►
From YouTube: EIPIP Meeting #12
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
A
A
Fun
right,
so
we
can
start
discussing
about
onboarding
VIP
editors.
If
people
have
thought
about
it
like
what
should
be
the
criterias
and
if
we
can
define
some
outline
like
if
we
have
to
like
invite
participation
from
community
or
from
the
people
who
are
actively
involved
with
with
submitting
any
IPS
or
creating
a
IPs
and
if
they
would
be
interested
to
join
as
an
EIP
editor.
What
are
the
guidelines
for
them,
or
maybe
what
would
be
the
criteria
that
we
can
be
as
a
group
can
think
over
it
and
invite
their
participation
it'd
be
I.
A
I
was
thinking
it.
If
we
can,
you
know
kind
of
give
some
kind
of
numbers
to
that.
Like
you
say,
for
example,
we
are
looking
for
a
IP
editor,
so
the
primary
criteria,
in
my
mind,
is
like
they
should
be
more
about
a
IPS.
They
might
have
submitted
a
few
e
IDs
if
we
can
just
give
it
a
number
or
you
know
if
they
have
shared
their
review
on
any
certain
EAP.
So
it's
at
a
number
of
number
that
we
can
quantify
that
might
be
helpful,
for
people
to
you
know,
share
their
interest
and
a.
D
Current
here,
I
guess
just
understanding
exactly
what
would
be
looked
for.
Are
there
just
specifications
that
you'd
want
someone
to
have
if
they
were
going
to
be
trying
to
you
know
at
a
TI
piece
like?
Is
it
a
job
that
anyone
could
do
that
wants
to
take
part,
or
is
it
a
job
that
you
know,
someone
would
have
to
have
certain
requirements
to
be
able
to
even
get
started.
B
Something
else
that
they
do
is
are
trying.
Let's
see,
I'm
just
gonna
be
typing
these
into
into
the
notes
I
into
the
chat.
So
the
other
thing
they
do
is
so
they
merge
drafts.
The
other
one
is
that
they
determine
if
a
PR
change
is
errata
and
what
I
mean
by
that
is.
Let's
say,
someone
like
Mike
finds
something
that's
not
really
clearly
articulated
in
a
currently
existing
standard
for
any
IP.
He
makes
a
PR
saying
this
better
describes
what
the
real,
what
the
EIP
is,
the
same.
B
The
EIP
editor
will
need
to
be
able
to
tell
if
that
is
a
substantial
change
enough
to
warrant
either
changing
the
draft
status,
changing
the
status
of
it
or
if
it's
really
just
a
change
in
wording,
then
it
doesn't
need
to
go
through
any
other
process
that
can
just
be
merged.
Merge
the
change
without
changing
status,.
D
Okay,
that
makes
sense
I
guess
for
me,
it
seems
like
there's,
probably
a
lot
of
different
things
for
people
to
understand
or
learn
like
you
were
saying
some
parts
that
might
be
learning
on
github
how
to
merge
things,
understanding
me
through
community
and
what's
needed
so
I
guess.
Maybe
it
would
be
helpful
if
there
was
some
sort
of
just
generalized
like
I,
don't
want
to
call
it
a
course,
but
some
sort
of
learning
platform
or
people
that
think
that
being
a
editor
might
be
something
they're
interested
in
just
a
kind
of
a
location
to
know.
D
Okay,
what
about
could
help?
Would
you
need
to
know
what
about
you
know
the
theory
community?
Would
you
need
to
know
just
to
even
get
started,
and
maybe
there
could
be
a
a
way
to
onboard
new
editors
where
they
can
just
be
like
okay,
this
is
where
you
get
started.
This
is
what
you'd
have
to
know.
This
is
really
like.
So
you
talk
to
kind
of
thing
potential.
A
That
we
talked
about
this
mentorship
program
like
kind
of
providing
education.
