ACTION 76.1: Interim Editor for EIP number assignment - A bot for the allocation of EIP numbers is in progress. Sam wilson and Light Client think it would add value if the proposer considers reviewing EIP/ERC and not just the EIP# allocation. Andrew B Coathub may let editors know about extending the contribution.
ACTION 76.2: In Full Spell Check - Jose Alfonso has a proposal to add words to Code Spell Check. In the meantime, Gavin John may add words if anyone will make a PR with new words.
ACTION 76.3: In regards to EIPs #6483, The proposer needs to keep "all" in order to maintain google SEO.
ACTION 76.4: In regards to EIPSs #6579, Pooja Ranjan will check with the EF team for the use of 3rd party email services to send out RSS feed. Also, check if the proposer William Entriken is open to using any other 3rd party email services.
ACTION 76.5 : Need to add more reviewers to the list. Reach out to Sam Wilson if interested in peer reviewing. —------------------
Pooja Ranjan 0:00: Welcome to eipip meeting 76. I've shared an agenda in the chat. We have a few open issues and PRs to discuss and there would be discussion continued from the past meeting. I think one of the candidates started looking into eipw part issues. So we'll discuss that on few other updates.
Pooja Ranjan 0:22: So starting with the item number one which is to discuss open issues, PRS and other topics. So last week we received a comment from a username ABC. These are the first three alphabets. I cannot write the full name but you can follow the comment on the agenda here. So he is proposing to be an EIP editor. Maybe an interim EIP editor who may be able to help out with the EIP number allocation. I remember we discussed in the past for having a bot for a location of EIP number but we are not there yet. So if editors may take a look at his proposal and yeah let us know what we think about it? I guess Panda paper went ahead and also created a pull request to update this request in eip1 once there is a consensus of having him on board.
Sam 1:25: I don't think adding somebody just to assign EIP numbers is good. Panda pip has started working on a bot to or like updating the merge bot for that. so we'll see where that goes.
Pooja Ranjan 1:47: Sounds good. Matt, do you have any thoughts on that?
Light client 1:56: Yeah if you want to be an ERC editor or a full EIP editor.
Pooja Ranjan 2:05: So his proposal is to offer my services as an EIP or ERC Editor to help assign numbers quickly.
Light client 2:14: Do you have a problem assigning numbers?
Pooja Ranjan 2:18: Not really, it looks like he has intervened a few times. He also has added a link to comments where he left his thoughts while discussing the number for the EIP.
Lightclient 2:36: Yeah I mean if it's his his only job is assigning numbers. I don't really. Okay we need an Editor to do that he wants to review eips and erc's. I mean he has been involved for a pretty long time. So I could consider that but it doesn't sound like it's what he was proposing.
Pooja Ranjan 3:05: I'm sorry, what is vid covered ? Okay okay so no means if I understand this correctly. I don't think the proposal is to be reviewing all the proposals as of now but only for the allocation part. So let me go back with the discussion here today. So if he tries to extend his proposal to maybe look into more on to erc's and then probably it could be considered again. Now we will have to look into all the criteria that has been listed earlier to become an ERC editor is that fair summary of the discussion today. Thank you. I am anyway gonna add it at the end of the meeting. Like every past meeting I have started writing a summary down. There so we'll see what is the response Panda mentioned that he would be joining a bit late so if he has anything further to add about his peer. Yeah we can talk then.
- Full Spell Check Ref: Discussion
Pooja Ranjan 4:26: Moving on to the next item is full spell check, so I remember it was discussed in ethereum Caterers Discord about the spelling error. Yeah Matt you mentioned okay not a problem. Matt mentioned that we can have a full spell check. I don't know if anyone would like to maybe talk about it and if anyone has any proposal.
Lightclient 5:03: I don't know. I get tired. I will spell check set up for the execution eips Repository. It just doesn't work perfectly. There's plenty of times where you have compound words that are words and it says that they're not and then you have to manually add them. so it's not really ideal but whatever we have right now is missing a lot of words and so I would like to find something that's at least better.
Pooja Ranjan 5:30: All right Jose I'm not sure if you have any proposal for this. Would you be interested in poking into it or looking into it.
