►
From YouTube: SSC Kickoff
Description
SSC Kickoff
A
A
I
will
propose,
propose
this
at
the
end
of
last,
the
last
meeting,
the
TSC
earlier
it
so
I'll,
do
it
in
the
beginning,
I'll
propose
that
we
do
unless
anyone
objects
a
another
meeting
like
this
next
week,
maybe
the
same
time
or
there
abouts,
and
then
we
will
move
to
bi-weekly
very
quickly,
yeah,
probably
thereafter,
and
it's
well.
We
will
go
to
a
steady
state
of
perhaps
just
once
a
month
with
subgroups
doing
their
thing
as
needed.
A
Okay
right,
so
the
first
thing
is
to
let's
go
through
and
very
quickly
talk
about.
Everybody
should
introduce
themselves
and
I'll.
Go
I've,
got
the
tiles
up,
so
I'll
just
go
through
and
say:
York
you're,
you're
first,
and
it
would
be
great
to
you
know
just
get
your
name,
the
company
you
work
for
and
the
intention
that
you
have
for
being
here.
That
is,
you
know.
What
do
you
want
to
get
out
of
this?
What
what
is
the
straight
line
thing
between
your
efforts
here
and
benefits
to
your
company
or
your
or
yourself
you're
sure.
C
Just
clicked
the
wrong
button:
yeah
Stefan
Bauer
from
Kaiser
Permanente,
we
integrated
delivery
network
hub
headquartered
in
California
I'm,
here,
maybe
more
from
from
the
congruence
of
her
personal.
You
know
view
to
this
that
domain.
That
eventually
is
where
things
and
I
like
to
convert
that
the
the
definition
of
the
may
not
being
not
specifically
necessarily
aetherium,
but
right
now,
the
theory
and
the
best
one
out
there.
C
So
it's
it's
more
like
that.
Personal
inside
I
am
responsible
at
Kaiser
for
the
emerging
technology
management
aspect
around
decentralization.
We
do
have
certainly
our
sort
of
early
stage.
You
know
prototyping
and
things
going
on,
particularly
also
in
the
drug
supply
chain
space
and
so
anything
supplying
anything
realizing.
Any
other
is
realizing
that
main
that
this
certainly
a
good
path
to
go
or
I'm
kind
of
thrilling
and
piques
my
interest
and
I.
You
know
thank
you
for
the
call
else
to
each
other
and
Heather.
D
E
Thank
you.
I
wanted
to
stay
in
brand
over
here,
yes,
Oh
uncle
founder
and
CEO
of
vision,
blockchain
and
as
a
system
integrator
in
the
space.
I
think
that
the
baseline
protocol
really
really
need.
You
know
one
of
the
things
that
we
really
pride
ourselves
on
is
not
being
developers
of
you
know
the
blockchain
network
per
se,
but
what
we
do
is
we
help
our
customers
implement.
E
Best-In-Class
technologies
I
really
fit
their
business
needs.
You
know
so
introducing
the
libraries
that
the
baseline
protocol
has
really
is
going
to
address
a
lot
of
challenges.
You
know
if
I
could
just
give
them
to
one
of
the
use
cases
that
we
spoke
about
with
with
with
a
fairly
large
retail
organization
about
a
half
a
year
ago
and
even
more,
they
said.
E
Well,
why
should
we
create
our
own
private
blockchain
when
somebody
else
is
creating
their
own
private,
blockchain
and
then
to
other
or
of
our
suppliers
up
and
down
the
stream
are
also
creating
their
own
blockchain.
Well,
wish
we
had
this
answer
back
then,
but
you
know
it's
never
too
late,
so
really
happy
to
join
here.
And
how
would
this
effort.
F
D
My
name
is
John
Stevens
I'm
working
for
Webb
cloud,
which
is
joint
venture
with
AMD
and
consensus,
and
that's
probably
also
why
you
org
is
also
on
this
call.
I
know
him
well
and
we're
providing
basically
the
hardware
infrastructure
to
help
secure
and
provide
validation
for
the
blockchain.
