►
Description
Everything EOS is the official media channel of the EOS Network Foundation (ENF). The EOS Network Foundation coordinates financial and non-financial support to encourage the growth and development of the EOS Network. We’re harnessing the power of decentralization to chart a coordinated future for the EOS Network as a force for positive global change.
Timestamps & Topics:
00:00:00 Intro
00:01:00 Item prioritization of top 20 list
00:02:00 Audit Plus group update - Blue Papers
00:03:11 Questions on Blue Paper updates
00:04:52 Discussing removal of defined Items from top 20 Folder
00:06:18 Particular items to be deemed lacking in substance
00:07:00 3 Core Plus papers
00:08:37 Contract Pays function
00:14:27 Rex staking voting and unsellable RAM
00:16:50 Bug Fixes
00:21:13 Bids on implementing fixes into Mandel
00:28:25 Dropping P2P code rewrite
00:31:43 Reviews of definitions
00:38:20 Scalability Plus calls
00:41:05 Adding altchain devs to github
00:43:23 SDK update + RFPs
00:59:00 I.D of feature delta/differences of 4 chains VS Mandel
01:01:19 In progress items/Proposal brand development
01:02:34 Communication updates and development
01:03:15 Create status update template for work group/ByWire Dashboard
01:14:58 Organize Meeting DLT for “Telos RFP Proposal”
01:17:50 Create scalability + Blue Paper
01:19:39 Ultra contribution to Faster Financial Work Package
// EOS Network Foundation //
https://eosn.foundation
https://twitter.com/EosNFoundation
https://www.linkedin.com/company/eos-network-foundation
https://t.me/EOSNetworkFoundation
https://discord.gg/eos-network
info@eosn.foundation
#EOS #EOSIO #ENF
A
So
everybody
can
see
my
screen.
Essentially
I'm
gonna
go
through
this.
So
please
bear
with
me.
Kirsten
is
not
here
today
and
jeff
is
not
here
today
and
so
we'll
we'll
go
through
the
items
at
least
give
an
update
from
the
items
from
last
week
and
try
to
determine
new
items
going
forward
and
whether
or
not
that
applies.
A
A
A
Now
that
we
prioritize
to
bring
back
to
this
group
to
find
out
whether
or
not
this
group
agreed
with
what
was
being
proposed,
so
I
did
send
that
out
last
week
right
after
our
call,
it
seems
as
though
in
the
audit
plus
group
slo-miss
is
not
going
to
be
bidding
on
any
items.
However,
sentinel
is
supposed
to
come
back
and
they
said
that
they
are
interested
on
bidding
the
items
that
were
found
in
the
audit
plus
blue
paper
that
were
prioritized
in
this
group.
A
I'm
still
waiting
on
that
in
the
api
plus
group.
Essentially,
the
teams
are
eos
nation,
eos,
rio
and
grey
mass.
They
have
said
that
they're
they're,
looking
at
and
they're
interested
in
bidding
in
the
I
believe,
the
three
items
that
are
found
in
that
blue
paper,
so
still
waiting
on
that
and
in
the
wallet
plus
team,
which
is
essentially
just
brave
ass.
I
believe
we
also
have
three
items
and
aaron
has
said
or
famously
said
that
there
they
are
also
interested
on
bidding
on
those
items.
A
B
About
that,
for
these,
I
I
guess
it
just
that
might
help
us
to
maybe
close
down
a
few
ticket
items.
I
guess,
but
if,
if,
if
we
feel
that
the
description
that's
in
the
blue
papers
and
also
the
that
initial
process
is
well
underway,
I
would
suggest
we
kind
of
remove
these
items
from
the
the
list
of
20,
at
least
at
least
when
it
comes
to
writing
their
overview
general
overview.
B
This
is
kind
of
I
guess,
like
the
document
we've
been
using
so
far
like
making
these
general
review
for
all
these
proposals.
So
if
we
feel
like
they
they
are
already
covered,
we
can
keep
them
in
the
list
of
priorities,
but
just
remove
the
item
of
writing
their
over
overviews
that
will
that
will
shrink
that
list
quite
a
bit.