JA 5:43: Hello Happy Day. First of all yes well I was just wondering if we can just work to make Richard the dictionary for code spell which is barely 42000 Words which is very small. I don't know if we can just take every EIP proposal and go around the collection. These parents that are not into the misspelling words that are not included in the code spell puller request for. I don't know every time that we call it. I would say 100 or 200 or 500. to un proposable requests to call the spell to include that word. So in that way we can just, it's going to take time but I guess that in the midterm we will be covering all these basic misspelt words that are not included in the code spell. So he said a long way to go but it's a proposal. I don't know if maybe we can. I was also thinking about including the library with at least 200000 words into the EIP bot. We create one of what we create an action to check that was considered. I mean months ago but we the UA editors decided to go with the code spell which is fine. But indeed this is a very poor vocabulary word code spell right now. So either we increment during the time the vocabulary or we just add a new action to the AP board with the bigger vocabulary that's what it is.
Pooja Ranjan 8:08: I'm not 100% sure like going by each and every proposal and having every word added in code. How long would that take? Do we have an automated solution for that?
Gavin John 8:29: From what I've seen on the good spell repository, they generally merge PRS that just add new misspellings quite quickly so if we want to just if we have a PR that has a bunch of their spellings just give it to me and I'll submit a PR that adds all the misspellings to the code spell repository and then I'll submit in the appear to the eip's repository updating it to the latest version of goods Bell.
Pooja Ranjan 9:00: Okay so what do people think about the current proposal. So are we planning to have like you know a list of purple something? Okay so there is this proposal to switch to something with a white list and use a specific extension for our words. Okay yeah if you would like to elaborate that some maybe because you know a chat messages are generally not available to people who are listening to the call. Okay not a problem so it looks I mean it's noisy. So he's trying to avoid what Sam mentioned. It might be easier to switch to something with the white list and use a specific extension for our words and he may have a couple of options as eipw. So probably we can look into that and the other proposal by Panda pip. I think it is to provide him with the list and he would be merging it quickly. Okay anyone has to add anything on this. I know we don't have a perfect solution right now but there are quite a few options we may want to give it a try and bring it back if needed.
Pooja Ranjan 10:35: Okay let's give it a try moving on to the next one and only check sibling headers for sameness. I find this PR requested by Matt for merge. I don't know what other editors think the number is 6643. Looks like it requires other editors' and your reviewers confirmation before the bot can merge it.
Gavin John 11:26: I mean it looks fine for me. I'll wait no the reason why that's there is because then the reason why that's not allowed because otherwise you have duplicate ID tags in the HTML which is an error according to the HTML stuff aspect. There so uh like client there is a reason why that check is there
Pooja Ranjan 12:02: Okay looks like because it is approved. It's Auto merging right now.
Gavin John 12:13: Oh oops I guess we have it then it's a minor thing. It browsers won't necessarily smack me for it but it is generally a bad idea to have duplicate ID tags and yeah it is a Jekylll bug.
Pooja Ranjan 12:38: Okay so now that is merged. I hope there is no reason to revert it unless you strongly feel about it or anyone strongly feels about it.
Gavin John 12:49: I do not I strongly feel about it. I feel about it although I would like to be added use although I would like to be at a uniquely linked sections which would not be possible if you have duplicate sections.
Pooja Ranjan 13:06: Fair enough. Okay very well this is now merged. So I can get stun day
Pooja Ranjan 13:16: We can move on to the next one which is a discussion continued from the earlier meetings. so in the past meeting we found a few proposals coming up from William and Trikon, an author who is suggesting to kind of provide some features or maybe improve the UI of the present website. I see there are a couple of pull requests but at the same time we also had a look at the new proposed upgrade for the EIP website. I see the PR are still open for RSS feed and rewrite index. I wonder what people think about it and where we are on the updated version of 4:00. The website pull request.
Gavin John 14:05: Are we discussing the adding of the Arts and speeds the ending of the filter page or my revision.
Pooja Ranjan 14:12: Okay so let's start with the VR revival because I think that was just the last and then we can come back to the RSS feed which is 6579 and to the index which is 6483.