Community
education
from
community
I
mean
people
who
are
interested
in
participating
for
protocol
improvement,
and
you
know
kind
of
providing
checks
to
it.
Reviews
to
it
and
on
so
mentorship
program
is
a
very
good
idea
if
we
can
invite
our
present
EAP
editors
and
kind
of
have
a
session
with
them
and
document
the
highlights
from
those
session.
As
a
you
know,
general
guideline
for
people
to
understand
what
is
actually
required
with
this
position.
A
So
the
problem
that
we
faced
sometimes
back
was
like
peers,
were
piling
up
stacked
up
and
it
were,
it
were
not
able
to
be
reviewed
and
it
won't
be
mush.
So
the
reason
why
we
are
discussing
to
onboard
more
of
the
EIP
editors,
because
they
they
are
very
few
in
numbers-
we
would
want
to
increase
that.
So
yes,
of
course,
I
agree
to
the
point
that
we
should
have
some
kind
of
someplace
where
a
person
can
reach
and
see
where
they
stand.
I.
E
C
F
Most
difficult
part
is:
how
do
we
nominate
or
how
do
we
determine
who
could
possibly
be
an
editor
because
there's
not
a
clear
path
of
because
there's
already
people
in
the
repository
who
are
contributing,
but
it's
not
clear
how
they
can
go
from
that
contributor
role
to
editor
role
and
I.
Don't
think
we
need
to
be
spending
time
to
onboard
those
sorts
of
people,
because.
F
B
A
So,
as
a
group
can
be
come
up
with
certain
points,
like
the
expectation
that
we
are
trying
to
set
for
these
people
who
wants
to
get
involved-
and
maybe
if
somebody
is
nominating
somebody
other
people
should
be
able
to
you
know
kind
of
III.
Understand
validation
is
not
trying
too
hard
here,
but
maybe
you
know
kind
of
relate
that
okay,
find
this
person
is
fitting.
All
the
checklist,
so
yeah
is
a
good
fit
for
the
new
EIP
member.
A
What
do
people
think
about
you
know
kind
of
defining
those
rules.
I
mean
like
if
we
can
come
up
with
certain
points
like
I
suggested
in
the
beginning
like
if
we
can
have
a
criteria
like
one
suppose,
a
person
who
has
been
submitting
a
PRS
for
adding
new,
AI
peas
again
and
again
so
say,
for
example,
if
they
have
5
PR
smudged
on
my
Merrifield
yetiz
existing
AIP,
and
they
have
active
participation
in
EAP.
I
p-chan
and
they
say
that
they
are
available.
Maybe
certain
hours
a
week
or
something
like
that.
B
B
B
Expectations
of
an
EIP
editor
or
read
requirements,
something
that
should
be
written
I,
don't
know
if
it
goes
in
the
EIP
one
or
into
some
some
draft
VIP.
It
just
talks
about
what
an
editor
things
like.
What
an
editor
does
the
expectations
for
an
editor.
It
could
even
be
good
to
say
this
many
hours
a
week
is
kind
of
a
good
good,
like
a
target
of.
We
want
editors
to
be
able
to
spend
this
amount
of
time
a
week
on
on
doing
it
on
doing
things
and
still
be
able
to
participate.
B
F
E
B
E
E
B
A
The
hard
part
I
think
here
is
this:
rule
is
a
volunteer
rule,
so
people
who
are
actively
involved
and
do
care
about
how
this
network
to
run
safely
and
you
know
getting
improvement
or
time
to
time
they
mostly
have
to
be.
You
know
volunteered
and
so
yeah
I
mean
like
I
mean
today.
I
brought
up
this
topic
because
we
received
some
interest
from
the
apipa
gated
channel.
A
Somebody
has
expressed
interest
and
I
have
smoker
yeah
all
right.
So
having
him
active
quite
a
few
time,
he
had
come
a
bit.
