EIPIP Meeting 18 Agenda

[poojaranjan]

Date and Time

Wednesday, Oct 07, 2020, at 15:00 UTC

Location

Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81275794893?pwd=RmY4c29zbjVMd1Bmam82UDVBdXluQT09

YouTube Live Stream/Recording: TBA

Agenda

1. EIP standardization process (PR to EIP-1) and Network upgrade process

• process flow
• EIP-1929

2. Discussion issues of Final EIP

3. EIP number squatting

4. EIP triaging permissions

5. Onboarding EIP editors - expectation guidelines.

• Edson's Comment
• Also, refer an open issue Role of editors in EIP process

6. Review action items from previous meeting

Next Call - Oct 21, 2020.

[MicahZoltu]

Agenda item (hopefully quick): Should EIP number squatting be allowed? ethereum/EIPs#3000

Author created an empty PR 10 minutes after issue #2999. I strongly suspect they are just squatting on the number. To discourage this behavior in the future, I propose that we assign them some unused number other than 3000.

[izqui]

Hi @MicahZoltu, planning and specification work around the EIP had already started when I created the PR.

There has been a lot of work already done in the ERC (see aragon/erc3k) and given that what you propose would be unprecedented, the ecosystem DAO working on the EIP has already acquired a domain name to host its documentation (https://erc3k.org), so we would not appreciate if this new policy gets applied for the first time retroactively.

The group believes that the memetic value of the 3000 number is important for an ERC that could have a lot of relevance if successful in adoption (perhaps even beyond Ethereum), that's why the PR got created when it did. This is not the first time this happens and I personally never had an issue when it has happened.

We have prioritized work on the code spec linked above (and also wrote a reference implementation to test it out) rather than writing the EIP text that would have massively changed as we iterated on it. Nevertheless, we were planning to publish our current draft later today.

Happy to join and discuss it in the call if deemed necessary.

[MicahZoltu]

so we would not appreciate if this new policy gets applied for the first time retroactively.

@izqui Just to add some clarity, using PR number has always been merely a convenience that was adopted by editors but it has always been the policy that editors will "assign" a number to EIPs. Also, this wouldn't be the first time editors have blocked number squatting (happens when we come up on "human-friendly numbers").

[izqui]

I am aware of that part of the EIP process but not that this has ever been blocked before. As I mentioned above, changing the number now would be a bit of a distraction and pain given our progress, so I'd appreciate if it doesn't happen.

[poojaranjan]

Closing in favor of #36