►
From YouTube: EIPIP Meeting #7
A
B
Alright,
it
looks
like
we
are:
live,
hi
everyone
and
welcome
to
a
IP
IP
meeting
number
seven.
The
agenda
I
posted
in
the
group
chat
and
we'll
start
with
item
number
one.
The
e
IP
centric
model
subgroup
I,
think
that
was
something
James
brought
up
a
meeting
or
two
ago
and
I
forgot
what
that
meant.
I.
B
Yeah
I
think
you're
right,
I,
don't
know
if
I
was
at
that
meeting,
but
that
sounds
like
a
good
idea.
So
I
guess
what
that
would
mean
is
like.
If
you
are
something
else
besides
any
IP
editor,
you
can
still
make
and
push
changes
to
stuff
like
if
you
are
like
your
role
like
the
hard
floor
coordinator
or
if
you
are.
C
Could
like
the
EIP
centric
in
the
IP
centric
model
a
IP
rather
than
spelling
out
a
bunch
of
names
of
people
in
this
group?
You
could
say
this
group
is
allowed
to
make
edits
to
the
CIT
and
then
have
a
living
IP
or
an
active
VIP
that
specifies
who
that
is,
and
then
we
can
give
and
remove
permissions
as
it
makes
sense.
Okay,.
C
It
could
also
fit
like
we.
We
had
the
idea
we
talked
about
having
at
the
bottom
of
any
IP,
be
like
the
in-house
forum
like
if
you
go
to
the
DMV
there
see
behind
there's
like
the
notes
that
the
that
the
other
side
of
the
tables
taking
and
they're
so
certain
changes
in
the
EIP
could
be
made
by
this
group.
But
there
are
things
that
they
wouldn't
have
access
to
upgrading
processes,
I
keep.
We
could
have
better
tracking
of
the
process
of
an
EIP
within
the
EIP
itself.
C
C
D
C
B
D
From
the
one
of
the
Encore
dev
calls
in
which
it
was
suggested
that
for
this
efi
process
they
might,
it
might
be
helpful
to
have
a
documentation
of
that
length.
How
does
it
work
properly
and
also
there
can
be
some
more
admins
added
to
the
efi
laying
then
it
would
be.
You
know
more
updated
frequently.
D
C
B
D
So
my
understanding
here
is
like
here
for
itself
is
an
EIP,
so
if
we
would
want
to
process
the
documented
process,
we
could
go
ahead
and
do
that
and
about
the
EFI,
a
I
P
itself,
sometimes
path.
We
discuss
that
it
should
not
be
a
meta,
it
should
be
some
kind
of
informational
piece
and
that
should
be
referred
to
be
IP
one.
So
I'm
not
sure
what
the
process
is
agreed
upon,
but
that
was
the
initial
proposal.
I.
B
A
B
And
it
can
be
very
loose
if
we,
if
we
want
it
to
be
or
the
EIP
author
of
the
EFI
EIP,
if
they
want
that
to
be
a
looser
thing
and
I
guess
James
would
be
the
best
person
to
eat.
Do
it
or
advise
on
it,
because
you
had
a
big
role
in
coming
up
with
the
EFI
process
and
I
can
help
too
so
bait.
So,
for
instance,
it
would
just
say:
EFI
stands
for
eligible
for
inclusion.
B
In
order
to
attain
EFI
status,
the
core
developers
have
to
come
to
consensus
that
an
EIP
is
eligible
has
a
greater
than
50%
chance
of
going
into
a
hard
fork.
Something
like
that.
Whatever
rough
criteria
we
have
defined
because
it's
still
a
little
loose
right
now
we
don't
have
a
hard
number
of
like
X
amount
of
clients
have
to
say.
This
is
a
good
idea
or
or
even
like
what
it
means
to
be
blessed
by
an
editor
or
not
an
editor
like
by
a
core,
dev
or
stuff
like
that.
C
C
But
that's
why
it's
been
exist.
It's
been
in
draft
for
a
long
time
or
it
wasn't
even
merged
as
draft
for
a
long
time.
Because
of
that
the
prerequisite
was
it
shouldn't
have
any
information.
It
should
only
contain
the
the
registry
of
e
IPS
and
then
the
rest
should
be
in
the
IP
one
and
I
I.
Guess
I'm
saying
that
as
a
I
don't
know
or
a
point
of
frustration
when
working
with
a
IP
editors
I,
don't
really
know
what
to
do
with
all
of
ya
those.
