►
From YouTube: Ethereum Core Devs Meeting #63 [2019-06-21]
Description
A
Hello,
everybody
and
welcome
to
the
core
dev
call
number
63,
I'm
gonna
just
pull
up
the
agenda
here.
It's
gonna,
be
the
agenda
number
102
on
the
URL
and
the
first
thing
we're
going
to
do
is
review
previous
decisions
made
in
action
items.
If
you
click
on
that
link,
so
there
weren't
any
decisions
made
that
we
need
to
go
over
specifically
just
a
lot
of
discussion
over
some
of
the
e
ip's.
A
A
A
B
A
C
A
A
A
Okay,
you
can
just
text
the
chat
there
wasn't
any
progress
made
on
it.
Okay,
we
can
work
on
that
more
since
it
sounds
like
there's
gonna
be
a
few
e
IPS
that
are
gonna.
Need
that
to
happen,
can
you
lead
the
discussion
on
the
all
core
devs
chat,
just
to
see
what
the
temperature
is
about
this
e
IP?
So
we
can
do
a
final
decision
on
it
as
soon
as
possible.
D
A
He's
typing
in
the
text
chat:
okay.
He
confirmed
that
he
can.
He
can
put
that
on
his
to-do
list
all
right.
The
next
item
perform
a
full
benchmark
of
e
IP
1108,
so
EIP
1108
I'm,
just
like
googling
these
as
it
comes
up,
that's
gonna
be
reducing
the
alt
b
and
128
precompiled
gas
cost
and
I
know.
Antonio
and
Zack
Williamson
were
working
on
that
specifically
and
I.
Remember
us
before
talking
about
them
doing
a
benchmark
or
that
either
of
them
on
the
call.
Today.
E
A
E
A
F
A
F
A
Okay
and
then
exit,
if
you
wanted
to
type
anything,
no
discussion
with
Jordi
in
the
past
month
regarding
this
okay,
so
we'll
keep
that
as
an
action
item
if
Alex
and
Jordi
could
get
together
on
and
the
core
devs
chat
or
an
1/8
magicians
form.
Ax
ik
also
said
that
2046
is
the
original
version
Jordi
mentioned,
so
it
looks
like
11
o
so
1109
s.
The
newer
one
is
that
right,
even
though
it's
an
older
IP
number.
E
F
A
F
You
need
to
load
the
code,
you
don't
need
to
load
the
state,
but
you
need
to
load
the
code
so
this
so
you
can
reduce
the
cost,
but
you
can
not
be
loose
as
much
as
it
would
be.
Recommend
that
for
recompile,
the
smart
contracts
think
that
there
are
pre-compile
smart
contracts
like
sha
256
anywhere,
some
of
them
that
are
lower,
that
you
want
to
have
a
very
low
gas
cost.
We
are
talking
about
three
four
five,
six
gas
costs.
Some
of
them
may
be
so
this
one
it's
a
static
car
will
have
to.
F
What
I'm
saying
is
that
I
will
not
touch
the
static
call
as
it
is
right
now
and
I
will
create
a
new
of
code
for
that.
Just
because
of
that
because
the
static
it
works
for
any
smart
contract
and
you
need
to
load
the
code
of
any
smart
contract.
So
you
can
have
an
attack
that
consists
of
having
a
smart
contract
that
caused
many
different
many
different
contracts,
even
if
they
are
static
and
the
client
will
have
to
load
all
of
them.
So
you
cannot
reduce
the
gas
very
much
with
a
static
column.
F
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
This
is
something
that
you'll
need
to
discuss
on
a
specific
form
and
coordination
with
ak6,
so
that
you
can
lay
out
your
viewpoints
and
people
can
discuss
it
so
that
we
can
have
more
coordination
for
the
next
call
and
we'll
need
to
y'all
can
talk
on
the
all
core,
devs
Channel
that'd,
be
perfect
to
say:
do
you
want
to
do
this
on
an
ethics
forum
or
set
like
a
specific
time
in
the
all
core
devs
chat?
A
F
G
A
B
A
You
mean
either
way
or
okay
sounds
good,
so
the
decision
made
there
is
that
we're
going
to
have
a
IP
1706
take
over
for
a
IP
1283
and
the
IP
1283
will
be
withdrawn
way
if
you
could
go
into
e
IP
1283
and
do
an
update
to
change
the
status
to
withdrawn
and
just
leave
a
note
in
there
or
a
comment
or
something
that
witchy
IP
supersedes.