All
of
these
apps
are
going
to
need
places
to
run
that
are
not
just
Amazon
or
Google
cloud,
and
so
we're
building
out
the
infrastructure.
Hardware,
infrastructure
data
centers
to
run
all
this
stuff.
So
that's
my
spiel
very.
G
So
there's
far
more
reach
up,
academia
and
startups
and
just
technologies
that
we
see
a
long
term
value
in
so
the
other
unique
perspective
is
that
we
look
everywhere
from
the
very
beginning
of
our
supply
chain
and
looking
for
resources
to
the
in
supply
chain
and
how
that
gets
delivered
to
consumers.
So
I
hope
to
leverage
that
broad
perspective
for
the
group
here.
F
A
B
D
D
B
A
I'm
glad
you're
here
Brian.
It
would
be
helpful
if
you
could
keep
an
eye
on
yeah
what
you
heard
on
the
previous
call.
If
we
can
you
and
your
queer
on
the
previous
one,
if
you
spot
any
things
that
we
should
sync
up
between
the
two
groups
on
that
I'm
missing
and
be
great
to
have
you
bring
up?
Thank
so
this
is
a
kickoff
cost
short
calls
just
an
hour
and
the
goal
here
you
might
notice.
A
First
of
all,
most
people
on
this
call
could
be
on
the
TSC
just
fine,
pretty
seriously
technical
people
here
on
this
call,
and
but
the
the
notion
that
we
came
up
with
was
there
is
a
basic
governance
job.
The
TSA
does
basically
make
sure
that
the
maintainer
x'
don't
run
amuck
uh-huh
and
that
we
have
maintained
errs
and
that
we
can
resolve
disputes
in
in
terms
of
who
gets
to
be
on
a
maintainer
group.
A
If
the
maintainer
is
themselves
can't
achieve
loose
consensus
and
the
TSC
is
responsible,
the
pgb
for
in
that
way,
so
that's
really
the
job
of
the
TSC.
If
yeah
is
the
the
nuts
and
bolts
and
making
sure
that
engineering,
you
know,
moves
in
a
direction
and
self-organizes,
but
when
self-organization
fails
you
can
lend
and
beat.
But
then
there
was
a
as
we
looked
at
this
group
of
unusually
large
number
of
people
signing
up
to
be
on
the
TSC
like
well
a
lot
of
these
folks
in
your
up.
A
A
It
reminds
me
a
lot
of
like
apache
tomcat
in
some
ways
in
some
way
it's
not
every
way,
and
and
so
that's
what
what
the
SSC,
if
the
TSEs
job
is
to
make
sure
that
issues,
engineering
tasks
get
done
by
by
dint
of
maintainer
zand
committers
and
just
make
sure
that
there's
there's
governance
to
that.
The
SSC's
job
is
to
make
sure
that
there's
a
community
of
people
focused
on
epics
and
topics,
I'll
stop
and
stand
and
solicit
some
thoughts
here.
I
mean
Daniel.
E
Yeah,
no
I
think
that
I
think
that
that's
a
really
good
strategy.
You
know
just
just
just
from
a
high
level.
You
know
when,
when
you,
when
you
mention
you
know
ethics
rights,
my
mind,
my
automatic
goes
to
my
project
management
days
and
I
start
thinking
about
the
scaled,
agile
framework
and
then
say
for
those
that
may
not
know
what
that
is.
E
Essentially
it's
you
know,
starting
at
the
top
level,
you
know
determining
if
your
your
product
is
going
to
be
focused
around
government
or
enterprise,
and
then
it
rolls
down
a
little
bit
more
into
strategic
topics.
If
you
will
right
and
then
each
of
those
topics
then
have
an
epic
and
in
each
of
those
epics
then
have
features
and
user
stories.
So
if
we
categorize
that,
along
the
same
way
with
what
you're
described
and
then
I
think
that
makes
sense
to
win
developing
product.