A
lot
of
beers
for
Eid,
then
and
I
was
wondering
how
I
mean
who
and
how
can
answer
his
question
if
he
is
or
he
can
be,
and
what
would
be
the
process
if
he
selected
like
these
are
the
basic
questions
that
we
might
want
to
find
answer,
and
then
we
can
document
these
things,
making
it
available
for
people,
because
it's
the
information
is
very
limited
at
this
point
of
time.
B
Yeah,
the
lasas
in
2018,
which
is
a
little
bit
of
a
different
world
with
you,
so
the
big
ones
is
actively
participate
in
comment
on
PRS
in
the
EIP
repository,
because,
if
you're
actively
doing
that,
that's
an
helping
helping
process
or
review
PRS,
even
if
you're
not
an
editor,
you
can
still
review
a
PR
and
show
what
needs
to
be
done
for
it
to
be
merged.
And
things
like
that.
F
F
Which
is
just
for
triaging
issues
and
I
think
that
that
would
be
really
helpful.
There's
people
who
are
interested
in
getting
started
going
down
that
path
of
maybe
becoming
a
VIP
editor
in
the
future,
but
it
kind
of
gets
annoyance
just
ping
to
get
our
channel
constantly
if
you've
reviewed
something-
and
you
think
it's
good
and
you
think
that
it's
time
for
it
to
be
merged
by
an
IP
editor
I,
think
that
if
we
let
people
how
this
triage
permissions,
they
can
just
add
labels
on
to
pull
requests.
F
F
B
F
B
I
know
Hudson
would
have
it,
so
we
can
talked
with
him
later.
I
like
I,
like
I,
would
propose
that
we,
anyone
who
wants
to
become
a
trio,
sir,
can
just
say,
hey
I,
want
to
be
a
trio
sure,
and
then
we
just
make
them
it,
and
if
there's
an
issue
with
how
they
triage,
then
we
figure
out
how
to
address
or
remove
like
a
process
for
removing
ones
that
aren't
being
active
or
things
like
that.
It'd
be
easy
to
just
say:
hey
yeah!
B
Because
you'll
see
that
you'll
they'll
see
that
and
be
actively
coming
to
NPR's
and
between
that
I
think
you
just
the
current
AIP
editors
would
be
able
to
make
a
decision
if
one
they
need
more
yet
the
editors
and
then
it's
if
the
person
who's
interested.
If
it's,
then
it
can
be
a
mixture
of
if
they
want
to
nominate
if
the
EIP
header
is
not
a
nominee,
if
people
want
to
apply
I
think
we
should
allow
both
to
be
happening
and
maximize
them.
The
number
of
people
healthy.
A
Any
more
thought
on
the
topic
number
one.
My
understanding
is
that
we
would
be
conducting
a
survey
to
collect
some
feedback
from
the
EIP
editors
to
kind
of
collect,
a
criteria
that
we
would
be
documenting
as
an
expectation
for
people
who
are
interested
or
is
being
nominated
to
be
an
EIP
editor
and
they
the
triage
thing
for
sorting
out
the
issues
is
also
very
helpful.
But
I
am
NOT
very
clear
about
the
you
know,
deformations
that
who
can
get
that
or
how
it
can
be
done.
So.
F
B
Sort
sort
of
I
wouldn't
say
any
one
idea
that
the
Aaron
Foundation
can
do.
It
was
probably
a
small
group
of
people
that
would
be
able
to
add
things
to
the
EIP.
The
pot
I
had
owners
to
the
EIP
repository,
including
the
EIP
editors,
are
able
to
do
that.
I
its
add
a
task
to
me
to
follow
up
on
how
to
add,
to
give
people
permissions
for
being
a
triage
or.
B
And
then
it's,
and
if
you
could
work
on
a
on
a
a
quick
survey
that
we
can
send
to
the
editors
that
includes
things
like
how
how
much
time
would
you
do
you
spend
being
in
doing
editor
work?