It
that'd
be
excellent.
H
If
we
just
say
we
Poe
CIP,
again,
1283
and
7006,
that
will
work,
because
most
clans
like
like,
if,
like
implementation
for
1283,
now
didn't
any
change,
we
just
need
to
add
an
additional
condition
cause
for
7006.
So
it's
kind
of
if
we
said
config
rameters
in
the
planned
implementation,
is
actually
quite
an
independent
I.
Just
we
need
the.
We
need
1283
to
actually
implement
and
7006
to
actually
implement
complete
net
gas
meter.
This.
A
H
H
I
I
H
Well,
if
you
handle
an
elegantly
like
we,
we
can
have
like
like
if
we
can
turn
on
1283
and
around
seventy
or
six
separately.
So
an
issue
is
like
the
so
it's
it's
the
the
because
the
changes
in
the
code
are
in
completely
different
places.
Just
we
need
those
to
ya,
be
combined
together
to
implement
a
transmitter.
A
B
A
A
A
A
I
I
Possibly
I
mean
there
are
some
things
that
it
could
have
worked
with
the
code.
If
the
precompiled
calls
knew
that
there's
only
a
range,
it
would
make
verification
quicker.
Those
are
some
hard
fork
features
we
can
add
on
a
later
date
and
if
we
just
met
a
reserved
range
for
now
and
meta
registry
for
these,
we
can
go
for
the
technical
implication,
implementations
that
would
help
verification,
since
we're
not
doing
any
sort
of
a
verification.
It
looks
like
you
know,
Stamboul.
It
does
right
to
the
level
of
just
a
matter
right
now,.
D
It's
supposed
to
be
easy,
but
there
are
some
edge
cases
that
have
to
be
clarified.
For
example,
if
like
what
happened,
for
example,
do
we
allow
too,
like
sexy,
dresses
if
I
any
like
the
others,
will
be
much
the
restricted,
subset
and
I
think
it
was
Martin
ended
up
requested
well
ask
some
questions
have
been
requested
to
clarify
that
well,
I'm,
guessing
here,
the
toxic
toxic
meant
by
no
progress.
A
A
A
K
I
K
B
B
The
per
the
person
who
was
going
back
and
forth
most
on
this
was
Martin's
and
since
he's
not
here
today,
I
it's
the
in
in
the
in
the
all
the
court
and
the
AMA.
That,
though
that
was
the
primary
discussion,
was
between
those
parties.
So
without
him
here
I
would
say:
it'd
be
good
to
keep
the
discussion
going.
A
Okay,
we
keep
the
discussion
going
as
far
as
what
Danna
just
brought
up
James,
because
you've
looked
at
all
these
IPS
over
and
over
again,
thankfully,
to
make
charts
and
other
pieces
of
data.
What's
your
opinion
on
the
readiness
of
some
of
these
II
IPs,
and
if
we
should
stick
to
a
more
stricter
set
of
guidelines
and
be
a
little
more
assertive
about
cutting
off
some
of
these
that
weren't
completely
ready.
Is
it?
Was
it
the
case
that
the
vast
majority
of
them
weren't
completely
ready?
B
G
B
I
I
B
A
I
We
can
go
I'm
because
it
was
expressed
and
very
well
socialized,
but
I
think
on
this.
This
illustrates
the
problem
in
the
next
round,
when
we
go
for
the
hard
work
that
there
is
a
VIP
ready
date,
which
is
what
I
proposed
a
VIP
proposed
date,
two
months
ahead,
where
we
have
this
game,
where
people
put
their
good
ideas
out,
but
then
they
have
two
months
to
finalize
it.
Yep.
I
K
Have
benchmarks
in
the
US
and
slash
benchmarking,
repo
roughly
of
the
speed
ups
compared
to
death
and
parity.
But
even
if
you
just
compare
the
benchmarks
by
time,
the
there's
reductions
to
be
made
even
against
the
death
and
parity
speeds.
So
then
there'd
be
additional
reductions
and
yes,
we're
working
as
fast
as
we
can
to
put
out
more
thorough
benchmark
reports
and
hypothetical,
yes,
analyses
and
so
forth.
K
I
K
I
mean
that's
a
briefly
mentioned
in
the
EIP
and
it's
a
complicated
issue
because
it
relates
to
you
know:
what
would
the
consequences
be
of
increasing
the
price
of
S
store
and
S
load?