B
You
know
if
it
was
everyone
wants
it
to
be
an
EIP
one
like
I'm,
it's
not
a
deal
breaker
for
me
as
long
as
it
doesn't
get
too
crowded
or
like
like
how
long
it
look.
Can
you
link
to
the
EIP
James,
so
I
can
see
how
long
it
is
because
if
it's
like
to
me
the
the
succinct,
'no
sin,
the
length
of
it
is
gonna
be
what
what
would
make
it
better
to
go
any
IP
one
versus
not
better
to
go
to
e
IP
one
yeah.
B
B
C
I
I
had
thought
of
it,
so
I
don't.
I
had
originally
thought
of
it
as
e
IP,
one
being
the
center
of
like
the
center
of
truth
for
things
related
to
aetherium,
like
the
IP
process,
or
just
like
the
governance
in
general
being
as
the
place
that
people
can
reference
as
the
single
source
of
truth,
and
then
we,
the
way
to
you,
can
make
it
usable
by
adding
in
like
a
table
of
contents
and
organizing
it
very
well.
So,
even
if
it
gets
long,
people
can
find
the
information
they
need
quickly.
C
C
E
C
E
Like
people
would
also
be
able
to
monitor
the
changes,
so
say
I
care
just
about
if
I
process
and
it's
an
informational
eat,
that's
linked
in
VIP
one
then
I
can
just
kind
of
keep
track
of
that
EEP
right
and
then
the
link
in
the
EIP
one
will
just
always
point
to
that
Tariq
and
it
might
be
easier.
You
have
to
make
that
make
changes
that
way.
A
C
C
If
you
look
at
it
from
the
general,
the
core
devs
have
consensus
to
say
this
is
a
good
idea
to
move
forward
with,
as
long
as
it
continues
to
make
sense
edits
to
like,
for
example,
yesterday,
when
it
came
up
the
PR
for
changing
the
Tim's
PR
for
changing
the
names
from
hard
Forks
to
network
upgrades
like
that's
a
PR,
it's
not
an
EIP
I,
don't
think
it
should
be
an
EIP,
but
it
should
be
some.
There
should
be
some
way
of
I
like
that.
C
The
core
dev
said
they're,
ok
with
it
then
could
be
added
as
part
of
its
eligible
for
inclusion.
Go
done,
quotes
kind
of
expanding
the
definition
a
little
bit,
but
then
could
be
a
way
to
then
make
that
into
draft
and
then
have
it
be
last
call
and
then
use
that
as
a
like.
These
are
lists
of
PRS
and
things
that
are
governance
that
are
like
process
related
that
have
gone
through
the
system.
Yeah.
B
Ok,
I
like
that
I
almost
want
to
just
push
EIP
one
through
the
changes
and
then
have
part
of
the
IP
one
saying
editors
have
to
be
this
active
and
they
have
to
be
involved
this.
They
have
to
be
involved
with
the
IP
one
updates.
You
know
because,
like
we've
gotten,
hardly
any
editor
involvement
and
like
I
I'm,
guessing
they're,
going
to
not
be
happy
if
we
push
the
IP
1
changes
through
just
without
consulting
them,
even
though
they
haven't
been
here.
C
B
C
B
B
B
C
B
Next
steps
on
that
would
be
it's
kind
of
up
to
you
since
you're
writing
it
if
you
wanted
an
EIP
one
or
if
you
want
to
try
to
push
it
separately
so
I,
if
I
I,
think
that's
kind
of
your
decision,
but
it's
good
that
you're
getting
input
from
everyone
and
it
could
go
either
way,
I'm,
leaning
more
toward
it
being
separately.
Personally,
for
the
the
reasons
that
we've
talked
about
yeah.
G
B
D
E
D
Are
planning
to
add
the
search
button
to
it?
I
have
just
added
a
link
in
the
chat,
so
it's
about
adding
these
so
much
put
into
the
existing
one,
and
hopefully
that
would
be
helpful
depending
upon
the
results.
It
would
be
decided
or
discuss
further.
Should
we
go
ahead
and
my
great
danger
data,
or
should
we
keep
it
the
way
it
is
as
of
now?
So
that's
the
PR
open
for
a
comment
feel
free
to
add
comments
about
it.
As.