A
You
know,
I
should
say,
there's
a
statement
of
value
I
like
to
say
in
during
these
meetings,
which
is
everybody
here,
and
everybody
involved
in
the
community
should
be
able
to
draw
a
straight
line
between
what
they're
doing
and
their
enlightened
self-interest.
If
you're
doing
something
that
doesn't,
they
can't
show
itself
to
be
important
to
the
bottom
line
of
what
you're
doing
for
a
living.
Then
you
know
somebody's.
You
know
something's
wrong
there.
We
should
talk
about
it.
A
Before
we
go
on
out,
let
me
very
quickly
have
a
brief
recap
of
our
current
impact.
In
case
you
didn't
know,
we
have
just
exceeded
well,
I
haven't
even
checked
since
4:00
a.m.
this
morning,
but
for
him
we
were
at
a
hundred
and
eighty
stars
on
the
github,
repo
and
I
think
35
Forks,
and
it's
rising
and
there's
already
people
that
weren't
involved
in
the
original
work
that
are
now
maintenance.
A
By
comparison-
and
this
is
not
to
snow,
this
is
not
a
hyper
ledger.
Basically,
at
all,
we
love
those
guys
but
hyper
ledger.
Basically,
who
has
been
involved
for
has
been
out
there
for
about
six
months
almost
and
they
have
a
hundred
and
eighty
five
stars.
So
there's
something
going
on.
We
have
touched
a
chord
in
the
community
on
the
subject
and
it's
it's
crazy,
a
1.2
billion
in
reach
off
of
our
original
announcement.
A
B
A
Source
was
our
media
team
who
used
their
tool
and
I
I,
don't
know
which
tool
they
used.
I
can
double-check,
but
I
did
double-check.
It
like
I
came
in
like
this.
That
can't
be
right
double-check.
It
they're,
like
notes
right,
no
I,
know,
kernels,
have
triple
check.
I
didn't
want
to
be
throwing
those
numbers
around
unless
they
were
very,
very
sure-
and
you
know
they're
professionals
and
but
I
did
not
double-check
what
their,
what
tool
they
actually
used.
Yeah.
B
B
A
B
A
B
Terms,
I
would
I
think
I
would
probably
drill
down
from
sort
of
the
ten
or
more
original
principles
down
into.
Where
does
that
fall
out
into
a
technical
working
group,
and
then
is
that
Technical
Working
Group
getting
lost
in
the
weeds
and
not
actually
answering
the
question
I
think
it's
an
important
thing
to
be
able
to
calibrate
against.
A
A
We
special
challenge
in
a
large
early
community
that
is
excited
about
something
that
you
know
that
the
newcomers
haven't
spent
a
lot
of
time
learning
about
yet
right
and
it's
a
different
mental
model,
so
yeah
staying
focused
on
what
we
want
to
achieve
and
achieving
alignment
is
a
key
job
for.
Well
everybody
one
of
the
things
we
talked
about
at
ESC
and
we
need
to
talk
here.
Is
you
know
it
when
you
have
it's
not
one
company
or
even
one
consortium
at
a
community?
It's
all
about
onboarding
and
so
I'll.
A
Is
we
want
to
make
sure
that
they're
all
well
on
boarded
that
they
understand
kind
of
what
the
journey
has
been
up
until
now,
so
that
they
can
intelligently
take
the
journey
to
the
next
stage
and
and
know
at
least
when
they're
diverging
there's
nothing
wrong
with
divergence?
But
it's
a
best
to
diverge.
When
you
know
what
you're
diverging
from
so
onboarding
is
going
to
be
key.
I.
B
Also
think
and
I
think
you
know
I'm
short,
multiple
people
on
this
call
are
on
the
same
page
with
this,
but
like
early
deliverables
with
clearly
set
expectations
on
what
those
deliverables
are
and
what
they,
how
those
deliverables
relate
to
proving
something
right.
That's
versus
long
long,
long,
deliverables
that
you
know
are
not
you
know
they
may
actually
achieve
the
same
thing,
but
because
there's
such
long
deliverables
they're
not
actually
advancing.