You
know
in
to
enable
boosting
the
gas
limit
without
increasing
the
rate
of
state
blow.
So
this
is
an
alternative
to
that.
I
K
Yeah
I
mean
I
would
say:
there's
a
lot
of
I
mean
there's
a
lot
of
benefit.
It's
not
just
it
I
mean
the
gas
reductions
are
so
significant
yeah.
It
makes
implementing
certain
pre-compile
that
as
implementing
them
in
EVM
and
still
be
cheap
enough
and
I
mean
in
general,
all
computation
will
be
a
lot
cheaper.
So.
B
K
H
It
could
have
some
sort
of
like
the
reentry
back
like
we
have
for
casino
bow,
so
we
may
need
some
conversion
or
other
sort
of
precautions
to
make
sure
we
don't
have
any
vulnerabilities,
but
instead,
if
we
reach
the
gas
cause
of
either,
of
course,
instead
of
reducing
the
cost-
and
we
won't
have
well
so
the
reentry
bug
was
caused
by
reducing
the
gas
cost
of
a
store
which
we're
not
suggesting
we're
not
going
to
suggest
it's.
Why?
It's
only
for
computational.
K
K
Detailing
or
investigating
and
analyzing
and
figuring
out
what
all
the
invariants
are,
that
we'd
like
to
preserve
and
which
and
if
gas
cost
reductions
would
of
you
know,
state
computational,
opcodes,
not
a
store,
would
break
any
of
these
environment.
Invariance
yeah,
that's
like
this
further
study
analysis
needs
to
be
done
on
that,
but
we
also
know
that
raising
the
cost
of
s
store
would
also
have
would
also
break
many
invariants.
K
So,
but
so
you
know
that
there's
this
variance
that
raising
the
cost
would
break,
but
there's
not
any
that
we
know
we're
lowering
the
cost
of
computational
lab
codes.
There's
not
any
known
side-effects
from
that,
but
there
are
no
one
side
effects
for
raising
the
cost
of
the
store
job
cards:
hey.
We
need
it.
We
we
need
to
take
this
offline
because
we
have
a
lot
more
to
get
through
today,
sorry
for
interrupting,
but
if
we
could
take
this
to
the
all.
A
K
A
L
L
L
L
What's
the
current
status
is
that
Alex's
implemented
all
the
proposed
spec
in
rust,
and
there
is
a
report
that
implements
all
that,
together
with
this
binary
interface,
that
this
pre-compile
will
accept
and
currently
I'm
working
on,
creating
an
alternative
sage,
implementation
or,
let's
say
collection
of
sage
script,
to
test
for
correctness.
So
we're.
L
L
A
F
A
The
IP
sure,
okay,
thank
you
and
yeah.
If
you
could
also
let
Alex
know
since
he
wasn't
able
to
make
it,
and
this
will
be
another
one
on
the
list
for
me
or
James
to
catch
up
with
cool.
Was
that
the
only
one
from
you
for
now
or
was
there
another
one?
You
need
to
represent
Alex
for
and
that's
the
only
one?
L
L
I
I
A
A
M
So
this
goes
back
to
the
original
AIP
150
to
take
on
it,
where
we
want
to
implement
the
s
compression
function
instead
of
the
whole
Blake
to
be
function.
This
gives
us
a
lot.
You
know
smaller
changes
to
the
code
base,
as
well
as
letting
developers
use
this
news
all
of
Blake
to
his
features
without
needing
the
core
theory
embeds
to
support.
All
of
those
so
keep
has
put
together
an
implementation
and
benchmarks
for
this,
which
you
can
find
in
their
repo.
They
already
have
it.
J
A
B
M
And
because
we
essentially
can't
verify
those
in
aetherium
anyway
reliably
I,
don't
think
we
actually
get
real
benefits
from
it
slightly,
but
you
would
be
able
to
verify
them
with
the
the
new
elliptic
curve
frequent
piles,
and
it
will
hopefully
also
make
it
into
a
stream
dual
verifying
them
within
etherium.
Doesn't.
M
M
It's
a
nice
to
have
in
their
opinion,
they
don't
think
it's
necessary.
I
also
think
it
would
be
a
very
nice
to
have
and
I'm
not
saying
we
should
never
do
this.
But
for
the
purpose
of
like
this
discussion,
we
have
a
great
implication
of
the
blake
to
be
f
compression
function.
We
have
good
benchmarks
and
I
don't
want
to
let
2's
block
that
yeah
fair
enough.