B
Long
as
we're
not
drastically
changing
the
site,
adding
search
is
great.
I.
Just
don't
want
that
to
come
with,
like
moving
all
the
e
IPS
over
to
Sam's
aetherium
org
implementation.
Yet
until
it's
agreed
upon,
if
it
if
it
does
get
agreed
upon,
but
I
don't
think
we're
there
yet
right
and
it
seems
other.
E
H
B
B
B
But
if
we
were
to
move
the
e
IPS
to
aetherium
org,
slash
a
IPS
to
where
they're
searchable
in
here
it
would
have
that
top
frame
of
individuals,
developers,
enterprise
and
aetherium,
and
it
would
feel
more
like
a
part
of
a
website
than
a
standards
platform.
It
would
have
a
different
feel
to
it
and
it
would
have
a
different
it
wouldn't
feel
as
professional
or
technical
is
what
some
people
were
arguing,
including
Alex,
Perez,
Ozzie
and
I.
Think
that
we're
also
another
SEO
implications.
F
B
Could
do
the
translations
without
the
integration,
though,
and
it
wouldn't
I
mean
it's
not
like
fitting,
like
a
glove
when
you
do
that
as
my
understanding
but
I'm
not
super
versed
in
the
way
they're
doing
translations
right
now.
Also
that
would
be
a
lot
I.
Think
I,
don't
think
they
would
want
to
take
that
on
for
translating
on
the
go
every
IP
that
comes
in.
B
B
D
G
I
mean
like
basically,
the
ability
to
translate
effectively
between
languages
is
like
the
goal
of
like
current
research
and
in
speech
recognition
stuff,
so
it
I
find
it
probably
unlikely
you'd
be
able
to
find
one.
It's
actually
like
usable.
You
probably
Sofia.
You
probably
be
better
off
funny
translator,
but
maybe
yeah.
C
The
my
my
experience
with
Japanese
is
that
it's
really
really
doesn't
work,
but
that's
probably
because
Japanese
is
really
really
different,
but
the
overall
I
would
say
the
we.
If
I
was
looking
for
a
translator
for
EIP,
one
I
would
probably
want
basically
a
lawyer
like
level
of
understanding
of
language,
but
translating
because
a
lot
of
weight
is
given
to
a
lot
of
these
words.
G
B
C
B
We
can
definitely
get
her
and
put
on
that
if
we
want
to
do
that,
but
that's
probably
lower
on
the
priority
list.
Overall,
we
all
understand
that,
because
we're
trying
to
overhaul
the
system
itself
in
English,
so
any
other
comments
on
that
and
the
migration
to
etherium
dot
org.
That
isn't
really
happening
right
now,
except
for
added
search
functionality
of
the
current
Jekyll
site.
C
Doesn't
there's
still
the
an
unsolved
problem
of
their
blockers
to
changes
in
the
EIP
zouri
IP
processes
are
on
then
being
able
to
render
it
on
the
site
and
that's
justice
yeah
to
like
to
go
into
it,
but
I'm.
Just
noting
that
that
is
still
been
a
problem
if
we
aren't
having
resources
and
team
four,
that's.
B
True
yeah
I'm,
moving
it
to
aetherium
org,
we're
kind
of
less
independent
because
or
the
EIP
process
and
the
EIP
Jekyll
integration
is
less
independent
because
then
you're,
relying
on
Crossley
or
links
to
aetherium,
org,
/e,
IPs
and
whatever
they
have
set
up,
whether
it's
Jekyll
or
an
automatic
like
markdown
grabbing
thing
that
Sam
set
up
rather
than
VIPs
etherium
org,
which
is
just
a
jekyll
plugin.
So
it's
a
little
more
transparent
I
was.
C
It
would
end
with
if
it
was
the
etherium
team,
then
there
is
a
team
of
people
that
would
be
able
to
keep
up
with
any
of
those
changes
or
if
the
one
we
had
just
we
talked
about
earlier
of
making
it
so
the
EIP
side
of
theorem
org
is
like
a
data
availability
like
a
anyway
I.
Don't
want
to
go
all
the
way
back
into
it,
but
if
it
was
more
raw
like
it's,
it's
trying
to
do
both
things
and
it's
and
it's
and
it
failing
at
both
of
them.
C
B
F
B
F
Think
we
could
start
figuring
out
a
way
of
solutions
or
at
least
know
what
the
current
problems
are
and
then
so
we
can
brainstorm
solutions
for
next
meeting.
