. Generally in favor of seeing implementations for last call and final as a signal for community interest
  3. Mentioned that having multiple implementations might not sufficiently demonstrate independence between them but lacking implementations could be seen as a signal of lack of community interest

@xinbenlv @lightclient @samwilsn participated in discussion. Correct me if my understanding is wrong.

xinbenlv commented 1 year ago

Topic: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/5682

Update: meeting brief about this

No consensus formed, call for more input from more stakeholders

Options (1) having a L1 Privacy Consideration (2) having a L1 Other Considerations as catch all for authors to put in considerations not fit in other sections. (3) having an "Appendix" to be used for privacy

  1. @samwilsn and @lightclient personally object all of (1), (2) and (3)
  2. @xinbenlv and @gcolvin personally support (2). Also, @xinbenlv individually also support (1), @gcolvin individually supports (3).

EIP editors call for more input from stakeholders before we could move forward on this topic.

@xinbenlv @lightclient @SamWilsn @gcolvin participated in discussion. Correct me if my understanding is wrong.

Pandapip1 commented 1 year ago

I think you meant L2 instead of L1. L1 is the title :)

Anyway, you missed:

(4) having a L2 "Considerations" heading with L3 "Security Considerations" and "Privacy Considerations" subheadings. (5) having "Privacy Considerations" as an 'official' L3 subheading of the L2 "Security Considerations" heading.

I am +1 to (1), (4), or (5); +0 to (2) as a subheading of (4), replacing the privacy considerations; and -0 to (3).

poojaranjan commented 1 year ago

Summary

1. Discuss Open Issues/PRs, and other topics

A. Issue-5682: No consensus. Continue the discussion on the Issue. B. Issue-6550: Need description from the proposer C. Issue-6588: Same as above. Likely no objection from editors.

2. Discussion continued from earlier meetings

A. PR-6579: Merged B. PR-6575: Geeneral agreement for the trial period. C. Straw-man proposal: Continue discussing on the FEM page.

3. EIPW bot Issues-5: Currently CI failing; Sam will review the respective PR

pcaversaccio commented 1 year ago

I would like to add the following (if possible) to your agenda:

poojaranjan commented 1 year ago

@pcaversaccio added to the next meeting agenda #224