Gavin John 14:32: So what's you know worth learning about my rewrite is that it actually does include both the edition of the filter page. Although it's adding a new page not actually overriding the index page here and it also does add the RSS. It RSS feeds and it also adds atom feeds alongside them.
Pooja Ranjan 14:56: I'm sorry, Do we have a pull request for that? I mean any PR number which can be looked into.
Gavin John 15:02: Yeah I can pull that up.
Pooja Ranjan 15:06: Okay and my next question would be, do we have any issues with the present PR ? Why could we not merge that? Is there anything else?
Gavin John 15:20: I'm pretty sure that Litecoin objected to the fact that heat press is perhaps less. You know better than Jekyll. However I feel it's still pretty well known and compare and right now we have two people that can actually read and maintain the new wheatgrass website and right now we also have to end right now we have well one person that can kind of read. The Jekyll website may be for people that can kind of read the Jekyll website and make small changes to it. So in terms of actually being able to maintain it. This is an improvement despite the fact that it's comparatively less well-known.
- Moving away from Jekyll
Pooja Ranjan 16:13: Okay so the core Point here is to moving away from Jekyll not to wheat price but to the JavaScript format is that the correct understanding.
Gavin John 16:23: Yes
Pooja Ranjan 16;24: Awesome okay in that case if any editor has thoughts on PR number 6518 which Gavin just shared. I have added that in the agenda as well where we are and if people have thought of suggestions on having that merged.
Garvin John 16:44: Like a friend mind specifying any new objections you might have. You were the one that got subjected.
Lightclient 16:56: Yeah I mean I think the objection is still the same. I would rather focus on something that's extremely widely used. I would rather avoid using JavaScript and focusing on just having markdown files. I don't think that having more people is able to support. This is necessarily a huge win because I don't think that these things should be changing too much.
Gavin John 17:24: I agree that these things should not need changing much at all. Nonetheless it is possible to change this and to customise it way more than the Jekyll website. This has support for in fact post build hooks. I had support for a lot of different Hooks and yeah.
Pooja Ranjan 18:00: A curious question here, so the PR that we have received earlier for more RSS feed and rewrite index filters were affecting the current website. The current page that we have in any way were just Improvement suggestions. weren't they?
Gavin John 18:20: Yes but if we choose to do the website rewrite then those do not need to be merged because of the website. We write contains both of them.
Pooja Ranjan 18:34: Right but it could be working in the meantime right unless there are any you know issues.
Gavin John 18:41: I think we should merge both of them.
Pooja Ranjan 18:43: Yeah I mean we can merge and in the meantime we can discuss this migration that we are talking about. It doesn't look like we have a full agreement and everything is in place. So for that time being that could be done what do other people think um I mean it's just my thought what do other people think
Sam 19:12: I haven't actually looked in depth into this PR but it looks like it's switching it from like a plain static HTML page to a JavaScript search. Is that correct?
Pooja Ranjan 19:32: Do you mean the new. Sorry, do you mean 6518?
Sam 19:36: 6483
Pooja Ranjan 19:37: 6483 Okay I think Gavin you had a chance to look into this I found out.
Gavin John 19: 45: Yeah that is my understanding of what it does. I don't like how it deletes all the existing Authority I see those ones but I mean having the filter is really nice.
Sam 20:05: My concern here is this going to hurt our Google ability since it's gonna be hidden behind JavaScript now.
Gavin John 20:12: Ah yes you are right. it will so at the very least we should keep the whole page.
Pooja Ranjan 20:21: That's an interesting point .
Gavin John 20:24: Yeah we have to at least keep the whole page. you are right there.
Pooja Ranjan 20:32: Okay and I see that it is with all other filters except that page. So if we keep the oil base disk good work non-erc.xml. Okay do we think leaving a comment on this PR for the author would make sense why I'm discussing this review in fact thank you. Well I'm discussing this because I'm hoping that if we are allowing PRS to be coming up from Community. We are encouraging people to come up with suggestions and it would not be solely on the editors to bring up changes and things like that while we are waiting for a major overhaul. Maybe we can allow minor pull requests which are coming from Community to add some improvement to the present website.