You
know
advancing
the
market
thinking
around
it.
I
second.
A
A
So
if
the
SSC
is
effective
at
setting
those
and
say
hey,
this
is
what
something
we
would
want
as
BP
and
as
the
energy
industry.
We
need
these
requirements.
If
we
have
those
requirements,
we
could
do
this
with
it
and
if
we
can
do
that
with
it,
we're
going
to
have
real
things
happening
like
this
and
here's
the
evidence
for
Karen
Steve.
You
have
any
thoughts
about
them.
C
Yeah,
well
maybe
each
on
I
some
thoughts
like
from
a
more
vertical
view,
right,
I,
think,
generally
speaking,
this
is
this
should
be
about
product
market
rate
right
and
from
a
sort
of.
What
does
it
do
for
us
to
apply
this
new
computational
concept
or
protocol
right
for
for
our
sort
of
external
applications
that
we're
building
I
think
there
will
be
a
bunch
of
more
specific
requirements
or
critical
to
success
criteria
for
this
right
that
we
need
to
be
working
on.
C
G
Think,
from
an
industry
perspective
to
having
a
sort
of
MVP
of
requirements
that
is
valuable
because
we
get
tied
up
with
a
lot
of
discussion
around
it
when
we
can
start
moving
quickly
on
smaller
things
and
make
it
more
of
an
iterative
process
so
identifying
what
we
can
do
first
and
how
at
time
approach
can
work
is
stronger
than
figuring
out.
The
whole
scenario
of
most
processes.
A
Yeah
MVP's
would
be
good
right,
I
mean
that's
how
we
got
here.
That
is
always
a
dialectic
with
with
these
with
protocol
level
things
you
know,
do
you
I
remember
years
ago,
sitting
in
more
than
one
sitting
in
in
architecture
meetings
having
architecture
meetings
with
architects
about
architecture
for
weeks
and
no
not
not
a
not
a
user
insight
right
well,
we
knew
that
we
knew
the
plumbing.
A
We
just
didn't
know
whether
we,
whether
you
know
whether
we
were
serving
toilets
or
dishwashers,
right
and
weren't,
even
sure
where
the
toilets
would
go
in
the
house
or
what
the
whether
there
was
a
house
and
whether
it
be
people
in
it.
But
man
we
had
the
plumbing
right.
So
that's
that's
one
way
to
go
off
the
deep
end.
The
other
way
to
go
off
the
deep
end
is
to
have
no
sense
of
the
possible
right
and
the
art
of
the
possible.
B
I
think
that's
actually
to
sort
of
meld
that
with
what
Karen
said
if
there
are
specific
challenge
use
cases
Karen
that
you've
already
identified
I
think
a
proof
point
to
answer
the
question
that
John
ghost
raised
is:
can
we
run
an
exercise
where
we,
you
know,
take
the
assumptions
we
made
or
the
capabilities
within
the
baseline
protocol
itself,
and
do
they
actually
answer
those?
Those
are
yes.
C
C
So
it's
much
generally
this
adoption
route
roadmap
or
the
adoption
blockers
right
that
I
think
are
still
out
there,
and
so
for
me
it
is
still
a
fairly
long
road
to
a
convince
corporations
that
this
is
a
safe
and
in
doable
or
capable
risk
level
right
and
then
B
really
so
there's
still
a
lot
of
my
dreams
are
suffer
so
I'm
still
not
politician,
convinced
that
you
know
it
needs
all
these.
You
know
shield
contracts
and
so
forth
that
he
could
not
actually
do
even
more
with
cryptography
off
chain
right.
C
So
I
I
do
think
that
is
a
baton
were
like
you,
guys
been
sort
of
working
on
this
nine
months
and
Eli,
maybe
even
longer
a
bit
with
nightfall
right,
and
so
maybe
there
is
a
couple
of
sort
of
verification
right.
Maybe
it's
more!
You
know
on
this
path
to
this
grand
unifying
theory
that
not
only
should
be
kind.
