All Core Devs - Execution (ACDE) #219, August 28, 2025

[nixorokish]

UTC Date & Time

August 28, 2025, 14:00 UTC

Agenda

• Fusaka
  • Devnet updates
    • Non-finality testnets
    • Pending PRs
      • feat: update osaka style blob schedule eth-clients/holesky#129
      • feat: update osaka style blob schedule eth-clients/sepolia#110
      • feat: update osaka style blob schedule eth-clients/hoodi#19
      • feat: update osaka style blob schedule eth-clients/mainnet#10
  • Next steps / timeline
• Holesky shut down
• Gas Limit updates
• Glamsterdam
  • Block Access List Updates
  • Repricings Meta EIP
  • PFI proposals reviews
    • Besu Preferences
    • Author-proposed EIPs:
      • EIP-2926
      • EIP-7793
      • EIP-7843
      • EIP-8012
      • EIP-8014

Call Series

All Core Devs - Execution

🔧 Meeting Configuration

Duration

90 minutes

Occurrence Rate

bi-weekly

Use Custom Meeting Link (Optional)

• I will provide my own meeting link

Facilitator Emails (Optional)

tim@ethereum.org

Display Zoom Link in Calendar Invite (Optional)

• Display Zoom link in invite

YouTube Livestream Link (Optional)

• Create YouTube livestream link

[github-actions]

⚡ Protocol Call Resources:

✅ Zoom: Join Meeting
✅ Calendar: Add to Calendar
✅ Discourse: Discussion Topic
✅ YouTube Live: Watch Live

[gballet]

I'd like to talk about eip 2926

[ralexstokes]

i'd like to check in with everyone about this Fusaka timeline:

29 Aug: working fusaka trunk branches
3 Sep: fusaka-devnet-5 launch
10 Sep: fusaka-devnet-5 done -> use analysis to confirm (target, max) values here
15 Sep: Holesky/Sepolia releases; bug bounty begins
22 Sep: Holesky forks
29 Sep: Sepolia forks
1-3 Oct: Hoodi and mainnet releases
8 Oct: Hoodi fork
5 Nov: mainnet

[timbeiko]

We currently have 18 PFI'd EIPs for Glamsterdam, with at least another month for people to make proposals. At 5-10 minutes per EIP on the call, if we get another 10ish, we're looking at 2-4 full ACDEs of PFI presentations.

Teams are now sprinting towards Fusaka releases and (on the EL side) gas limit optimizations. I'm not sure this is the best time to shift our focus towards analyzing Glamsterdam proposals, but would want client teams to validate this.

When/how is the best way to review all the PFI'd EIPs? Do we want to allocate time on the call to anyone who posts on the agenda, have client teams highlight the EIPs they'd most like to discuss, require EIP champions to provide async context ahead of the call, a combination?

Would love to get teams' perspectives on this thread before Thursday's call. If time permits, and teams think it's a good use of time, then I'm happy to cover EIP-2926 (and potentially others!) @gballet 😄

[Marchhill]

Hey @timbeiko I'd like to speak a bit about EIP 7793 and 7843

[potuz]

If there's time I'd like to mention EIP-8012 and EIP-8014, should not take more than a couple of minutes.

[abcoathup]

When/how is the best way to review all the PFI'd EIPs?

@timbeiko we should wait until the PFI deadline before reviewing, to avoid setting EIPs to Candidate for Inclusion without the context of all the PFId EIPs.

The best way (IMHO) would be async review and short listing by client teams and the community, before short listed EIP champions can pitch at ACD.

EIP authors/champions should ideally add a 5 minute presentation (video & slides) on how their EIP significantly moves the roadmap forward to their EIP discussions topic in Eth Magicians.
This could also ideally be surfaced on forkcast: https://forkcast.org/upgrade/glamsterdam#proposed-for-inclusion (@wolovim)
This would allow client teams & the community to review async. (without having to discuss on ACD). [Ideas based on my input to Pectra restrospective]

An EIP would either need one or more client teams (ideally two) to nominate to short list and/or strong community signaling via forkcast (@wolovim time to bring back ranking)

Short listed EIP champions could then take 5-10 minutes of questions at ACD on how their EIP significantly moves the roadmap forward and have implementations & tests.

Client teams & the community could then writeup their preferences for CFI, summarized by the Protocol Support team (@nixorokish). Then ACD can decide using this input.

[wolovim]

re: glamsterdam non-headliners, ready to aid and further experiment with forkcast to support async education and signal gathering, but within ACD calls, perhaps scale it down to a 2-3 min "elevator pitch" with optional template questions. 5-10 minutes each is a lot, particularly if left unstructured.

[abcoathup]

but within ACD calls, perhaps scale it down to a 2-3 min "elevator pitch" with optional template questions. 5-10 minutes each is a lot, particularly if left unstructured.

ACD time is too valuable for all the PFId EIPs to pitch, this needs to be an async review.
Only short listed EIPs should pitch at ACD, but agree, structure is important, and the shorter the better.

[rolfyone]

We probably want a couple of weeks of running post the holesky upgrade...