EIPIP Meeting 105

[poojaranjan]

Date and Time

June 05, 2024 at 17:30 UTC

Location

Zoom: TBA in the Discord #eip-editing channel

YouTube Recording: EIPIP Meetings

Agenda

1. Discuss Open Issues/PRs, and other topics

Edit to Final Proposals

• Update EIP-2982: fix table displaying error ethereum/EIPs#8607
• Update EIP-4788: specify the timestamp for 4788 ethereum/EIPs#8590
  • Approved by one editor and one editor not in favor of the PR merge. Does it require a "Call for Input"?
• Update EIP-152: Fix reference test ethereum/EIPs#8390
  • Can we define a deadline to allow "override for editorial edits and merge such PR"? Ref: here

Update to EIP-1

• Update EIP-1: Feat/add caip ethereum/EIPs#8247
  • Spam user? Ref: comment
• Update EIP-1: Document EEST ethereum/EIPs#8503

Misc Issue/ requires attention?

• EIP712, motivates switching chain for signing  ethereum/EIPs#8610

Call for Input

Call For Input	Status	Inclination/Result	Deadline
None

2. Other discussions and updates from past meetings

• EIP versioning proposal and follow up actions
  • Can changelog section be added to the Preamble?
  • Who will update the changelog - Editor or Author?
• AllCoreDevs, Network Upgrade & EthMagicians Process Improvements

3. EIPs Insight - Monthly EIPs status reporting.

Repo	Issues	PRs	Total
EIP	6	63	69
ERC	4	80	84
RIP	1	7	8

(Dashboard)

• EIPsInsight.com
• Hackmd

4. EIP Editing Office Hour

• Agenda 38 Video 37
  • 7/19PRs Reviewed
  • 6 PRs are already merged

5. Review action items from earlier meetings

• Summary meeting 104
  Action items from the last meeting

Next Meeting date & time

June 19, 2024 at 17:30 UTC

[poojaranjan]

Summary

1. Discuss Open Issues/PRs, and other topics

ethereum/EIPs#8607

• @poojaranjan: I couldn't find any issue in rendering on eips.ethereum.org.
• @g11tech : Rendering in GitHub may have an issue. Also, CI is not passing, unless fixed can not be merged.
• Editors may review/leave a comment. If not having value add the Pull Request can be closed.

ethereum/EIPs#8590

• @g11tech: Okay with merging. The proposal should not have TBD if moving to Final
• @xinbenlv: Generally it is not added, but, no objection to merging it.
• Check with @SamWilsn & @lightclient on Discord before merging. If no response, bring it to the next meeting.

ethereum/EIPs#8390

• 1 month time generally seems fine.
• Make a Call For Input to collect thoughts from other Editors.

ethereum/EIPs#8247

• Comment from user seems Spam
• @SamWilsn already approved, requires two more Editors approval.
• @g11tech and @xinbenlv may approve
• Good to be merged.

ethereum/EIPs#8503

• Requires 3 Editors approval
• @g11tech & @xinbenlv already approved, may require @lightclient approval as this is a change to EIP-1 proposed by Sam Wilson.

ethereum/EIPs#8610

• Unclear what users is looking for
• @g11tech: Looks like a technical query
• @xinbenlv: Might be posted on FEM
• Editors may leave a comment and help the user to create a thread on FEM.

2. Other discussions and updates from past meetings

ethereum/EIPs#8034

Can changelog section be added to the Preamble?

• Proposed in 2023, received decent attention on FEM thread. @poojaranjan provided high level overview of what is proposed with this proposal.
• Came up in EOF meeting multiple time. Ethereum ProtocolTesting team is supporting the team.
• @xinbenlv: Editorial thoughts - It should be emerged to provide the EIP number
  Governance thought - How to decide which version is canonical? How will such proposal be extended?
  This Meta proposal should be proposed to "Working Group" Seems hard to do within the present setup.
• @g11tech: Versiong should be managed manually. The testing team can link the EIP with particular Commit. It may unnecessarily increase the booking burden.
• Bumblefudge: It's already happening on GitHub. It is simpler to [eg top testing. If it has to be added, it should be optional. May be useful to some EIPs and working groups and the rest can ignore it.
• @poojaranjan: Sounds like a good suggestion to add as an optional field that will be used by proposals that need them and can be ignored by the rest. Alternatively, a default value for this field can be added to maintain a standardized field and proposals needing update may change as required.
• @xinbenlv: The proposal can be Informational rather than Meta
• @poojaranjan: It has to be a Meta as it may require "EIP-template" change.
• @xinbenlv: Worried about this being prematurely added to "Preamble". Can be considered depending on adoption. Updating eip-template can be a separate Meta EIP, But the versioning proposal may be "Informational".
• @poojaranjan: The proposal can be brought up in the ACD meeting to collect client's feedback and adding in the Preamble could be discussed in upcoming EIPIP meetings.

Who will update the changelog?

• @g11tech: Editors may not be able to take a call on version change, and may have to depend on EIP Authors to ensure the change.

EIP is Merged.

[poojaranjan]

Closing in favor of #340