Pooja Ranjan 21:37: Okay so this is done and do we have any thoughts and comments on RSS feed. I think there is an open Action for the proposal here. So I hear Sam here that giving permission to third party links for email could be a concern. But I don't know whether it seems like that is something recommended or being used by Wiley. Where are we on that? I understand a third party permission third party permission totally but do we have strong feeling and we should not allow or should we start this because I have found okay one argument I want to give in favour of allowing this is we have found that the protocol information that is now being disseminated with the email and it's been very helpful for people to receiving notification for blog.ethereum.org. so if we can have an RSS feed like this and we can start sending email notifications that could help more users to be aware of what's going on in the background.
Sam 22:49: Oh for sure it's just like I don't want to commit necessarily to supporting the service.
Pooja Ranjan 22:57: Do we have any other alternatives? I don't know, maybe we can check with the protocol team. I can check with the team and all like what kind of services they are using if not this one but generally speaking are we open to that it's a big question.
Gavin John 23:15: I would be open to using the third third party service to email RSS updates.
Sam 23:25: Right right it's not that I'm against every third party service I'm just against if we want to pick one that we want to use and go with that that's fine but like I don't think any of us have looked into this in depth and I don't know if this is the one we want to go with.
Pooja Ranjan 23:44: That makes a lot of sense. Okay so I will try to check with the protocol team what kind of email Services. they are using right now and well maybe check with the author itself. if they have any I mean in this proposal if he has any thought on implementing the one that is being already used for sending out ethereum blog posts.
Sam 24:08: Yeah
Pooja Ranjan 24:09: that's a good suggestion here. Fair enough to conclude, we could not make any decision on 6483. It will be discussed similarly. We do not have any consensus on 6579. Just some next steps that we should be looking into more in detail and it looks we do not have 6518 consensus as well unless people are, you know, having more thoughts on merging it today.
Gavin John 24:50: Sorry which PR are we on again.
Pooja Ranjan 24:53: Yours 6518.
Gavin John 25:07: the merge conflicts I'll just go ahead yeah
Pooja Ranjan 25:12: Right to the best of my understanding we do not have a full consensus here right now. Maybe we can start collecting more thoughts and feedback and support for this to be much. Will try to change light against mine and come back in two weeks for this PR if that makes sense
Pooja Ranjan 25:37: Okay moving ahead, so we already discussed moving away from Jekyll. That's basically discussing 6518 and the next one here is 5457 which is update 712 fixing each sign type data or definition. Sso in the last meeting we discussed this but we did not reach any consensus there. what to do? Should we keep it open? Should we just close it because we don't want to change anything to this proposal?
Gavin John 26:11: Yeah to restate my argument that since there is obviously an error here and there is nothing that could feasibly Implement both specifications, choosing the one that is clearly correct is the right move.
Pooja Ranjan 26:36: So you may be in support of merging this pull request.
Sam 26:48: So I think the reason we didn't merge this is because of the authors.
Gavin John 26:52: Oh, yeah we're waiting on author approval. Should we just override author approval for this one?
Sam 27:00: That is 5457
Pooja Ranjan 27:03: That's right. I remember it now the author wasn't reachable at the time. Okay so could we have that tag enabled I don't think the tag is enabled for authors here. yeah it's not labelled as waiting on author's review. So can any of the editors manually add that label so the author can also get notified.
Gavin John 27:35: The author should already have been notified and the label is already added by the Box.
Sam 27:42: I think you removed it.
Pooja Ranjan 27:44: Yeah because I saw it two weeks ago.
Sam 27:46: You removed it.
Gavin John 27:49: Really?
Sam 27:50: Yeah Panda pick one removed the a Dash review label two weeks ago
Gavin John 27:56: Well that was a mistake oops!
Pooja Ranjan 27:59: Yeah okay not a problem. Okay now let's move on so I don't intend to bring it back in the next meeting unless we see any Improvement in that I hope when we get author's approval. It could be merged. Yeah we'll take it from there. Okay I think this has concluded all of the discussion from the past meeting.
