Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

EIPIP Meeting 89 #260

Closed
8 tasks done
poojaranjan opened this issue Aug 24, 2023 · 4 comments
Closed
8 tasks done

EIPIP Meeting 89 #260

poojaranjan opened this issue Aug 24, 2023 · 4 comments

Comments

@poojaranjan
Copy link
Member

poojaranjan commented Aug 24, 2023

Date and Time

Sep 06, 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

Changes to Final proposals

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 poojaranjan mentioned this issue Aug 25, 2023
12 tasks
@SamWilsn
Copy link
Collaborator

SamWilsn commented Sep 5, 2023

Can we add ethereum/EIPs#7550 to the agenda? @fulldecent is proposing some formatting changes to ERC-721.

@SamWilsn
Copy link
Collaborator

SamWilsn commented Sep 5, 2023

Oh, and ratifying EIP-5069's new charter stuff.

@poojaranjan
Copy link
Member Author

Summary

1. Discuss Open Issues/PRs, and other topics

ethereum/EIPs#7549

  • Revaluate the proposal in the next meeting, if we want to do it
  • Simplify and get rid of the complexities which are there now.

ethereum/EIPs#7541

  • @shemnon has some concerns. According to him, it is great for history but wondering if it is put in as a part of the presented specification, as it might bend room for arguments.
  • @g11tech suggested the option of having a side pane to improve the EIP reading experience.
  • @xinbenlv suggested having a competing website and users may choose.
  • A/B testing was also proposed
  • Continue discussion on the Issue.

Consider adopting a Community Specification License terms for the new ERC repo ethereum/EIPs#7482

  • @SamWilsn was curious to understand the difference from the present license we have.
  • @bumblefudge shared about Community Specification License
  • It's a very lightweight IP protection. At the moment, CC0 does not protect against patents.
  • @shemnon suggested that we must get the opinion of lawyers.
  • Sam may talk to somebody at the EF.
  • Victor will also collect thoughts from ERC authors at AllERCDev meeting.

ethereum/EIPs#7554

  • @shemnon summarized the discussion point.
  • @Pandapip1 shared his objection at the very end of the discussion. It seems he is okay with the repo split but holds on to the website split.
  • @lightclient - We have already agreed upon the repository naming in earlier meetings.
  • Most of the editors on the call were in favor of having different rendering websites for EIPs and ERCs. The split will proceed as decided in the earlier EIPIP meeting.
  • It was suggested to have redirect canonical links for ERCs, if possible.
  • @bumblefudge offered to help if the redirects per-moved-spec are hard to implement in Jekyll
  • PR closed

Changes to Final proposals

Update EIP-721: Add ERC links ethereum/EIPs#7550

  • @SamWilsn reviewed the pull request. There could be a minor change but it seems acceptable.
  • @shemnon mentioned having a policy in place to update Final EIPs will be good to have.
  • It will be left open for the next 2 weeks, if no one blocks, it can be merged.

2. Discussion continued or updates from past meetings

EIP-ERC GitHub repositories

  • @SamWilsn ratified the decision-making process.
  • @xinbenlv is also in support of 5069. Most of the people were in support in the last meeting.
  • Sam nominated Gajinder for the “Keeper of Consensus”
    The type of EIP will also be changed.
  • Formal process for decision making
  • Post a “call for input” on EIPIP GitHub
  • Post in channels frequented by EIPP editors
  • 30 days after this is posted, the decision is made based on the input from all the editors.

@poojaranjan
Copy link
Member Author

Closing in favor of #271

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants