Quick recap (from AI)
The EIP IP meeting number 126 focused on reviewing call-for-input issues, policy discussions, and updates to the EIP process. Sam led the review of several pending issues including allowed links to Unicode standards, associate EIP editors, and status tags in citations, with the team deciding to merge the status tag PR as-is and close the associated call for input. The group discussed moving EIPs to final status, with Jochem suggesting that informational EIPs should move to final rather than living status, and the team agreed to proceed with moving the current proposal to final status while allowing ECD calls to make final decisions on EIP numbers. Policy discussions covered including pre-final CAIPs in EIP dependencies, using Solidity version numbers in proposals, and making office hours more effective, with Rito presenting a comprehensive demo of the new EIP Working Group featuring improved navigation, full-text search using PageFind, and a hard fork metadata tracking system. The meeting also addressed dispute resolution concerns raised by the EVM.org team regarding deleted comments and the process for providing feedback on proposals, with Sam advising that authors don’t have to address all suggestions but encouraging collaboration through pull requests and All Core Devs discussions.
Next steps
Pooja
Rito
Sam
Collaboration
Summary
Status Tags and Citations Discussion
The team discussed two call-for-input items. For the first item about status tags and citations, they decided to merge the existing PR that addresses displaying the correct EIP status, as it will show the status that was current when the page was rendered. For the second item (issue number 406), the discussion ended at the transcript’s conclusion, so no decision was captured in this summary.
EIP Status and Naming Decisions
The team discussed moving EIP in Issue 406 to final status, with Jochem suggesting that informational EIPs should remain final rather than living to preserve context and avoid frequent updates. Pooja expressed it may not place unnecessary burden on EIP editors, given this EIP will be edited only twice a year but agreed to move the proposal forward. Sam emphasized the importance of authority in naming decisions and suggested letting the ACD call handle final decisions on fork naming. The team also reviewed Issue 408 regarding external resources from OWASP, CTPA, and CAI, with Sam requesting team members to review and comment on the proposal.
CAIPs and EIPs Integration Discussion
The team discussed the inclusion of pre-final CAIPs in EIPs, with Sam recommending waiting for CAIPs to reach final status before moving EIPs to final, though they acknowledged this could create delays. They clarified that the dependency rule between CAIPs and ERCs/EIPs has been disabled since repository splitting, removing a potential blocker. The discussion then shifted to concerns about Solidity references in ERCs, with Jochem raising questions about future language standards and the need to specify Solidity versions clearly in code blocks to maintain clarity and consistency.
Proposal Guidelines and Review Process
The team discussed several guidelines for proposal submissions, including requiring version numbers for Solidity-related content and creating a glossary of technical terms that editors would maintain. They debated the use of AI tools in proposal reviews, with Sam emphasizing that while AI can be helpful, editors remain responsible for their work and decisions. The group also discussed improving office hours effectiveness, with Jochem expressing concerns about current format while Pooja defended their value for providing a venue to address unreviewed proposals, noting that having a known channel has helped direct submissions to the repository.
Office Hours and Dispute Resolution
The team discussed potential improvements to office hour workflows, with Rito suggesting that attendees should post questions in advance to better align with intended purposes. Pooja agreed to encourage community members to provide clear problem statements rather than general requests for review. The discussion then shifted to dispute resolution, particularly focusing on authorship disputes in EIP processes. Jochem-brouwer suggested maintaining existing rules about editor approval for new authors to avoid setting problematic precedents, which Sam agreed with. Pooja noted that these types of disputes were just beginning and mentioned a proposal for guidelines that would be discussed later.
EIP Proposal Engagement Process
Ariutokintumi raised concerns about their reply to an EIP proposal being deleted without addressing their feedback, and questioned how to properly engage in the Ethereum community. Sam explained that proposal authors aren’t required to respond to suggestions, but recommended creating a new proposal with modifications and advocating for it through the All Core Devs process. jochem-brouwer supported this by noting that deleting comments goes against the open nature of the process and raised additional concerns about karma requirements blocking new thread creation on Ethereum Magicians.
Discourse Anti-Spam Feature Discussion
Sam discussed Discourse’s anti-spam feature requiring users to read other posts before posting, and Pooja explained that a comment was flagged as spam by an author and had to be deleted. Pooja suggested that Sam could make a pull request to update the EIP if he strongly feels the proposal changes are meaningful, and encouraged creating a new proposal if the author doesn’t accept the suggested changes. Pooja also raised concerns about dispute resolution guidelines and requested editors to review a proposal for documenting such guidelines, either as an EIP or an MD file in the EIP GitHub repository.
EIP Working Group Updates
Rito presented updates on the EIP Working Group, focusing on a multi-repo local build system and improvements to the navigation UI. The new build system aims to simplify local development by reducing build times and streamlining the process for contributors. Rito also discussed plans to implement full-text search using PageFind and create a hard fork metadata page. The presentation included a preview of updated navigation features, including fixed/sticky navigation and popovers, designed to improve the browsing experience while maintaining efficiency.
New Navigation Features Demonstration
Rito demonstrated new navigation features including a sticky header for desktop and a table of contents icon that populates menus for specific pages. He presented a mobile navigation redesign that replaces the top navigation with a bottom bar containing four context-specific buttons, including a new home button and QuickSearch functionality. Rito also explained the decision to implement PageFind for full-text search instead of the previous FuseJS system, noting the constraint of working with a static site that prevents semantic or vector search capabilities.
New Search Feature and Scheduling
Rito presented a new search feature for the site that allows URL-based searching with 24-hour query persistence and introduced a hard fork indexing feature that tracks EIPs corresponding to network upgrades. The team discussed scheduling changes, with Pooja proposing to extend future office hours to 2-3 hours and moving the next EIP meeting from the 17th to June 3rd, which both Sam and Jochem confirmed was acceptable.