EIPIP Meeting 17 Agenda

[poojaranjan]

Date and Time

Wednesday, Sep 23, 2020, at 15:00 UTC

Location

Zoom: The link will be shared in the telegram group.
YouTube Live Stream/Recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl5MOhbipgY

Agenda

1. EIP status abandoned vs withdrawn

2. Network upgrade repository and process

3. Onboarding EIP editors - expectation guidelines. Also, refer an open issue Role of editors in EIP process

4. EIP triaging permissions

5. Edson's Comment

6. Review action items from previous meeting

Next Call - Oct 07, 2020.

[edsonayllon]

Here are some things we can discuss this meeting:

• Should EIP authors create a reference implementation in a client as a requirement?
• Should a tagging system (maybe a header) be added to organize EIPs?
• Should EIPs include a list of use cases?
• Should EIPs include a list of pros and cons?

[MicahZoltu]

To get a jump start on things by sharing my thoughts on the above:

Should EIP authors create a reference implementation in a client as a requirement?

No, while reference implementations are useful for a spec, and encouraged as part of the specification process as it can help tease out subtleties, I don't think it is a requirement for a pure technical specification to be valid and complete.

---

What is a "tagging header"?

---

While I definitely think that people should have use cases for their EIPs and mentioning them in the motivation seems prudent, I don't think it is a requirement for something to be technically valid.

---

I'm not a fan of PROs/CONs. Motivation section may include some reasons why someone should implement the EIP somewhere, and the security considerations may include gotchas to look out for, but I don't think EIPs are the right place to argue in favor/against an EIP.

[poojaranjan]

On the network upgrade process, I'd like to revisit the Pull Request (which is updated with the Eth1.0-spec repo) and EthMagician to understand the next step for the documentation/proposal.

Also, discuss how the EIP process and the network upgrade process can be linked together. I picture it like this 👇

The above core EIP process is also proposed here.

[Souptacular]

@axic's EIP overhaul document doesn't seem to be up to speed with opinions from the EIPIP meeting (not to say he has to be aware or even agree with whatever decisions come from the meeting, but it would be nice to all get on the same page).

https://hackmd.io/@axic/eip-overhaul

[MadeofTin]

Updated with Explicit arrows between States as decided on the call.

[MicahZoltu]

Should EIP discussion issues be closed when EIP is final? Author of EIP-2309 thought so, and while I have re-opened it since we historically have not done that I DO like the idea of closing discussion issues once an EIP is final.

[poojaranjan]

@MicahZoltu

Should EIP discussion issues be closed when EIP is final?

I am in favor of having EIP related discussion on the Fellowship of Ethereum Magician and NOT in the EIP repo issue or elsewhere. Encouraging discussions at EthMagician will eventually become a standard practice, which will provide the flexibility to keep a discussion open even after the EIP is Final and the Pull request is closed.

However, for 'discussion issues' created so far, closing the issue should be helpful.

For some reason, if an author wants to keep the discussion open, he/she may open a discussion thread at Fellowship at Eth Magician and link it to the proposal.

[poojaranjan]

Closing in favor of #34