How
much
time
do
you
think
the
role
should
take
and
things
what
it's
experience
or
or
we
can
brainstorm
questions
for
a
little
bit
if
I'd
be
helpful,.
F
About
building
some
criteria
for
what
it
means
to
be
an
editor
and
then
what
kind
of
work
we
expect
theater
to
do,
but
if
they're
not
meeting
those
expectations,
would
it
become
an
editor
we
haven't
really
talked
about?
What
happens
to
them?
Is
editor,
listen
append
only
list,
or
is
it
something
that,
with
enough
feedback,
people
can
be
removed
from.
B
He
but
I
think
he
removed
himself
because
of
like
unity,
fiasco
that
happened
earlier,
but
there
I
do
think
we
need
to
think
of
something
up
like
that
and
the
best
suggestion,
I've
thought
of
would
be
to
make
it
based
on
activity.
So,
if
you're
not
active
for
a
certain
amount
of
time,
merging
PRS,
basically
that
you
just
automatically
get
removed
or
you're
at
least,
can
be
removed
or
you're
here
like
flag
for
removal.
If
you
haven't
done
anything
for
say
six
months
right.
A
We
can
add
that
as
a
criteria
you
know
than
expectations.
We
are
setting
up
expectations.
We
can
mention
that
ideas
as
well
I
have
seen
like
the
history
of
it
like
Luigi
was
also
one
of
the
key
idea
writers
when
he
was
the
etherium.
He
was
very
active,
but
after
he
left
he
is
also
removed
from
the
Richard's
list.
So
it
can
be.
He
kept
up
to
date
depending
upon
like
who
are
still
present
and
active
yeah.
B
B
E
B
A
So
right,
like
we
have
a
good
first
step
here,
conducting
a
survey
from
the
IP
editors
trying
to
get
some
requirement
and
expectations
set
for
future
AIP
editors,
including
the
process
of
onboarding
them,
as
well
as
at
times
when
it
is
required
that
they
should
be
removed
from
the
list,
how
we
should
be
investing
all
those
criteria.
So
we
are
almost
halfway
finished
meeting
so
I
think
we
should
time
outs
this
and
move
on
to
the
next
item.
B
F
Mean
by
general
thoughts
right
now
is
that
we're
trying
to
scale
the
IP
header
list
of
like
eight
to
maybe
teens
or
20,
tops
so
I.
Don't
think
that
too
much
processes
needed
is
maybe
a
majority
or
supermajority
would
be
fine
depending
on
I.
Don't
know
how
often
the
IPA
doesn't
make
me.
Maybe
that
might
be
something
to
add
as
the
responsibility
to
get
the
editors
to
have
a
quarterly
meeting
and
discuss
things
like
that.
Are
people
pulling
their
weight
or
not
I,
don't
know.
Oh
yeah.
F
Rank
one
one
last
thing
on
this:
if
you
guys
have
any
thoughts
on
things
that
need
to
be
added
as
requirements,
the
IPS
or
things
that
the
validator
should
check.
If
you
could
just
that's
just
that
to
me
directly
to
or
add
that,
as
an
issue
on
the
EIP
validator
I'm
trying
to
create
a
list
of
things
that
need
to
be
implemented,
I.
B
E
One
last
comment:
so
I
was
thinking
about
this.
When
I
wrote
the
article
for
the
roadmap
say
cuz
we're
currently
still
editing
the
process
in
the
aps
itself.
If
we
were
to
onboard
people
now
they
would
be
learning
the
old
process
and
we're
not
to
learn
the
new
process
very
quickly.
So
they'd
be
doing
one
thing
and
then
during
another
it
might
be
better
to
wait,
and
so
the
new
process
is
flushed
out
and
matured.
E
A
Think
this
will
take
some
time
to
shape
up
properly.
So
by
the
time
we
are
into
the
new
process,
this
thing
should
be
ready.