Your
remain
that,
but
also
like
you
can
still
be,
on
the
same
main
that
don't
have
some
total
different
things
going
that
are
not
necessarily
interacting
with
each
other
or
compatible
with
each
other
right.
C
There's
still
a
lot,
you
know
unifying
theory
that
needs
to
be
established,
I
believe,
at
least
from
my
perspective,
in
order
for
really
make
this
something
that
can
be
picked
out
of
this
emerging
technology.
Witness
pocket
into
you
know
like
an
early
adoption.
You
know,
strategy
for
for
corporations,
I.
A
The
so
I
made
a
bunch
of
notes.
Hopefully,
people
can
see
some
of
them
on
the
screen
and
one
of
them.
That
is
a
good
pivot
to
the
next
topic,
in
fact,
is,
is
you
know,
focus
keeping
eye
on
the
whys
behind
those
these
key
engineering
features
and
at
far
as
components
and
explaining
them,
as
Karen
said
in
ways
that
that
that
don't
just
you
know,
revel
in
the
math
of
a
particular
technique.
A
But
rather
you
know
say
you
know
this
particular
technique
is
a
machine
that
does
this
and
I
can
put
that
machine
in
here
and
now
it's
a
carburetor
or
a
fuel
injector
for
this
engine
etc
right
it
has
a
job
to
do
what
is
the
job
and
if
we
I
think
that's
a
good
practice
and
be
given
that
this
is
being
taped
and
will
be
public
I.
Think
that's
a
good
piece
of,
hopefully
that
will
get
into
the
culture
of
this
community
that
we
keep
an
eye
on
that.
A
A
A
This
is
something
I
think
everybody
needs
to
know.
We
will
use
github
as
the
tool
for
recording
intentions,
actions,
topics,
projects,
road
maps
as
well
as
engineering
issues.
If
you
didn't
know,
Xen
hub
adds
a
couple
of
extra
objects
that
do
not
exist
in
in
github
like
most
notably
the
epic
object.
So
an
epic
in
github
is
has
some
more
features
to
it
that
you?
Actually,
if
you
threw
Xen
hub
out
or
an
epic
in
Xen
hub,
is
a
is
a
little
different
from
in
github
their
nests
table.
A
A
A
It
can
be
an
engineering
top
yeah
thing
that
needs
to
get
done,
and
you
know
in
at
least
in
my
experience
and
by
the
way,
I'm
speaking
as
though
this
is
the
authoritative
thing,
I'm
making
a
strong
proposal
just
to
get
us
through
it,
but
it
would
be
great
if
somebody
said
no
I
don't
want
to
that
way.
I'm
proposed
something
else.
We
can
take
it
up
either
today
or
subsequent
meetings.
A
I,
don't
want
to
discourage
discussion
on
this,
but
I'll
start
the
bidding
on
this
on
this
method,
and
that
is,
if
it's
an
issue,
it's
a
it's
a
task.
If
it
is
a
epoch,
it
can
be
either
a
big
giant
container
like
health
care
yeah
inside
of
which
are
containers
like
problem
X
in
healthcare.
Those
can
be
all
nouns,
no
verbs
in
them
right.
Just
big
topics.
A
C
So
I
mean
I'm,
I'm,
I'm,
okay,
if
just
pick
and
after
then
move
forward
with
it.
I
just
would
want
to
submit
on
user
stories
that
I
sometimes
feel
it's
it's
its
way
to
sort
of
artificial
and
we're
not
building
a
web
application
here
right
where
there
is
a
user
experience
and
the
user
interface
we're
building
a
protocol
in
the
way
and
how
to
sort
of
corporations
are
being
interconnected
with
a
new
application
that
they
commonly
share
and
so
forth.
C
Sorry
I'm,
just
a
little
skeptical
on
staying
too
much
with
sort
of
you
know
a
method
that
works
well
for
for
websites
right,
but
maybe
an
actual,
deep,
deep
level
protocol
design.
We
may
have
something
like
you
know.
A
problem
around.
