ethcatherders/EIPIP

EIPIP Meeting 93

poojaranjan opened this issue · 9 comments

poojaranjan commented

Date and Time

Nov 01, 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

Call for Input

Call For Input Status Result Comments
#283 Open - Active for collecting responses (till Nov 16)
#286 Open - Active for collecting responses (till Nov 19)
#287 Open - Active for collecting responses (till Nov 19)
#289 Open - Active for collecting responses (till Nov 14)

Changes to Final proposals

Manual Merge
TBA

2. Discussion continued or updates from past meetings

3. EIPs Insight - Monthly EIPs status reporting.

4. EIP Editing Office Hour

  • Can we merge All ERC Dev Meeting & EIP Editing Office Hour?
  • Rename it to ERC Office Hour?
  • Agenda Meeting 26

5. Review action items from earlier meetings

6. Announcement

ERC@Devconnect

Joachim-Lebrun commented

https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/post-eip-erc-split-modification-of-erc-preamble-section/16301/3

i created a PR here with the first draft proposition for ERC-1, obviously it is still very far from what it should look like : ethereum/ERCs#61

  • 👍1
shemnon commented

I think we also need to start having discussions for what other topic groups (peer to EIP and ERC) would look and act like and how they are onboarded. Last week at the same time as the EIPIP meeting was the first "RollCall" for rollup developers and projects to coordinate, so a roll-up top level is a candidate with keen interest. Some questions I don't have strong opinions on that need answers:

  • Should new topic groups be independent of EIP/ERC or peer within the same structure?
  • Start-up: what is needed? an XIP-1 document? Initial editors/stewards?
  • RIP numbering? even/odd won't work. Start from a different number?
  • "Boundaries" - how do we determine what group a proposal goes to initially? Is that "portfolio/jurisdiction" baked into the XIP-1 document?
  • How do we deal with specs that feel like they belong to multiple groups? Have one group have initial jurisdiction? Multiple specs? Joint specs?
  • 👍1
xinbenlv commented

@frangio intends to request to update ERC1271. Its security related so I will let him provide the information to the level of details he sees fit

  • 👍3
poojaranjan commented

Summary

1. Discuss Open Issues/PRs, and other topics

Topic Group

@SamWilsn responded to questions
#285 (comment)

Should new topic groups be independent of EIP/ERC or peer within the same structure?

  • It hasn't been set in stone.
  • The way it has been envisioned, they will be peers. ERC | Core-EIPs could become topic / working group.

Start-up: what is needed? an XIP-1 document? Initial editors/stewards?

  • Most of the documentation is written.
  • @SamWilsn will introduce it.

RIP numbering? even/odd won't work. Start from a different number?

  • The current process uses a spreadsheet for numbering.
  • It will be replaced with automated number allocation.

"Boundaries" - how do we determine what group a proposal goes to initially? Is that "portfolio/jurisdiction" baked into the XIP-1 document?

  • Each topic group has sections that describe the area the topic group is interested in reviewing.
  • New proposals will go into the most matching specific topic group.

How do we deal with specs that feel like they belong to multiple groups? Have one group have initial jurisdiction? Multiple specs? Joint specs?

  • Will be determined case by case.
  • The general advice is to go with the closest category.

Next step: @SamWilsn will be publishing the document as soon as possible. Early version here.

EIP-ERC repo split

Update from editors' meeting
ethereum/ERCs#1

@lightclient shared updates

  • Token received and will be shared with PandaPip to run eth-bot on ERC repo.
  • Working on updating ERC references at multiple places
  • ERCs website is live. It makes things much simpler.
  • @SamWilsn thinks if the website is based on working groups there will be a need for multiple websites, which may not be ideal to have.
  • E (a user in zoom meeting) proposed to rename the ERC category with EAS which stands for Ethereum Application Standards.
  • @Joeysantoro proposed the idea of Wallet-ERC, Rollup-ERC DeFi-ERC.
  • @SamWilsn & @lightclient feel like this may be a topic of discussion for future meetings when we have clarity on the working group.

Web Page Rendering for EIP & ERC

  • @lightclient is in favor of two separate websites.
  • @Pandapip1 who is working on the website could not be heard on the call due to a technical issue.
  • Consensus on Markdown rule - ERC-x and EIP-x for EIPs website (or separate websites, if agreed)
  • Change in the preamble of ERCs or both (EIPs & ERCs to keep it number only)

Decision:

  • Keep ercs.ethereum.org & eips.ethereum.org working as today
  • will fix the markdown rules for authors
  • Rename EIPs or ERCs in the preamble to just the number.

ERC-1

  • @SamWilsn and most of the people on the call think that having a separate ERC Meta document does make sense rather than updating EIP-1 with ERC-related processes.
  • A few back-and-forth arguments can be followed on the call.
  • @poojaranjan proposed to have another special number instead of ERC-1 as ERC/EIP numbering is unified and we can avoid duplicate number.

Next step: Document ERC process, make a pull request and it will follow the normal numbering process but the proposal can be redirected from ERC-1 to that number.

Post EIP/ERC split : Modification of ERC preamble section
Post EIP/ERC split : Create ERC-1, an ERC specific version of EIP-1 @NetWalker108

E shared his screen and explained the proposal. Most of the people on the call liked the document. Worth following on Fellowship of Ethereum Magicians.

EIP-7539: ERC Extensions discussion @Joeysantoro

  • @SamWilsn thinks it's better to discuss this after the Working group charter is proposed.

ethereum/ERCs#8

  • We couldn't discuss it as we ran out of time.

#284

  • @SamWilsn responded, the issue could be closed.

Call for Input

  • @SamWilsn walked us through the open issues.
  • Editors are requested to respond to them as soon as possible.

Fix a Security related change to a Final EIP

Next meeting: Nov 15, 2023 at 15:30 UTC

  • ❤️1
poojaranjan commented

Closing in favor of #292