EIPIP Meeting 11 Agenda

[poojaranjan]

Date

July 1, 2020, at 15:00 UTC

Location

Zoom: The link will be shared in the telegram group.
YouTube Live Stream/Recording Link - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZnsVp0aqBk

Agenda

1. Separation of EIP process and hard-fork coordination
2. Onboarding EIP editors
3. Discuss the EIP-1 Brainstorming Document.
   • Goals Outcomes
   • What we are not doing.
   • EIPs TODO
4. Clarifications for how a precompile address is decided.
5. Mandatory terminology section for EIPs in EIP-1 or elsewhere
6. Postmortem format feedback
7. Using the Projects feature of Github to organize talking points for future EIPIP meetings.
8. Review action items from previous meeting

Next Call - July 15, 2020.

[lightclient]

Unfortunately I can't make tomorrow's meeting, but a few comments related to the above points:

2. Github allows a special type of contributor with "triage permissions", meaning that they don't have write access to the repository, but can label issues and PRs. I think this could be a good on-ramp for contributors to become editors and would minimize the time editors need to click through PRs to see what their status is.

3. • It would be good to agree on a specific naming convention for EIPs, since official documents use several different formats (e.g. EIP-1, EIP1, EIP 1). There has been some discussion in these threads: Update to canonical eip-X format ethereum/EIPs#2734, Preferred citation format ethereum/EIPs#2738, Style Guide -- EIP123 or EIP-123? ethereum/EIPs#1464. I am in favor of using the hyphenated form.
   • What are people's thoughts on increasing the strictness of the eip_validator? It seems like the quality of EIPs could be improved quite a bit if more checks occurred before merging. I've started work on a new EIP validator. I plan to make it much stricter than the existing validator and more robust.
   • How can we funnel people working on similar EIPs together? For example, EIP-2549 is related to eth1.x and eth2 witnesses. Those groups may not be at the stage where they are ready to pursue and EIP, but it seems like this will end up being superseded by the eventual EIP from those groups. Funneling independent contributors to existing efforts is a standard practice for RFC contributions.

[poojaranjan]

A comment received on Gitter from @jochem-brouweron w.r.t item

1. Separation of EIP process and hard-fork coordination

"I am super concerned that in hard-fork meta's Drafted EIPs get accepted (see the BLS EIP). I am also concerned why it is not a requirement that accepted hard fork EIPs have state test PRs in the ethereum/tests repository. What are the thoughts of this group based upon my concerns?"

[edsonayllon]

I want to bring up possibly using the Projects feature of Github to organize talking points for future EIPIP meetings. They work like Trello boards. I think James uses them to track EFI.

[poojaranjan]

Closing in favor of #23