EIPIP Meeting 82
SamWilsn opened this issue · 3 comments
SamWilsn commented
Date and Time
May 31, 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
- Patents: ethereum/EIPs#6956 (comment)
- Issue with Auto Review bot Ref. here
- ethereum/EIPs#7064
- ERC's status advancement criteria Ref: Comment
Changes to Final
proposal
2. Discussion continued or updates from past meetings
3. EIPs Insight - Monthly EIPs status reporting.
4. EIP Editing Office Hour
5. Review action items from earlier meetings
poojaranjan commented
Summary
1. Discuss Open Issues/PRs, and other topics
Patents: Add EIP: Asset-bound Non-Fungible Tokens ethereum/EIPs#6956 (comment)
- Merged
Issue with Auto Review bot Ref. here
- @SamWilsn didn't have updates since the bot was stopped last week
- @Pandapip1 was not on the call, may follow the recording later.
- @lightclient suggested two improvements
- Less notification from the bot
- Merge PR by authors without the need to close and open
Issues with CL Link Validation ethereum/EIPs#7064
- Gajinder, Victor, Greg are in favor of allowing PR in
Draft
whereas Sam & Matt had concerns. - General consensus is to probably allow specific links in
Draft
proposal and update EIPW bot to block when status changes toReview
or beyond. - @g11tech added consensus here. He will add comments to respective EIPs' PR as well.
ERC's status advancement criteria Ref: Comment
- @xinbenlv shared a quick presentation on ERC Maturity (status) [follow the recording]
- ERC should require 1 reference implementation
- Sam: not in favor, but not blocking
- Matt, same as Sam. Make a suggestion and not a requirement.
- @xinbenlv will make a PR to EIP-1 suggesting this change.
PR-7077
No objection. should be good to be merged.
SamWilsn commented
- General consensus is to probably allow specific links in
Draft
proposal and update EIPW bot to block when status changes toReview
or beyond.
This was not the consensus on this topic. Instead we agreed to allow https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/compare/<from>...<to>
links in all statuses.
xinbenlv commented
@poojaranjan thank you for taking some note. Here is my summary, can you take a look if it's more precise?
- @xinbenlv and @gcolvin in favor of adding implementation as requirement to advance.
- @gcolvin is in favor of making "one implementation" for "Review" status as "MUST"
- @lightclient think "requiring 3 is too much", agree to add "one implementation" for "Review" as "SHOULD" rather than "MUST"
- @SamWilsn is not in favor nor blocking the proposal for adding "SHOULD have one implementation" to Review status. Without intention to block, Sam feels slightly negative towards the idea of requiring one implementation. Sam objects to requirement "multiple independent" implementations because motivated authors can created 3 implementations and fake them to look like "independent"