M
A
Is
there
other
opinions
in
the
room
about
whether
or
not
this
should
go
into
Istanbul
or
if
it
would
be
hard
to
implement
things
like
that?
Cuz,
the
IP
seems
fairly
complete
from
what
I
can
tell
and
we
could,
and
it
would
help
a
lot
of
different
pre-compile
that
are
wanting
to
be
in
there
from
different
projects.
I
would
move
for
if
it's
a
nice
to
have
that
it
should
go
into
the
next
fork
when
it
becomes
a
more
than
nice
to
have.
B
M
A
M
A
I
A
Probably
so,
okay,
let's
go
forward
with
this,
then
it
doesn't
sound
like
there's
anybody
opposed
to
it
and
it
would
benefit
the
ecosystem.
A
lot
and
I'm.
Seeing
a
lot
of
people
say.
Yes,
this
might
be
the
first
di
P,
that's
actually
a
full
on
as
totally
approved
forest
and
bowl.
So
that's
great
and
Alex
said
something
about
there's
a
longer
discussion
regarding
the
benchmarks
and
the
feasibility
of
like
two
and
an
EVM
and
I
can't.
B
B
A
Okay
will
could
table
that
one
and
keep
it
on
cat
herders
to
look
at
updating
the
IP
one,
that's
PR
1991.
Is
there
any
update
on
that
from
the
cat
herders?
So
a
lot
of
people
have
some
really
good
feedback.
I
posted
an
update
to
like
based
on
on
people's
feedback
last
week.
So
if
anyone
who's
interested
in
this.
N
A
A
1679
the
hard
fork
Mehta.
We
already
discussed
that
under
there's
the
dependency
map,
take
a
look
at
that
everyone,
and
if
there
is
something
you
can
contribute
to
solving
part
of
that
dependency
map,
for
instance,
if
you
see
any
IP
on
there,
that's
yours,
but
you
want
to
withdraw
that,
would
help
us
clear
up
that
map
a
whole
lot
and
we're
also
gonna
need
to
work
on
that
little
by
little
to
see
which
EIP
s
are
actually
gonna
go
in.
A
That's
too
much
to
do
all.
Today,
though,
the
etherium
network
upgrade
windows,
a
I
P
1872,
which
is
a
meta
EIP,
was
danos
Danna.
Has
there
been
further
discussion
on
Earth
magicians
about
that
I
think
we've
kind
of
decided
that
the
next
one
would
be
April
kind
of.
Is
that
what
this
reflects
make
sure
there's
buy-in
that
we
ship
to
a
particular
third
Wednesday
of
a
month
to
provide
flexibility
for
people
planning,
vacations,
I.
I
Mean
the
allusion
to
this
is
patched
Tuesday.
A
lot
of
IT
folk
will
not
go
there
on
vacation
on
a
week.
Continuing
the
second
Tuesday
of
the
month
of
case
Microsoft
releases,
real
big
sneaker
that
they
have
to
fix
so
by
you
know
supporting
this
schedule
that
we
release
on
the
third
Wednesday
of
the
month.
The
node
operators
know
that
if
something
is
gonna
be
rolled
back
within
24
hours,
they
need
to
be
on
that
on
the
job
during
that
week
in
case
things
go
wrong.
I
N
Had
some
concerns
about,
we
perhaps
want
this
to
be
an
even
smaller
window,
so
yeah
I
sort
of
highlighting
that
there
was
still
some
discussion
around.
Do
we
want
like
single
'part,
forks
and
that
type
of
stuff
yeah.
So
there
is
flexibility.
The
road
map,
the
big
deposit
ones,
would
be
every
three
months,
but
there
was
a
priority
upgrade
that
could
be
any
third
Wednesday
and,
of
course,
the
critical.
I
A
A
A
B
A
One,
if
you
click
on
it,
it
goes
to
a
comment
below
that
Felix
wanted
to
discuss
about
a
minor
RPC,
spec
change
regarding
RNs
signature
values.
Everyone
is
J,
Carver
seem
to
like
that
idea
is
Felix
on
the
call,
no
he's
he's
out
until
next
week.
You'll
be
okay,
we'll
just
talk
about
this
in
two
weeks.
It.
A
I
Versioning
for
all
gas
prices,
change
we
and
have
each
frame
applied
to
the
version
that
the
account
is
within
then
that
would
isolate
most
of
those
issues.