I
think
there's
only.
B
They're
kind
of
already
written
from
from
from
what
I
gather,
because
there
are
in
the
blue
papers,
we
could.
We
could,
just
quite
literally
take
the
blue
papers
and
copy
them
in
there
to
have
their
their
general
overview,
because
that's
that's
more
or
less
what
they
they're
doing.
There
might
be
a
little
bit
of
formatting,
but
it's
largely
kind
of
overlapping
work.
I
feel.
A
B
B
I
think
there's
six
or
seven
that
have
been
defined
and
probably
like
one
or
two
more
will
be
defined
like
rather
quickly,
but
if
we,
if
we
decide
that
all
of
the
other
ones
that
have
not
been
defined
yet
we're
happy
with
the
definitions
that
we
have
in
the
new
papers,
we
can
just
like
kind
of
maybe
put
a
link
to
the
to
the
blue
paper
in
there
or
or
copy.
What's
in
the
paper
in
these
and
kind
of
achieve
the
same
effect.
C
B
C
A
A
D
A
Three
core
players,
but
there
are
specific
functions.
So,
yes,
we
could
you're
right.
Those
three
were
quite
limited
in
actual
verbiage
and
substance,
but
it's
also
because
they're
quite
direct
and
obvious
like
it's.
I
think
the
three
are
fixing
a
bug
or
they're
fixing
a
particular
piece
of
the
code
or
improve
it
yeah.
But
yes,
okay,.
B
Yeah
it's
just
because,
because
scorplus
was
written
in
a
little
bit
of
a
different
way
than
the
others.
Yes,
and
it's
not
it's
not
say
that
the
information
is
not
good.
It's
just.
It
was
organized
a
bit
differently
that
doesn't
translate
exactly
the
same
way,
so
I
feel
like.
Maybe
these
would
benefit
from
being
defined
a
bit
more
like,
like
we
did
for
the
the
adducts.
A
C
D
A
Pays
which
yeah,
which
yeah
that's
a
completely
different
thing?
Actually
contract
pays
essentially
is
removed,
but
we
need
to
actually
we'll
need
to
look
into
further
from
that.
So
my
understanding
was
when
dan
and
his
team
took
on
the
contract
to
release
mandel
three.
What
at
the
time
was
mandel,
3.0
and
2.3
so
prior
to
us,
making
the
determination
that
we
would
simply
fast
forward
and
just
go
to
3.1
directly
contract
pays
was
a
function
in
there
and
the
function
as
they
intended
to
write.
A
A
However,
prior
to
payments
going
to
dan
and
and
the
team,
the
discussion
was
held
about
that
particular
function,
and
the
idea
was
that
that
function,
although
not
in
the
same
format
as
what
they
originally
intended,
the
functionality
was
still
present,
but
in
a
different
way.
So
you
still
got
the
same
result
just
going
in
a
different
route,
not
using
contract
pays
as
as
the
functioner
as
the
named
function.
A
Having
said
so,
I've
been
going
on
this
assumption
really
and
on
this
information
over
the
last
couple
months
and
the
other
day,
it
was
brought
up
in
the
developer
channel,
I
believe,
or
somewhere
and
todd
fleming
who's,
not
on
the
call
right
now
seemed
to
indicate
that
that
function
actually
is
still
not
enabled,
or
so
my
understanding
is
either
wrong
or
something
else
happened
that
came
and
removed,
basically
the
functionality
or
I'm
not
sure
what
that
is.
I
don't
have
the
technical
capability
to
continue
down
this
path
or
have
this
discussion
further?
A
Why
I'm
bringing
it
up
is
we
should
look
into
whether
or
not
that
still
is
the
case.
Whether
or
not
the
function
of
contract
pays
still
is
enabled
or
still
present,
in
mandel
3.1
or
is
it
not
regardless
of
what
the
name
of
the
function
is,
but
the
actual
function
itself,
so
maybe
ted?
If
you
could
get
our
engineers
to
look
into
that.