Parallely
I
am
hoping
that
it
would
be
ready
family
and
would
not
be
a
problem
for
a
apiary
just.
Moreover,
the
people
that
we
are
trying
to
consider
here
as
an
editor
are
actively
involved,
so
it
would
be
a
good
transition
for
them
also
to
learn
about
the
processes.
I
mean
that's
just
my
top.
B
A
So
moving
on
the
next
item
is
the
separation
of
EAP
process
and
the
heart
for
coordination.
We
did
some
progress
in
previous
meetings
about
separating
it
like
we
are
now
having
clarity
on
the
EIP
process
as
I.
Add
these
statuses
that
we
should
be
referring
in
the
new
process
James.
Would
you
like
to
take
it
over
and
let
us
know
about
how
we
would
like
to
take
care
of
heartful
coordination
and
how
would
we
want
to
set
it
as
a
separate
process
so.
B
Is
the
process
for
like
the
first
couple,
steps
that
I've
been
more
fleshed
out
need
to
be
documented,
well
and
decided
if
they
go
into
EIP
one
or
if
they
go
into
a
separate
VIP,
and
that's
the
update
for
the
status
of
those
two,
the
next
steps,
both
of
them
I?
Was
there
any
questions
or
things
about
then
I
read
all
off
a
lot.
A
lot
of
information
there
I.
A
Have
one
question
on
may
be
concerned,
so:
duplicity,
IP
one.
It
talks
about
EAP
process
that
includes
both
both
the
EAP
process,
as
well
as
the
heartful
process,
because
it's
one
it's
mush
together.
So
if,
if
say,
for
example,
in
future,
we
would
like
to
you
know
kind
of
update
the
EAP
one
with
the
separation
of
this
process.
What
do
you
think
about
documenting
it
in
the
way
of
like
two
separate
process?
A
We
define
it
clearly
and
then
do
it
the
way
we
have
seen
it
for
AIP
process
like
I,
found
it
quite
effective
and
very
easy
for
people
to
grasp
that,
like
in
a
pictorial
representation.
So
how
do
you
feel
about
having
this
thing
laid
out
for
heart
for
coordination
as
well
and
when
we
are
ready
with
those
plus
the
status,
the
term
for
the
status,
and
then
we
go
ahead
and
update
it
to
81?
A
A
Yes,
I
was
wondering
like
if
we
do
all
these,
if
we
bring
all
these
three
three
things
together
and
then
go
ahead
and
update
here
p1,
it
would
add
you
know
clarity
to
people
to
understand
to
relate.
You
know
otherwise.
I'm
worried
that
people
may
go
blank.
Okay,
fine!
This
is
the
AP
process.
I
get
that
part,
and
these
are
the
terms
that
is
specified
for
EIT
statuses,
but
what
about
hard
phone?
A
Okay,
so
if
you're
not
very
sure
about
like
it,
both
have
to
be
because
I
was
thinking
of
a
document
to
be
documented,
and
at
this
time
we
can
see
EAP
1
as
the
place
of
documentation
of
every
processes
related
to
e
IP.
But
if
we
are
considering
de
heartful
process
to
be
a
network
network,
a
great
process
into
some
other
separate
documents,
I
think
I
clearly
understand
what
you
mean
by
going
ahead
with
their
statuses,
I.
B
B
B
F
A
B
F
B
E
F
E
One
thing
was:
if
I
was
only
applicable
to
a
few
hippies,
it
wouldn't
be
applicable
to
ERC's,
for
example,
so
we'd
be
creating
a
status
so
like
the
new
statuses
right
now
applied
to
every
single
a
pea.
If
we
were
to
create
a
unique
status
it
would
it
would
basically
it
wouldn't
apply
to
every
single
hippie.
It
would
create
confusion
and
increased
complexity
of
the
current
statuses
and.