Okay
sounds
good,
so
so
the
major
ones
are
politics:
how
can
we
keep
the
AIP
process?
A
political
I
can
create
a
sense
of
finality
and
how
can
we,
how
can
controversial,
whose
VIPs
be
introduced
all
these
has
to
do
with
this
decision-making?
F
So
the
overall
question
is
of
how
to
solve
this.
Is
how
can
we
former
formalize
the
decision-making
process
for
a
piece?
How
can
we,
how
can
we
create
a
formal
decision-making
process
for
a
piece?
That's
a
bigger
question
is
from
my
understanding.
Decision-Making
comes
on
with
governance,
so
we
got
to
create
some
sort
of
formal
governance
structure
for
deciding
what
a
piece
go
through,
but
just
some
sort
of
formal
decision-making
process
isn't
one
of
the
biggest
we
need
to
the
survey.
I
think.
E
Related
to
that,
there's
like
another
conversation
about
the
Chordettes
call
and
the
value
they
have
and
potentially
moving
them
a
sink
and
I
feel
like.
Maybe
there
would
be
a
wait
there
like
kill
two
birds
with
one
stone
here
like
we
already
have.
You
know
a
rough,
a
rough
threshold
of
what
it
means
for
EBEs
to
be
implemented
right.
It's
basically
all
the
client
implementers
kind
of
agree
to
them,
and
they
don't
see
major
objections
and
I
can
I
can
imagine
us
doing
that.
Async
I
think
there's
like
the
political
piece.
E
You're,
never
gonna
like
make
controversial,
eeap's
on
controversial,
right
and
I
feel
like
if
we
move
things
a
sink
where
client
developers
just
said
whether
they're,
confident
or
not.
You
know
implementing
this
as
part
of
an
upgrade
and
you
can
kind
of
leave
it.
The
client
developers
to
decide
whether
or
not
they
want
to
implement
it,
which
seems
to
have
worked.
Okay.
So
far,
what
prog,
Dow
yeah
I
feel
like
you
could
probably
move
most
of
the
process
async
and
by
by
like
not
having
the
actual
core
devs
called
where
the
decisions
get
made.
E
E
I
mean,
for
example,
for
our
team
at
Pegasus
half
the
team
is
in
Australia,
so
I
mean
half
the
people
who
are
actually
core.
Devs
have
never
been
on
a
cordon
of
Scala,
because
it's
just
like
2:00
in
the
morning
for
them
and
and
the
and
we
kind
of
lose
their
opinions
on
that
and
and
Nick
Johnson
is
another
good
example
of,
like
I,
think
he's
in
New
Zealand
or
something
and
he
doesn't
show
up,
but
he
he
would
leave
or
any
valuable
feedback
async.
So
I,
yeah
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
value.
There.
B
Yeah
I
agree:
I
wrote
something
really
really
really
rough
draft
of
something.
A
week
ago
that
I
just
dropped
off
was
I
was
called
like
etherium
constellations,
and
it
was
basically
a
series
of
chat
rooms
that
were
connected
through
telegram
discord
and
get
her,
and
they
were
per
topic
and
there
would
be
kind
of
like
moderate
to
strict
rules
on
what
chat
rooms
could
be
created
and
what
their
purpose
were.
B
It
was,
but
it
would
be
like
one
of
them
was
for
deciding
when
hard
Forks
would
happen,
like
scheduling,
and
that
would
be
completely
separate
from
deciding
what
a
ip's
go
into
a
hard
fork,
which
is
completely
separate
from
the
subtopics
on
EF
ie
IPS,
so
like
1559
is
EFI
right
now,
so
there'd
be
a
topic
room
on
that,
and
then
it
would
move
through
the
through
the
different
rooms
as
it
goes
through.
Why.
E
H
A
suggestion
here,
you
know,
there's
rust
language
team,
core
development
team
that
divides
the
rust
language
and
they
had
this
problem
where
they
also
have
the
old
process
called
request
for
comments
RFC's.
So,
basically,
before
implementing
a
change
in
the
language,
it
should
first
be
adopted,
as
and
as
what
they
call
an
RFC,
and
we
call
this
CIP
in
the
etherium
community.
So
basically
they
used
to.
H
They
have
github
as
their
primary
like
communications
platform
on
various
policies
and
github
didn't
really
scale
as
far
as
I
know,
but
what
they
did
was
they
tried
out?