You
know
that
maybe
a
certain
ckp
doesn't
work
in
a
certain
scenario
and
I'm
not
sure
you
can
formulate
that
if
I
use
a
story
or
if
you
do
it
sounds
a
little
bit
sort
of
cheesy
like
you
know,
cryptographer
X
need
X,
Y
Z,
so
that
it
can
do
that
right.
You're.
A
So
right
and
by
the
way,
thanks
for
for
for
adding
that
perspective,
that's
exactly
where
that's
the
kind
of
conversations
we
need
to
have
in
this
team
and,
in
fact,
I
think.
That's
exactly
correct
and
the
reason
why
issues
are
tasks
and
tasks.
Are
we
don't
force
tasks
into
that
kind
of
thing?
When
you
try
to
force
that
on
especially
on
an
engineering
team,
I
think
it's
not
it's
not
pretty,
because
it
just
system
doesn't
fit
reality.
A
It's
kind
of
what
a
product
manager
loves
to
see,
but
there's
just
a
lot
of
things
that
you
know
fitting
it's
yet
you
wind
up
with
this
weird
language
that
takes
you
time,
slows
you
down
and
creates
inertia
right.
So
that's
why
issues
or
tasks
tasks
can
have
their
own
format,
but
that
doesn't
mean
that
I'm
sure.
A
You
would
agree
that
when
you,
when
there
is
a
human
with
a
wood
that
wants
a
thing
so
that
they
can
do
something,
and
so
that
gives
a
tip
to
the
engineers
that
they
could
solve
the
problem,
a
bunch
of
different
ways,
not
just
the
one
that
you're
prescribing.
That's
usually
a
good
thing:
correct,
yeah,.
A
F
John
and
sorrow
in
here,
I,
just
I,
think
that
I'm
just
listening
to
everybody,
chime
and
I,
think
it's
important
that
we
stay
focused
on
what
the
Charter
is
for,
for
what
we're
building
so
I
see
a
couple
of
buckets.
One
is
validating
and
enhancing
the
protocol,
and
the
second
bucket
is
really
around
the
adoption
of
the
protocol,
so
applications
that
might
be
relevant
to
specific
industries
or
ideally,
applications
or
across
industry.
So
you
know
preference
towards
domains
like
supply
chain,
where
every
industry
has
their
own
version
of
that
I.
F
Think
that
lends
itself
very
well
to
being
protocol.
You
know
translating
wall
to
your
protocol
capability,
but
that
that's
where
I
see
kind
of
the
two
high-level
buckets
with
any
kind
of
users
for
them,
you
would
articulate
in
terms
of
the
methodology
we
follow.
Definitely
supported
was
falling
in
an
agile
one
and
I'm,
certainly,
okay,
with
I'm.
Lumping
into
that
Eclipse
you
described
and
then
meeting
issues
or
tasks
as
actually
the
work
that
needs
to
get
done,
and
we
can.
F
We
can
continue
in
the
bucket
all
the
the
user
stories
and
the
work
efforts
under
underneath
this
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that's
also
aligned
with
it.
How
did
CS?
He
is
looking
to
execute
its
earlier
earlier
question
that
I
had
I
was
kneeling
as
if
there,
if
they
were
going
to
be
following
some
sort
of
development.
I
knows
an
open
source
project
and
some
stuff
for
general
open
source
maintainer.
A
A
A
There
are
undone
things
we
need
to
validate,
or
we
mean
to
not
validate
but
abstract
and
generalize.
What
was
done
Oh
see,
we
need
to
harden
some
things
and
then,
where,
where
the
SSC
can
really
add,
value
is
in
particular,
is
saying
you
know,
as
we
harden
this
thing,
here's
why
we
why
it
has
to
have
these
non-functional
requirements.
A
I
need
this
kind
of
speed
or
I
need
this
kind
of
latency,
for
this
particular
use,
and
this
use
is
I,
have
some
evidence
to
suggest
that
that
use
would
be
real
right
and
so
and
and
if
we
can
that's
the
join
between
enhancing
the
protocol
and
getting
adoption,
because
if,
if
we
can
show
real
uses
with
real
specifications
on
on
why
they
need
a
function
or
a
feature
and
how
that
feature
needs
to
you
know
what
are
the
minimum
standards
for
that
feature
to
operate?