B
A
B
F
B
Top
you'll
see
two
diagrams,
the
top
one
is
the
one
we've
settled
on
and
at
any
any
point
in
the
draft
review
last
call
final
stage:
something
could
new
something
could
apply
to
be
included
for
a
hard
work
and
then
that
would
be
considered
in
some
other
kind
of
flow,
but
this
this
flow
works
for
all.
Therefore,
the
IP
types.
B
And
that's
that's
nice
and
it
it's
it's
clearer
or
at
least
separated
as
standard
the
EIP
standardization
process
and
not
a
what's.
Gonna
go
into
maintenance
or
not
like
another
example
of
where
this
has
come
up
is
great.
Vip
on
static
jumps,
I
believe
it's
called
because
it's
in
EFI,
but
the
current
standard
is
not
likely
the
one
that
will
go
into
maintenance
and
so
either,
but
but
the
proposal
that
Greg
had
could
very
easily
go
into
a
final
stage
and
say
this
is
this:
is
the
proposal
that
Greg
does?
B
F
B
A
A
E
Final
comment
about
that
I
think
so
right
now,
currently
the
hard
work,
meta
VIP
visits
an
LM
EAP
service
for
me,
everyone
and,
if
I
track
your
is
its
own
EAP,
so
verse
21.
So
it
looks
like
all
our
for
coordination.
Ii
IPS,
aren't
there
an
EAP.
So
that's
more
another
reason
why
I'm
inclined
to
keep
it
in
Sony
ap,
the
Harper
creation
process.
E
A
A
B
B
A
A
A
H
I
know
I'm
up
against
time,
so
I'll
try
and
keep
this
as
brief
as
possible.
I
also
was
not
by
the
last
meeting,
so
I
don't
know
it
was
discussed
there,
but
the
idea
of
trying
to
raise
an
image
and
emergency
comms
team
was
raised
in
the
cat
herders.
So
I
responded
to
that.
In
the
meantime,
what
pooja's
arranged
are
a
little
bit
of
a
team.
H
What
I've
been
working
on
is
trying
to
basically
assemble
a
document
that
both
defines
what
a
state
of
emergency
is
for
the
etherium
protocol
platform,
not
even
exactly
sure
what
terminology
to
use
and
what
would
be
done
in
such
a
case.
I've
also
been
giving
a
bit
of
thought
about
to
how
a
comms
team
would
work.
H
This
is
like
really
really
the
early
stages
I
tried
doing
a
bit
of
Twitter
polling,
also
about
what
people
think
an
emergency
is,
as
of
right
now
have
come
up
with
really
I
think
sort
of
sort
of
overarching
definitions
that
it's
either
that
there's
something
that
renders
the
network
inaccessible.
The
easiest
example
of
that
would
be
a
DDoS
attack
or
something
that
compromises
the
integrity
of
transactions
being
recorded
on
the
network
past
present
or
future.
H
Those
are
both
very
general,
but
there's
a
lot
of
things
that
you
can
sort
of
get
into
both
of
those
or
eat
either
or
both
of
those
so
I
guess.
The
question
is
basically,
first
of
all,
I'm
not
sure
that
this
is
an
e
IP
IP
thing,
I,
don't
know
how
much
this
is
actually
related
to
the
IP
process.
If
we
would
need
to
draft
an
e
IP
about
it,
states
of
emergency
or
maybe
what
the
right
protocol
is
in
the
state
of
emergency
I'd
also
be
interested
in
hearing
from
the
EIA
p
IP
team.
A
So
this
this
thing
was
discussed
in
the
previous
meeting,
saying
that
it
makes
sense
that
there
should
be
a
group
who
would
be
proactive
about
the
kind
of
emergency
situation
that
may
come
up
during
the
network
upgrade
or
otherwise.
So
they
picked
it
up
from
there.