Do
it
and
this
will
it
helped
them
a
lot?
So
I
am
also
trying
it
out
for
for
participating
in
the
language
development
and
also
we
are
piloting
it
for
open
etherium
as
an
alternative
to
this
court.
H
G
E
H
H
D
E
B
H
Loop
is
actually
slack
on
steroids
in
many
respects,
so
it's
it's.
It
looks
very
much
like
like,
but
it's
open
source
and
more
than
that,
it
allows
us
to
have
a
more
fluid
threading
model
that
basically
divided
into
where
you
have
channels,
but
they
can
also
easily
be
divided
into
sub
streams.
So
basically,
streams
divided
into
topics,
and
you
can
search
you
can
list.
H
G
H
G
C
Few
thoughts
on
this,
the
I
I've
been
seeing
some
of
this
stuff
about
separating
and
doing
async
and
stuff
and
I'm
wondering
if
that's
from
the
place
of
what
I've,
what
I
have
read
it.
As
is
there.
There
is
a
movement
that
people
would
like
to
see.
The
EIP
standardisation
process
be
separate
from
the
deployment
on
web
decides
what
is
decided
to
go
into
a
network
upgrade
and
that
I
wonder
how
much
of
the
try
to
make
an
async
process
is
really
actually
trying
to
make
that
happen.
C
Like
that
separation
happen,
and
there
are,
there
are
some
things
that
I
think
that
we,
like
the
awkward,
have
calls
as
using
using
strip
for
a
IP
standardization
and
then
for
something
like
EFI.
But
you
have
the
actual
coordination
and
decisions
about
what
gets
deployed
being
separate,
or
at
least
done
separately.
I
think
would
would
still
be
good
and
having
the
calls
there's
a
couple
of
stuff
like
they
having
a
cadence
of
the
client
developers
coming
together.
C
I
is
something
I've
seen
as
important
in
like
cohesion
among
the
clients
about
what
actually
is
being
developed
like
without
some
way
of
all
the
clients
coming
together
and
regularly
talking
about
it.
I
don't
really
see
that,
like
a
synchronously
really
happening
very
well
it
because
it
it's
already
hard
to
keep
everyone
on
the
same
page,
in
like
one
kind
of
practical
example
for
car
for
coordination
or
network
upgrades
like
I,
actually
have
zero
authority
over
any
client
team.
I
have
no
way
of
making
any
of
them
do
anything.
C
E
I
think
there's
two
bits
here:
right,
one
is
like
the
implementation
parts
I
feel
like
you
could
get
that
mostly
AC
right.
Like
so
say,
we
have
I,
don't
know
VIP
23
15.
There
is
an
eighth
magician
thread.
If
base
you
hasn't
begun
or
implementation.
You
can
kind
of
add
us
on
that
thread
and-
and
we
can
kind
of
comment
but
I-
think
I
I
agree
that
there's
around
like
the
scheduling
you
know
what
not
that's,
maybe
harder
to
do,
I
think
but
I
don't
know
it
feels
like
yeah.
E
Like
half
the
conversation
happens
and
like
the
github
PR
for
AIT
and
and
the
only
part,
we're
kind
of
missing
there
is,
like
you
know,
for
clients
adding
like
a
plus-one
that
okay,
this
should
be
accepted,
and
that
doesn't
seem
that
hard
to
do
I
think
but
I
agreed.
It's
like
the
more
fuzzy
scheduling
is
hard.
F
D
D
So
this
is
basically
a
fine
line
between
the
heartful
process
and
the
EIP
process
in
itself
and
I
kind
of
try
to
document
it
sometimes
back
in
one
of
the
APIs.
It
must
be
most
somewhere
else,
but
yeah
I
find
that
this
is
it.
This
may
be
a
good
way
forward
in
which
people
will
be
getting
the
accurate
information
even
about
all
the
clients
where
they,
when
they
do
stand
at
any
point
of
time,.
B
B
C
B
Be
separate,
okay,
so
we're
all
there
we're
saying
that
there
might
need
to
be
new
tools
in
order
to
make
that
happen.
We're
also
saying
there
might
need
to
be,
or
that
there's
value
in
having
some
type
of
a
synchronous,
coordination
beyond
the
all
core
devs
get
or
chat
for
people
who
are
in
different
time
zones
and
that
there
might
be
tools
we
need
to
bring
up
to
do
that.