Gavin John 28:29: Who merges it. I know why I did that. It's because on that call we came to a consensus that we would manually merge it. okay
Sam 28:53: Yeah yeah I think I'm okay with merging this and I'll do it right now if Matt doesn't object.
Lightclient 29:02: Yeah if you guys are okay with merging it then go ahead.
Pooja Ranjan 29:13: You're very well so this will be manually merged cool.
3. EIPW bot Issues
Pooja Ranjan 29:22: Okay now we can move on to the next item which is EIPW bot issues. This item has been suggested by Jose. Jose if you would like to provide an overview of what you are looking into and if there is any progress on issue number five that is listed here.
JA 29:46: I managed to do the CI. I'm going to be testing the running. I'm gonna create a test case. I'm going to be testing the running during this weekend so I guess that I hope to have a final solution already tested by Monday or maybe Tuesday that's pretty much for issue five the EIP Double B button
Sam 30:12: Thanks again for your help. It's been good.
JA 30:18: Any timing thank you.
Pooja Ranjan 30:22: Thank you. Okay and this pull request 66 is it the one coming for for this issue number five. Yeah I can see that thank you Jose. Yeah please keep us posted on whatever progress you are making on issues. I see there are quite a number of open issues so I hope that we can start taking on it one by one and Sam if there are any priority like if you can Define then it would be best that Jose can work with you and look into the issues which are on higher priority side
Sam 30:58: Sure I can do that thank you.
Pooja Ranjan 31:04: Okay moving ahead we have EIPs inside. I'm trying to open the website for some reason. Yeah finally it came up so we have two proposals in final one in last call one in review and four new proposals added this month. I know the website is not the puff not in perfect status till date we did it last month but for some reason now it's giving some error for last call and final EIPs will try to fix it but yeah that's all the status as per dated March 8th. We have four new proposal added in the EAP repository and two have been moved to the final status.
Pooja Ranjan 31:53: Okay, the next one is the EIP editing officer unfortunately we could not have our meeting last Tuesday that is yesterday but we have added a pull request for authors who reached out to us for us for some kind of help or attention from editor and those have been listed in the agenda for meeting number 13. I hope EIP editors may take a look whenever they get a chance and whatever will be open by our next meeting. We'll try to have that added. So EIP authors, if you have any question or concern related to your pull requests that you have made and you're trying to understand something may be able to talk to EIP editors directly regarding your PR please feel free to join the EIP editing office hour that happens every other Tuesday. so it will be around two weeks from now at 1500 UTC people living in.United States please make a note of this there would be a DSD saving ending. So the time would be changing it would not be as per your a clock.not 10 it would be nine no sorry 11AM. yeah it would be 11 am EST Zone. So yeah the time would be changed for this meeting as well for eipip meeting which is 1400 UTC right now which is 9:00 am on EST and it would be 10 am from the next meeting onward. I don't see any further Add Up item added in the agenda so it looks like it's going to be a short meeting and the next meeting is proposed on March 22nd at 14:00 anyone has anything to add.
Gavin John 33:47: Yeah, Did we remember to discuss adding what's his name. Yeah Andrew is an editor.
Pooja Ranjan 34:00: Okay yeah, yeah we did discuss briefly what editors think here is if we would like to have on board. We would like to have data on board for reviewing ercs are not only just for the allocation of numbers. So we need to check with the ABC if he is open for reviewing as a reviewer.
Gavin John 34:27: He has indicated that he is…
Pooja Ranjan 34:31: Okay so from the comment, it looked like he's more into supporting the EIP number Allocation.
Gavin John 34:38: Yes he says until it cannot be automated or numbers are sold then I offer my services as an Erp or ERC Editor to help assign numbers quickly.
Pooja Ranjan 34:48: Yeah so if we were trying to understand the services offered if it is for overall review of a proposal and not limited to assigning numbers then that seems a good idea. So we might want to encourage him to maybe to have reviewed the proposal as well.
Gcolvin 35:15: Okay I thought, I thought the bot was just going to assign the numbers and be done well.
Gavin John 35:21: It will be assigning the numbers okay.
pooja Ranjan 35:23: So that's a work in progress that's a work in progress. I think Kevin is already working on bot but for the meantime.