A
Although
I
know
that
catheters
have
already
been
doing
it
unlisted
in
this
and
agenda
this
time,
if
people
would
like
to
see
it
again,
we
can
bring
it
back,
as
you
mentioned,
that
may
be
in
the
form
of
a
IP
or
something
else,
but
if
not
and
I'm
happy
to
keep
it
off
the
agenda
and
continue
the
discussion
with
the
cat
hoodoos.
What
a
detox
here.
A
Concern
here
is
like
this
emergency
context,
and
this
document
and
the
checklist
that
we
are
talking
about
I
am
a
little
conservative
about
sharing
it
with
too
many
people
around
right,
so
I
mean
this
document
should
be
for
the
group
of
people
who
who
are
actively
taking
responsibility
of
it
or
maybe
reaching
out
to
the
stakeholders
at
the
time
of
emergency
I'm,
not
sure
how
public
it
should
be,
because
all
the
EIP
is
even
in
the
informational
format.
It
is
going
to
be
quite
public,
so.
H
H
A
IP
should
be
processed,
a
contact
list
wouldn't
be
part
of
an
EIP,
especially
because
that's
not
something
that's
going
to
be
set
in
stone
and
will
mutate
with
time
like
the
actual
like
what
we'd
be
looking
for
internet
in
an
EIP
would
be
some
sort
of
codification
of
process,
but
not
the
actual
specific
contacts.
I
mean
would
probably
Feist
use
a
word
major
stakeholder,
major
mining
groups,
or
something
like
that.
Instead
of
actually
providing
contact,
information,
yeah
yeah.
A
It
would
make
sense
to
act,
checklists
kind
of
think
that
people
may
refer
at
times
when
such
situation
emerges
yeah.
It
makes
sense
to
keep
it
in
the
form
of
that
information
if
we
are
not
sharing
more
information
and
maybe
adding
some
contact
a
way
to
contact
people
who
are
actually
involved
with
this
group,
so.
H
H
H
A
A
You
so
yeah.
We
would
like
to
keep
it
up
to
date,
the
tasks
that
we
are
completing.
We
would
keep
it
completed
and
would
try
to
link
it
up
there,
so
people
can
go
back
and
see
what
all
we
have
achieve,
that
that's
true,
I,
think
that
would
be
a
good
informational,
say,
a
sharing
platform
to
attract
more
people
to
be
a
part
of
this
meeting.
Who
cares
about
the
network,
security
and
improvement
protocol
and
aetherium?
A
There
was
funny
last
thing:
I
just
quickly
wanted
to
share
about
the
in
the
previous
call
way.
We
shared
the
mutation
a
great
post-mortem,
but
the
thing
that
we
did
not
share
was
the
generic
template.
I'm
sharing
the
link
in
the
chat
and
people
can
give
and
look
to
it
and
if
they
have
any
feedback,
comment
for
the
Beatles
and
listen
all
about
it
and
I'm,
not
sure
if
we
have
more
time
to
discuss
anything
else.
But
if
people
want
to
come
about
something
easy.
A
B
A
Yeah
yeah,
we
would
like
to
have
more
feedback
on
it
from
people
and
maybe
again
we
were
stuck
at
this
point
and
we
discussed
in
the
cat
hood
or
that
it
should
be.
You
know
some
kind
of
discussion
forum
for
kind
of
a
IPS,
or
maybe
you
know
report
if
you
would
want
to
say
it
as
like
as
a
cement
report
for
any
upgrade
I'm
planning
to
open
admission
post
about
it.
I
haven't
done
it.
I
said
nokju
on
my
part.
I'll
do
that
you.
A
A
But
yes,
we
can
do
that
and
I'm
also
sure
I
avoid
shared.
The
link
of
the
previous
post-mortem
update
that
we
shared
in
the
previous
meeting
about
the
nucleation,
so
I
have
added
a
missing
post
Foundation
and
yes,
we
are
ready
to
share
it
with
the
alcohol
deaths
in
any
of
the
meeting
station
meetings
when
Berlin
is
back
up
or
when
we
are
talking
about
afraid.