I
think
I
got
that
all
right
is
there
anything
I
got
wrong.
D
Probably
we
have
tools
existing,
they
just
need
to
enforce
the
implements
and
implementation
of
that
like
we
have
a
discussion
board
on
the
atomization,
where
I
in
my
in
my
understanding
most
of
the
EAP
s
are
there
and
they
are
referred
to
be
as
a
point
of
discussion,
but
sometimes
what
happens?
The
discussion
shifts
to
the
full
request
and
there
we
lost
the
track.
B
D
I
I
agree
with
that.
This
is
Jamie.
I
dropped
in
part
way
through
the
meeting,
but
yeah
I
think
that's
actually
a
really
good
idea.
I've
been
thinking
about
that
myself
is
to
have
a
place
where
it
links
to
all
kinds
of
different
related
discussions,
but
in
a
single
URL
and
it
could
be
/
e,
IP
or
/
meta
EIP,
our
pork,
the
IP,
it's
it's
definitely
I'm,
not
sure
where
you'd
put
such
a
URL
or
such
a
resource.
I
D
It
can
be
for
a
IP
in
the
beginning
like
because
the
meta
ap
for
any
upgrade
would
be
like
the
next
step,
so
we
can
start
with
going
individually,
IP
vise,
and
then
we
can
also
create
a
third
form
attorney
and
we
can't
well
bring
all
those
VIPs
me
I
mean
just
a
link
over
here
and
discussion
should
be
at
one
place
with
the
EITS.
Only
I
mean
that's
my
thought.
Process
I.
F
Consensus
we
got
to
was
that
thinking
about
an
entire
governance
overhaul
would
be
a
process
that
might
take
a
few
years
and
required
funding
for
a
research.
I
had
an
idea
of
probably
creating
the
president
for
having
an
upgradable
governance
structure,
so
we
can
make
changes
now
and
then
I've
heard
them
later,
with
more
formerly
through
research.
Just
like
that,
what
do
you
guys
think
about
that.
F
That
would
be
in
the
form
of
an
EFP
I
guess
it
might
be
either
information
or
meta
it
just
would
be
bozo
for
upgradeable
government
structure.
Then
we
can
extend
that
with.
How
frequently
should
should
the
government
be
reviewed
to
be
upgraded?
I
was
thinking,
maybe
3
2
K,
so
early
on.
It
would
be
more
frequent
and
then
later
on,
it'd
be
less
frequent.
G
Wanted
to
say,
I
mean
if
I
might
be
aware
of
a
lot
of
this,
but
my
figure
is
that
a
lot
of
the
currency
stuff
works
on
the
idea
of
general,
like
sovereignty
right
and
like
some
decent
utilization
and
I.
Remember
that
we
were
talking
before
about
the
like
the
nodes,
the
the
node
holders
that
make
like
decline
to
make
the
final
push
and
decide.
B
We've
talked
about
that
before.
That's
a
really
good
point
to
bring
up
actually
so
we've
talked
about
that
before
and
the
main
are
from
my
recollection,
the
number
one
issue
when
I've
had
conversations
with
people
about
that
is
getting
participation
and
the
fact
that
there
are
groups
of
like
enterprise,
node
operators
like
in
fira
who
have
multiple
nodes,
like
maybe
hundreds
of
nodes
they
run
and
they
can
single-handedly
Shiu
discussion
or
decisions.
G
I
mean
I
think
I,
really
like
the
way
that
the
US
government
set
up
in
a
sense
that
you
know
you
have
like
different
I
mean
I.
Guess
it's
more
complex,
and
so
we
get
back
this
problem
sometimes
talking
about
as
far
as
big
overhaul,
but
how
they
have
a
multiple
different
checks
and
balances.
And
then
you
have,
for
example,
will
be
no
no
controllers,
and
then
you
have
like
Accord
ads.
That
say,
have
the
opportunity
to
like
veto
or
something
like
that.
G
I
But
what
is
that
it's
up
to
them
to
organize-
and
you
know
the
people
at
the
table
now
or
the
ones
who
are
organized
and
and
engaged
and
interested
enough
to
to
be
a
part
of
the
governance
process?
And
you
know
if,
if
a
group
wants
to
be
a
part
of
this
system,
they
could
come
to
the
table
and
I,
don't
think,
there's
anything
stopping
them
and
when
there's
a
problem,
a
group
coalesce,
you
know
converges
around
it
like.