A
And
it's
exactly
the
back
and
forth
of
them,
and
the
reason
why
I
bring
it
up
now
is
that
is
the
third
item
that
we
selected
from
core
plus
right
and
I
went
to
color
plus
and
said:
actually,
that's
already
deployed,
so
we're
not
going
to
give
you
a
contract
for
that.
It's
already,
so
we
already
have
that
function.
B
Or
not,
that's
the
case
yeah
I
mean
in
that
case
in
that
case.
Obviously
that
removes
the
need
from
from
having
it
there.
So
I
guess
we
can
just
confirm
that
whether
or
not
this
is
in
mandel
and
if
it's
not,
we
can
see
how
complicated
it
would
be,
but
I
I
reckon
it
would
be
quite
simple
to
incorporate
it,
so
it.
G
G
Can
I
make
a
suggestion
and
I'm
just
gonna
assume
I
can.
I
think
that
we
should
ask
for
some
kind
of
report.
It
can
be
pretty
short
on
whether
or
not
that's
that's
included,
and
if
not,
why
not?
What
what
what
was
tried
and
deemed
the
the
exploit,
because
the
vulnerability,
because
we
don't
want
to
go
down
the
road
and
then
discover
the
exact
same
vulnerability.
That
would
be
a
waste
of
time.
G
C
I
think
I'm
trying
to
I'm
good,
I'm
I'm
either
going
to
reach
out
to
todd
fleming
myself
or
I'm
trying
to
see
if
matt
matt
has
already
been
kind
of
pinging,
stephen
and
dot
a
little
bit.
So
I'm
going
to
see
if
it
may
be
easier
for
him
to
do
it
other
than
contract
pays.
What
should
I
call
the
sub
function?
Eve
that
we're
trying
to
find.
A
C
C
C
So
it's
just
they're.
You
know
it's
just
people,
it's
they're.
They
were
the
next
ones
on
the
list.
We
we
rank,
ordered
them
all
the
way
to
the
bottom.
It's
I
don't
know
somebody
just
decided
they
like
those
two,
maybe
maybe
jeff,
couldn't
count
when
he
was
making
the
list,
but
they're
they're
numbered
now
yeah.
That's
probably
what
happened.
C
G
Could
we
get
a
better?
Could
I
get
at
some
point
a
better
explanation
or
description
of
what
we
want
in
rex
staking
and
and
unsellable
realm?
I
think
it's
possible
that
we
on
telos
have
already
done
some
of
that
work
and
might
be
able
to.
You
know
bid
on
that.
Is
us
some
money
so,
but
I
don't.
I
need
to
know
what
what
exactly
the
well,
not
exactly
roughly
what
the
spec
is.
C
C
I
think
I
think
you
see
where
you're
going
here
douglas.
I
would
if
this
is
where
you're
going,
I
would
agree.
We
should
probably
write
those
three
as
a
group
like
we're.
Writing
all
the
ad
hoc.
I
think
when
I
read
those
they
were,
I'm
shocked
anything
of
core
plus
made
it
into
the
top
20,
because
they're.
A
A
Just
to
stop,
we
we've
that's
already
written.
If
you
look
on
your
screen,
so
those
three
items
need
to
be
defined
further.
So
yes
already
completely
agree
and
douglas
to
your
point,
it
is
quite
possible
that
telos
has
already
solved
some
of
these
items,
because
some
of
the
items
in
four
plus,
for
example,
bp,
pay
current
time
limit
where
the
bppk
claiming
needs
to
be
done.
A
24
hours
telus
has
already
fixed
that,
so
it
is
possible,
but
some
of
these
are
already
either
completely
fixed
on
telos
and
or
partially
fixed
on
telus,
but
either
way
your
point
well
taken
those
items.
Those
three
will
be
defined
further
and
more
specifically,
contract
pays.
The
enf
will
read
a
report
to
give
a
little
bit
more
substance
toward
on
the
discussion
that
I
just
had
in
terms
of
that.
I
Function,
I
can
shed
a
little
light
on
these
unsellable
ram
is
not
implemented
anywhere.