So
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
get
some
consideration
of
account
versioning
for
Istanbul
James.
You
had
something
in
the
just
from
the
AMA.
There
was
a
lot
of
quiet
days
and
a
lot
of
loud
days
and
the
loudest
day
was
a
round
account
versioning
and
there
is
not
eight
or
nine
e.
B
B
A
I
A
A
H
H
I
think
our
current
conclusion
is
that
it
if,
if
a
conversion,
it
will
use
slightly
slightly
more
guys
cause,
but
it
will
have
no
issue
with
that.
So
that's
probably
acceptable
and
another
reason
I
think
we
may
prefer
were
and
one
to
burn
through
is
that
we
introduced
like
their
sisters.
Listo
technical
depth
can
be
introduced
if
we
want
to
change
from
burnt
one
if
we
T
flavor
and
bumpers
and
the
amount
of
Jennifer
Lewis,
but
if
we
T
forever
and
troopers
and
the
amount
of
trainees
were
managed
and
that's
a
little
bit
harder.
H
H
And
burn
bans
just
say
just
make
this
prefix
optional
and
D
provides
a
version
of
a
great
way
to
opcode
and
contract
creation
collection.
You
know,
determine
weight,
so
it's
a
the
words
of
version
of
the
contracts
de
provide
for
and
what
word
one
is
based
on
either
the
parent
contracts
are
always
a
new,
it
version,
so
variant
one
can
be
done
and
then
variant
2
can
be
added
on.
In
addition,
in
a
later
hard
work,
yeah
yeah
but
I'm
not
sure
we.
H
Can
also
add
other,
like
deploy,
use,
crate
crate
you
to
deploy
multiple
versions
of
the
from
the
same
account
in
more
backward
compatible
way
so
less.
That
may
be
something
we
will
also
consider,
but
I
consider
the
world
one
to
be
the
really
base
layer
that
we
can.
We
can
do
right
now
and
then
you
will
be
already
used
for
by
itself
Roger
that.
H
A
H
H
H
B
A
To
mention
I
only
see
a
few
people
who
leads
that
are
here.
I
know
Rick's
here
and
I.
Think
that's
the
only
person
here
who's
the
lead
I
might
be
wrong,
any
any
updates
from
you,
Rick
or
anybody
else.
I,
don't
think.
There's
anything
super
pressing,
I
want
to
discuss
and
and
for
future
reference.
James
can
usually
speak
on.
P
My
behalf,
if
I'm
not
here,
I
think
the
the
main
sort
of
thing
that
has
come
up
recently
is-
and
it
definitely
came
up
in
the
discussion
during
this
all
cordobes-
is
you
know?
How
are
we
gonna
test
these
crimes?
Changez
I?
Don't
think
that
the
traditional
style
of
test
nets
like
like
the
the
current
test
nets
that
are
out
there,
are
really
appropriate
because
they're
not
gonna,
we
want
to
be
able
to
build
out
smaller,
more
precise.
P
You
know
test
nets
that
are
still
relatively
large,
like
bigger
than
what
you
look
run
on
a
single
developers,
machine
but
smaller
and
more
ephemeral
than
what
we
have
with
the
traditional
test
nets,
and
so
I
led
to
hopefully
I
mean
I
actually
have
to
go.
But
hopefully,
discussion
can
start
somewhere
about
about
how
we
should
coordinate
the
development
of
those
of
those
test.
Environments?
P
B
A
P
A
P
With
a
gas
each
page,
we
would
need
to
test
both
separately
and
then
test
them
again
together.
So
so
it's
these
types
of
situations
where
you're
going
to
need
to
be
running
a
lot
of
fairly
complicated
tests
that
interact
with
each
other,
where
I
don't
think
leaving
it
up
to
the
public
network.
A
public
test
map
really
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
P
Test
nets
are
more
for
app
developers
than
protocol
developers.
We
don't,
we
have
to
you,
know
we're
actually
changing
the
consensus
code,
so
the
network
has
to
shut
down
while
we're
doing
that,
obviously
right.
So
that
was
sort
of
my
thinking.
There
got
it.
Take
a
look
at
white
blocks,
open
sourced
testing,
environment
and
testing
tools
that
allows
you
to.
A
P
Foundation
with
regards
to
that
code,
the
problem
as
I
see
it,
which
is
not
maybe
it's
more
of
a
concern
than
a
problem
really.