I
What's
what
happened
with
with
the
cat
herders
like
there
was,
there
were
some
there
needed
to
be
more
management
of
the
releases,
and
so
they
coalesced
around
it.
They
formed
a
group
and
the
same
goes
for
if
miners
or
node
operators
or
any
any
group
out
there
wants
to
participate
in
the
process,
it's
up
to
them
to
organize
and
we
would
help
them
organize.
I.
Think
all
of
us
who
are
involved
in
the
process
would
help
them
organize
so,
rather
than
form
a
legal
structure
or
any
kind
of
ideal
structure.
I
It's
it's
almost
like
just
this.
Let
those
parties
be
involved
and
encourage
them
to
do
so,
and
then
then
much
like
what's
happening
here,
formalize
it
a
little
bit
but
not
don't
go
formal
first
is
is
basically
what
I'm
saying
just
encourage
people
to
organize.
If
they
want
to
be
have
agency
in
it
or
be
a
part
of
the
process.
F
G
My
take
on
the
army
slowed
output
would
be
that's.
Definitely
a
good
idea.
I
think
it
would
be
good
to
always
test
things
and
also
treat
it
like
it's
a
financial
transaction,
maybe
in
the
sense
that,
like
Hudson,
was
saying
that
you
you
can
expect
the
worst
and
expect
like
an
old.
You
know
a
certain
no
group
to
coalesce
and
take
over
so
going
slowly
would
be
beneficial
because
of
the
current
system
is
stable.
Then
you
don't
want
to
jeopardize
that
that's
my
take
on
it
and
then
also
another
thing.
G
H
So
if,
if
I
may
I
mean
like
this
is
a
mostly
relevant
for
the
potentially
contentious
a
piece
as
far
as
I
know
as
far
as
I
understand
like
like
prop
Bo
and
so
there's
two
things
here
first,
is
that
many
almost
VIPs
are
purely
technical
and
do
not
carry
any
like
social
implications.
So
there
of
me
of
little
interest
to
the
most
of
the
community
for
the
most
stakeholders
only
to
client
developers,
but
then
there
are
social
so
to
speak.
H
Ii
IPS,
like
prop
out
again,
which
are
of
interest
to
everyone,
and
the
second
I,
think
that
it's
it's
just
important
to
get
visibility
to
social
yeah
beast
basically,
and
if
we
get
enough
visibility
for
them,
then
there
will
be
no
more
divisions
or
no
more
scandals
like
profile.
So
that's
my
take
I.
E
Agree
with
like
what
you
say
about
the
bit
of
like
most
a
IPS
are
not
like
that
divisive,
I.
Think
the
challenge.
There,
though,
is
you,
want
this
system
to
be
set
up
in
advance
and
to
handle
all
of
the
non-controversial
eats
so
that
when
we
have
a
controversial
eat,
the
system
is
already
there
because
forefront
pal.
For
example,
if
we
introduce
a
new
system
now,
people
just
won't
think
it's
legitimate,
because
like
say,
we
introduced
a
new
system
and
the
system
results
in
Prague
now
going
live
on
the
network.
E
I
I
H
C
My
read
is
the
the
core
problem
is
that
the
theorem
community
doesn't
feel
like
they
have
a
say
what
goes
into
aetherium
and
I.
Think
a
lot
of
this
trying
to
figure
out
different
ways
of
doing
evidence
is
a
long
way
of
getting
around
to
that
and
smaller
smaller
changes
to
do
smaller
things
like
we're,
a
small
we're,
a
group
of
10
people
on
a
call
right
now
trying
to
get
governance
buy-in
for
any
governance.
C
I
It's
always
gonna,
be
rough
I
think
it's
always
going
to
be
rough
like
if
you
watch
British
Parliament
on
YouTube.
Like
you
know,
it's
it's
it's
difficult
to
form
a
government
or
a
half
governance,
but
I.
Think
overall,
it's
pretty
I
think
it.
We
should
expect
there
to
be
conflict
and
when
there
is
that's
it's
a
natural
thing
and
you
know
we
do
we
do
we
do
our
best
to
try
to
address
it
and
I
think
I
think
those
structures
are
existing
and
you
know
like
like
was
said
before.
Just
this
slowly
proceed
with
it.