That,
I
think,
was
a
driver
from
account
creation
side
of
things.
The
staking
rex
voting
is
actually
bug
fixes
and
I
believe
they
are
already
in
mandel.
It
is
a
situation
where
users
get
locked
into
this.
Yes,
it's
a
lot
of
quality
of
life,
improvements.
I
G
J
A
J
B
I
Yeah-
and
I
I
think
there
were
multiple
things
in
that
section
of
the
blue
paper.
One
of
them
was
that
people
had
tokens
stuck
in
wrecks
that
they
just
could
not
get
out,
and
that
was
a
book
that
needed
to
be
fixed
and
the
other
is
the
crappy
user
experience
of
having
to
stake
before
you
can
vote
for
block
producers
before
you
can
use
ram
or
before
you
can
use
rex.
It's
this
silly
series
of
events
that
needs
to
happen
for
a
new
account.
G
For
rex
yeah
we
removed
that,
but
we
simply
you
don't
have
to
vote.
So
that's
a
governance
decision,
there's
a
there's,
a
couple
things
until
I
until
I
have
you
know
exactly
what
we're
trying
to
do.
Yeah.
I
can
talk
about
a
lot.
Some
of
these
things
are
things
that
we've
had
on
our
on.
You
know
kind
of
in
our
pa
on
our
roadmap
and
we've
been
talking
about,
and
so
let
you
know
once
we
see
what
that
description
is.
G
We
can
you
know,
jesse
can
tell
us
what
we
where
we
actually
are
on
some
of
these
things
yeah,
I
I
I
wasn't
trying
to
go.
Hey
we've
got,
you
know,
we've
got
this,
but
I
just
wonder
what
we
what
we're
really
trying
to
accomplish,
and
I
would
say
that
for
anything
that,
like,
let's
not
eject
anything,
let's
just
let's
just
keep
anything
that's
in
there
now
in
there
and
let
and
and
document
the
current
status
and
the
and
the
future
and
the
future
development
needs.
A
B
Looks
like
the
I
mean:
if
we,
if
we
get
a
confirmation
that
contract
pay
is
well
either,
we
can
add
it
or
there's
no
reason
why
didn't
make
it
into
mandel
and,
as
douglas
pointed
out,
if
there
is
like
just
so
that
we
know
and
can
reevaluate,
then
that
would
leave
only
unsellable
ram
to
be
to
be
defined,
and
I
think
it's
it's
fairly
obvious.
What
it
is.
It
shouldn't
be
very
complicated
to
have
like.
J
J
I
think
we
still
want
a
bid
from
someone
to
incorporate
it
into
mandel.
At
I
mean
at
the
very
least,
they
lift
and
shift
code
from
the
telo
smart
contract
into
mandel
and
then
build
some
tests
around
it,
because
there's
there's
there's
a
non-zero
amount
of
work,
even
if
we've
written
all
the
code
at
telos
to
do
it
right,
so
we
don't
have
to
pay
them
to
re-engineer
and
design
the
solutions
if
we
have
it,
but
we
still
need
to
have
them
incorporated
into
mandel.
G
Absolutely
and
the
other
advantage
of
of
keeping
everything
there
is
that
in
the
future
we
have
some
kind
of
record
of
you
know
if,
if
things
come
up
again,
if
we
eliminate
these
things,
it'll
just
seem
like
we
never
considered
them
most
likely
if
we
keep
them
in
and
then
we'll
know
what
you
know,
what
we've
rejected
in
the
past
and
why
I
think
it's
just
gonna
save
us
save
us
duplication
of
efforts
in
the
future.
Yeah.
B
Fair
enough,
I
think
in
that
case
we
just
we
just
like,
let's
say,
go
in
that
that
document
and
instead
we
just
would
just
like
write.
You
know
like
these
references
instead
of
objective
kpy
details,
and
so
it's
still
there.
It
explains,
like
kind
of
why
it's
an
exception,
so
to
speak
and
like
how
it
gets
resolved.