Is
that
it's
a
it's
a
SAS
platform,
so
there's
a
subscription
model
and-
and
then
there's
you
know,
devs-
that
are
the
Shepherd's
of
that
of
that
infrastructure
that
are
at
white,
walk.
So
I,
don't
know
if
that's
really
perfectly
incentive
aligned
with
the
foundation
right,
I
mean
I.
P
Think
there's
some
serious
benefits
the
foundation
to
using
that
sort
of
system,
but
it,
but
it's
not
I'm,
not
I,
don't
I,
don't
know
how
to
even
go
through
the
process
of
determining,
if
that's
something
that
the
foundation
wants
to
support
or
if
the
foundation
wants
to
roll
their
own
infrastructure
or
how
we
want
to
have
that
discussion
sure
as
long
as
it's
open.
So
the
main
thing
that
I've
heard
of
in
the
past
is
the
fact
that
it's
open
source
I
know
that
from
talking
to
Zack
before
for
using.
A
It
with
something
like
the
etherium
foundation,
I
think
we
would
get
some
kind
of
credits
for
the
SAS
model
similar
to
when
we
work
with
AWS
or
a
juror
or
CloudFlare,
and
they
want
to
donate
certain
stuff
about
their
SAS
platforms
or
their
server
infrastructure
or
donate
credits.
We
we
definitely
take
it
up
on
that,
so
we
can
have
further
discussions
about
that.
P
For
exactly
and
what
sort
of
long-term
relation
I
don't
want
to
for
me
as
a
recipient
right,
I
have
a
fixed
amount
of
money
for
a
fixed
amount
of
time
so
subscription
service
for
me.
Does
it
make
sense?
And
then,
if
you
think
about
every
person,
who's
a
grant
recipient
doing
that,
you
know
basically
multiplying
the
cost
now
I'll
be
competing
for
the
resources.
I
mean
that
doesn't
make
a
lot
of
sense,
and
that's
not
really
a
good
use
of
money
right.
We
would
need
some
level
of
coordination
between
each
individual.
A
A
So
I
see
this
as
fitting
in
very
well
with
that,
where
the
budget
for
DevOps
that
the
etherium
foundation
covers
this
but
I'd
love
to
take
this
offline
with
you,
so
that
I
can
make
sure
the
concerns
are
very
clearly
articulated
to
me
and
then
I
can
go
back
to
both
white
block
and
the
EF
about
this,
especially
since
you're
a
grant
recipient,
and
that
is
going
to
affect
your
budget
and
other
people's
budgets.
Potentially
okay,
one
other
final
issue
on
the
record
with
that
again
I'm,
a
big
fan
of
the
white
walk
stuff.
P
Just
you
know
it's
also
the
cross
team
coordination
right
as
we
have
patches
that
touch
the
same
thing
or
you
know,
for
example,
the
thing
that
Casey
was
talking
about
at
length
earlier
on.
You
know
if
we've
changed
the
gas
D
market
with
with
AIP
1.59
and
all
that
research
he
does
come.
It
goes
out
the
window
right,
so
we
have
to
you,
know,
coordinate
these
patches,
wouldn't
interfere
with
each
other
on
the
testing
side
as
well.
A
B
I
I
A
H
A
H
A
I
You
know
I
would
be
meeting
in
the
morning
and
then
I'd
be
meeting
in
the
evenings
and
I
would
need
to
wake
up
in
the
middle
of
the
night.
So
that
way,
each
major
timezone
we'd
only
have
to
wake
up
in
the
middle
of
night
once
every
month
and
a
half
and
for
two-thirds
of
the
time
they
have
a
rational
daylight
time
to
college
these
meetings.
I
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
I
will
announce
that
in
the
get
er
chat
and
start
putting
down
for
my
personal
calendar,
what
shifts
those
are
every
two
weeks
so
minus
8
and
minus
16
from
the
current
time
of
9
a.m.
my
time,
okay,
I'm
sure
Nick
will
be
happy
about
that,
as
well
as
others
in
the
Asia
timezone
who
might
want
to
participate.
A
O
Their
stuff
is
open
source,
so
people
are
free
to
use
it
like
that
and
he's
open
to
talking
about
like
how
they
can
support
the
people
working
on
yet
because
they
need
testing
that
maybe
might
not
be
able
to
do
a
complete
software
purchase
or
SAS
purchase
cool.
Now,
that's
nice
of
them
and
thanks
for
bringing
that
up
with
Zack
Trent.