Gcolvin 35:31: I keep seeing it surface again. I'm going wait a minute.I thought this decision was already made.
Pooja Ranjan 35:44: So I think the pull request that has been created which is 6575 may not be merged just. Yet we will leave comment for user ABC and if is open to that then probably will have to go through the checklist that we have for ERC editors and we'll have him on board if that makes sense anything else. People would like to share or discuss for today's meeting.
Victor Zhou 36:23: All right sorry I was late. Have we discussed anything? Updates on the plan for introducing more peer reviewers. not really I know that stands are leading this effort and um yeah look forward to seeing what we could do to help out.
Gavin John 36:51: I still think that this is really related to the detect to the tags thing and we should try to implement both of these simultaneously.
Pooja Ranjan 37:11: Okay so I remember mentioning this particular topic a few weeks ago and we were discussing that the present list of peer reviewers is not very effective. We may have to come up with a new list of reviewers and if anybody in the community is interested in helping us with reviewing eips which are coming into the repository. may please reach out to Sam, he will add it. Add the abuser to the list and we can continue having more reviewers added to this list so we can get other eips reviewed faster but I wonder if whichever you may have any other suggestions though or I don't know there was this meeting in Denver. if we have anything coming up from there. if you may have met people who would be willing to do that.
Victor Zhou 38:04: Yeah I think generally there are a lot of interests that we just want to make sure that we do it right. We receive good passion from VIP authors that are interested in both. Continue to support this program with their authoring and potentially reviewing and also I gave a presentation of EIC rep to invite sharing reference implementation in a more structural way. Also get a lot of bonds and I know that Sam was not there. I personally felt that having a good peer review program is great and then I said the current status of the big list of peer reviewers has been a year. I love to kind of learn with Sam and see how can we kind of work out a a pivot to bring on more success on that but I love to hear other editors opinion or kind of guidance on how that could be improved. Thank you
Sam 39:30: So my biggest complaint is that a lot of the people who have volunteered do. it doesn't actually leave any comments. So I feel kind of a little pointless and pinging them in the first place.
Victor Zhou 39:45: So can I kind of find some time to chat with you. I guess that not every editor is particularly interested in this pocket but I surely feel very passionate about the direction that you have shared. So can I kind of find time to chat with you and then maybe we can of course have some differences. Sorry about our outcome.
Gcolvin 40:15: Yeah I'm not sure of the way to go but for quite a while I thought we need more peer review especially on the ERC side to take the load off because there's just too many of them that cover way too, wide a range of interest for anyone at it or to necessarily know about or care about but if there's some way. I think for an ERC to come in and just as a matter of course. There needs to be a peer review or volunteering to help deal with that ERC through the process.
Sam 40:57: Well something like Panda Pips tags. I think it would be pretty useful for that because then peer reviewers could subscribe to the tags. They're interested in and then get a notification but that would require. You know either defining a list of categories or letting people be free form and that's kind of a problem.
Gavin John 41:21: I'm thinking basically of being able to any five final eips whose authors. All agree that some that their final EIP should be tagged can create a new tag. it's my idea that numbers can also be tweaked if needed.
Pooja Ranjan 41:45: So we can have it based on status as well right like on which a status we think that adding peer reviewer would add value review maybe yeah, the review and last call is well like right so
Sam 42:03: Yeah okay I think but the problem is not everybody who reviews ERC. A lot of ERC reviewers what I collected volunteers would only review. A sudden narrow slice right some of them are only interested in nfts specifically or some of them are interested in.You know the peer-to-peer layer of the networking stack and it's all right but we don't have any great where to have granularity on that.
Gcolvin 42:28: But that's the point, this could be one on one you show up with an ERC and it's okay to find a peer reviewer.
Sam 42:39: Right and that is the current approach, right? We tell authors to find peer reviewers themselves.
Gcolvin 42:47: We could help there's yeah the Rings are supposed to help the mere magicians being out there. But yeah, I don't care so much about a tag system. just a policy that says people need help on this. I's part of the process. I don't know how to make it a stronger part of the process but it needs to me this is a pretty standard thing for professional journals to engage peer reviewers and the same people don't have to review. you know article after article after article they get chosen to review particular articles that they have expertise in.