Then
we're
gonna
get
the
adoption.
B
By
multiple
mute
buttons
here
just
to
highlight
back
to
what
Stefan
said
earlier,
I
think
also
it's
probably
worthwhile
to
have
on
any
of
these
sort
of
and
other
approaches
can
other
approaches
considered
potentially
and
why
they
may
or
may
not
have
been
rolled
out
or
other
approaches.
That
may
actually
have
similar
validity
right.
I
think
that's
it
Stefan
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I
think
that's
sort
of
what
what
you
might
have
been
going
at.
A
B
E
So
if
I
can
kind
of
piggyback
off
of
that
york,
some
of
the
things
that
we've
been
doing
in
the
EEA
main
eyes
use
case
task
force.
Is
we've
been
coming
up
with
a
survey
to
collect
non-functional
requirements
based
on
different
types
of
use,
cases
across
a
bunch
of
different
verticals,
a
bunch
of
different
horizontals
I'm,
not
going
to
go
on
a
record
and
say
that
it's
a
perfect
survey
by
any
means,
but
it
has
a
bunch
of
questions.
A
lot
of
them
are
open-ended.
E
A
I'm
glad
you
brought
that
up
Daniel,
so
yeah
we
we
certainly
have
I,
don't
even
know
how
well
yeah
it's
hard
to
determine
what
the
the
separation
is
between
the
main
networking
group
at
the
EA
and
and
and
some
of
the
things
that
we're
trying
to
do
here.
Clearly,
we
don't
need
to
do
double
duty
and
on
use
case
analysis
we,
you
know
we
could
probably
join
forces
and
make
sure
that
we,
you
know
we
we
do
one
set
of
really
good
activities
around
that
right.
Mm-Hmm.
D
A
A
What
have
you
so
can
I
ask
for
everybody?
What
will
come
we'll
reconvene
next
week,
roughly
the
same
time,
if
anybody
has
any
issues
with
this
time,
then
please,
let
me
know
and
I'll
I'll
figure
it
out,
we'll
we'll
send
out
another
survey
or
whatever
to
get
times,
but
at
this
time
works
for
everyone,
then
we
can
do
that.
Also
think
about
other
people
that
should
be
on
this
SSC
and
how
it
should
be
organized
because
there's
less
clarity,
deliberately
less
clarity
on
the
SSC
organization.
This
can
be
a
self-organizing
group.
A
The
TNS
feels
a
lot
more
hard-coded
this.
This
one
has
a
lot
of
latitude.
We
can
have
larger
groups,
we
got
smaller
groups,
we
can
have
different
subgroups.
We
can
have
different
kinds
of
connective
tissues.
One
of
those
islands
had
just
now
and
I'd
like
to
just
have
the
week
to
be
thoughtful
about
that.
We'll
come
back
next
week
and
hopefully
and
I
will
solicit
input
before
the
meeting.
To
summarize
during
the
meeting
and.
C
Jonah
I
would
just
that
before
we
segregate
too
much
into
the
different
verticals
that
we
perhaps
should
wait
with
that
and
first
you
know
build
a
solid
foundational
sort
of
understanding.
Yes,
there
is
a
you
know,
a
different
demographic
around
people
like
representing
our
corporations
that
will
use
this
versus.
You
know,
maybe
corporations
that
are
in
work
or
groups
during
here,
just
more
like
as
a
product
in
this
right,
but
before
we
I
think
get
to
soon
into
the
vertical
Leo's
increases.
F
F
So
I
would
agree
that
we
come
together
first
around
what
the
needs
are
for
the
protocol
and
common
functionality.
I
think
that's
the
most
important
thing
versus
on,
because
it
increases.
If
we
segment
too
early
we're
going
to
we're
going
to
run
the
risk
of
building
something
that
is
with
the
spoken
and
too
unique
to
an
industry
which
does
add
a
lot
of
guy
in
terms
of
the
protocol.
Yeah.
A
F
If
you're
using
one
watch-chain
product
that
you
had
builds
that,
but
ideally
not
the
only
one
right
if
I
meant
to
token
of
value
in
one
solution,
I
shouldn't
really
be
able
to
use
that
in
another
solution
that
I
wanted
to
market
later
right
and
that's
really
where
we're
going
to
see
a
network
effect
if
we
can
build
in
this
way.
So
other
incursions
I
think
that
this
was
also
I.
F
A
Was
a
all
teacher
mine
used
to
say
that
walking
is
a
is
a
is
a
series
of
unbalances
that
that's
some
to
balance
right,
so
you,
you
know,
you
walk
back
and
forth
a
bit
right.
You
dive
into
a
vertical.
You
don't
go
too
far.
You
jump
back
out!
You
go.
How
is
this
extensible,
you,
you
think
about
General
Court
general
requirements
and
then
you'd?
You
know
you.
You
know
both
internal
to
one
person
as
a
group,
you'd
kind
of
check,
your
six
on
that
right
and
say
well.
How
would
that
work
in
health
care?
F
A
A
Thank
you
yep,
it
was.
It
was
a
big
team
effort
but
and
I
think
there's
the
really
it's
just
a
big
giant,
placeholder
everything
inside
the
baseline
protocol
work
is,
is
the
work
ahead
right,
so
we
stole
some
of
the
EA's
work
here
this.
This
is
just
a
format,
though
you
know
the
must-haves
in
the
show
tabs
and
then
must
not
Sandow
shells.
Well,
we
got
to
fill
all
this
in
and
yeah.
This
should
be
the
young.
What
we
point
the
EEA
to
to
say
these
are:
this:
is
our
input
into
that
standards
process?
A
This
is
what
we
think
needs
to
happen
in
the
EF
and
if
you
look
at
there's
two
there's
two
levels
here,
one
is:
what
is
it
that
we
actually
need
in
a
main
net?
We
I
think
most
of
us
are
inclined
to
think
that
the
Internet's
main
net
ought
to
be,
or
is
likely
to
be
a
if
the
area
more--the
to
over
time,
but
you
know
that
we
call
it
the
main
net
for
a
reason,
because
we
don't.
A
A
What
are
the
things
that
outside
of
the
actual
baseline
protocol
componentry
need
to
happen
and
our
in
a
in
a
state
yet
where
we
want
them
to
be
in
order
to
get
adoption
by
enterprises,
and
a
couple
of
them
are
Socrates
if
I
was
C
so
or
as
a
CTO
of
an
enterprise,
and
somebody
told
me
that
my
infrastructure
is
now
going
to
be
reliant
on
Socrates
I
might
be
a
little
concerned
because
it
says
it's
an
experimental.
So
what
can
we
do
to
influence
the
increasing
of
support
for
Socrates
or
an
alternative?
A
A
A
That's
one
thing
that
that
is
a
consistent
worry
that
I'm
hearing
from
executives
who
know
what
they're
talking
about
in
this
space
and
in
each
one
you
can
get
a
you
can
go
a
long
way
the
baseline
approach
right
now
in
production.
As
long
as
you
don't
mind,
the
noisy,
neighbor
problem
too
much
and
and
there
some
people
will
argue
that
that's
overblown.
A
But
the
point
is
it's
still
there,
gasps
York
thanks
a
lot
actually
I
think
you're,
just
prompting
me
that
we're
out
of
time-
and
that
is
correct-
we're
two
minutes
over
in
fact
so
I'll
end
it
there
just
to
say
that
these
are.
These
are
the
places
that
we
want
to
look
at
and
you'll
also
see
that
performance
stats.
The
specs
has
nothing
on
here
yet
so
that's
the
job
in
front
of
us
getting
getting
to
this
stuff
standards.
What
the
protocol
ultimately
will
be.