Sam 43:34: Yeah that's what I'm saying, we have a list of people that we can assign that way. I think I've shared the week around a few times but yeah they don't reply that's the problem I've been having.
Gcolvin 43:47: Yeah well if an ERC author can't find even One reviewer than it would seem to indicate there's not a lot of community interest.
Victor Zhou 44:07: Yeah I was feeling the same with Greg. I certainly hope on a new drop proposal and have you read the other EIC ERC for eips and then and why they're different like do you intended to collaborate or compete with both are okay and then if so identify who you think might be the best peer reviewers to nominate them and see if you can get them to kind of give you comments. So that's what I have been doing and I wonder if that is the good thing to put moving forward. I also want to bring up the one after that I met on James Smith from ethereum foundation on each damper and he mentioned he had a effort trying to help EIP preserve archive history of discussions and so I have tagged Panda Pips new websites and so maybe we can invite him to kind of come back and kind of give us a share of what he has in mind and see how we I generally feel that having preservation of discussion and of History more accessible also helps identifying peer reviewers and generating interests on the ground irrelevant to that topic. I think is a good thing to facilitate a discussion
Pooja Ranjan 46:04: So generally speaking I think the idea of getting it reviewed is obviously needed. People are looking for that but people who can be reached out should be from the group of authors who have already submitted it. so the list I think is going to be helpful but instead of us pinging it would be making more sense if they are getting notified by some process. Maybe by the tag or something and they can subscribe to certain things and that would be way more effective. I don't know Victor if you would like to maybe because I know you have contacted a lot of EIP authors. Maybe discuss this further and maybe at the next meeting we can come up with something that can be shared with vital Community like how do we want to take it further. Until we reach there I think we should be continuing with Sam's list and try to add more people and more authors who can act as reviewers for proposals coming up to ethereum Repository.
Victor Zhou 47:25: Sam what's your take on publishing that list. do you think it's worthy or do you think it's a good idea to publish that list or not a good idea?
Gavin John 47:39: If I could come in and say that I think that probably it would the list would be a bit better if the GitHub user names were pinged every time that all of the reviews is GitHub usernames were pinged every time. there was a relevant PR. I bet that would get more feedback.
Sam 48:03: so I'd like to avoid that because I don't want them reviewing 48:06 on the PRS um
Gavin John 48:10: why not?
Sam 48:13: Well we want the technical discussion on the discussions 2 thread and yeah editing discussion on the pr and since these are all technical reviews, it makes sense to what I would love is every time. A PR is put up for an EIP to have a message posted in the discussion thread being there's been a PR for this I think that wouldd be great.
Gavin John 48:36: Well I think that probably a lot of these people check GitHub more often than yeah so what if hear me help I stick the discussions to link in the actual EIP review bot comment.
Sam 48:58: So you'd say something.
Gavin John 49:03: Requesting you know.
Sam 49:04: Yeah and then go review it on this link that'd be okay. Yeah but then we still need tags of some sort so we don't ping everybody who's like the entire ERC peer reviewer list in.
Gavin John 49:18: The meantime I think I can do kind of a work around by parsing the gecko tags. The Jekyll Preamble and saying like oh it's an NFP proposal? If it requires 721 or 1100.
Sam 49:35: No heuristics. Yeah okay let's talk about that a little bit more before you get like two in the Weeds on it but I think that's a reasonable idea.
Pooja Ranjan 49:45: I think it would make sense. Panda if you can maybe create an issue on that issue in the repository so people can also add their thoughts. This is a good idea. We would like to have notifications sent out for people who are really interested in it. Not all so while you are working on it and maybe kind of developing the idea more concrete. If you create an issue that would also be a kind of community notification, thank you. So yeah I think that is all for today's discussion. I know we have a meeting for UF in the next five minutes. So any other final comment question? Can anyone take it today? Thank you so much for joining, I hope to see you all in two weeks at 1400 UTC have a good day everyone.
Gavin John 50:41: Thank you for organising
- Gavin John
- Gcolvin
- Pooja Ranjan
- Sam Wilson
- Light Client
- JA
- Victor Zhou