J
B
And
I
mean
like
it's
we're
still
we're
still
kind
of
one
step
before
we
start
talking
about
bids
and
and
whatnot,
because
this
is
just
that
the
purpose
of
that
list
is
just
to
have
like,
I
guess,
a
an
internal
document
to
to
make
a
proper
decision
about
what
needs
to
be
done.
It's
not
the
it's
the
step
before
according
to
to
jeff's.
I
guess
the
framework
is
the
step
before
the
rfp,
where
we
essentially
define
like
what
needs
to
be
bid
on,
and
we
define
the
scope.
B
J
I
J
A
Yes
yeah.
I
agree.
I
wasn't
sure
if,
because
we
said
that,
for
example,
the
staking
rex
voting
is
already
in
mandel.
What
I
wanted
to
confirm
was
you're,
not
the
one
writing
this
in
mandel
right
now,
taking
the
code
that
telus
is
done,
then
I
would
agree.
We
should
document
for
this
actual
item
right
now.
We're
saying
later.
A
Then
yes
yeah.
I
fully
agree
with
that
as
well.
Yes,
and
there
should
be
a
cost
to
that,
so
anything
that
other
chains
have
already
implemented.
If
we
want
to
implement
it
in
mandel,
there's
still
work
to
do
that.
That
should
still
the
you
know,
that's
just
they'll
be
reflected.
It
shouldn't
be
free
essentially
to
the
the
course
mission
in
a
circumstance.
J
A
Contributors
to
mendo
I
agree-
I
mean
that,
would
that
would
make
sense,
and
I
would
also
say
that
those
chains
that
have
implemented
that-
and
it
seems
like
telus-
perhaps
has
solved
a
lot
of
those
issues.
They
should
be
the
ones
being
able
to
bid
on
this
at
first
hands.
In
my
opinion,
anyways.
I
would
not
see
that
as
a
conflict,
or
I
would
not
see
that
as
preferred.
I
would
actually
see
it
as
a
good
business
issues
and
probably
faster
to
achieve
the
result
that
we're
looking
to
achieve
yeah.
G
J
Like
for
us-
and
I
would
imagine
any
chain
in
the
situation
that
we're
describing
you-
we
have
our
own
version
of
those
contracts,
we're
constantly
applying
our
changes
on
top
of
mandel.
We're
actively
doing
that
right
now,
so
we're
going
to
be
like
irrelevant
of
this
we're
going
to
be
like
removing
our
implementation
of
it
to
accept
in
the
implementation.
That's
been
in
mandel,
that's
going
to
help
us
because
it
reduces
the
amount
of
you
know
drift.
We
have
with
our
changes
right
and
we're
already
gonna
be
in
that
code
anyway.
A
B
Yeah,
there's
a
there's
only,
I
believe
just
going
to
it
right
now.
I
think
there's
we're
dropping
the
ptp
code.
We
write
for
now
defined
until
we
advance
more
with
the
fast
finality
and
trustless
ibc.
There's
there's
improved
token
standards.
I'm
happy
to
write
that
one,
because
I
think
I'm
the
one
who
put
that
there
in
that
list
for
the
other
adducts
in
there
I
mean
we,
we
can
get
started
whenever
we
want
to
finish
them,
but
they're
quite
low
in
the
list
like
it's.
B
B
D
B
E
C
B
B
But
since
I
I
don't
think
anyone
reviewed
my
fast
finality
one,
I'm
I'm
I'm
just
I'm
just
unsure
if
we
shouldn't
take
that
step
first,
so
so
it
really
it's
it's
it's
up
to
us
how
we
want
to
proceed.
I
would
recommend
that
we
also
assign,
like
a
kind
of
a
different
person,
to
review
these,
just
just
to
make
sure
that
everyone
agrees
with
these
definitions
and
and
what
not
like
if
there's
a
something,
that's
not
clear.
B
C
Guys,
where
did
you
did
you
do
your
additional
faster
finality
work
in
that
in
that
directory,
where
jeff
was
holding
them
for
the
rfps,
or
did
you
did?
You
have
a
separate
because
I
thought
I
saw
when
we
were
on
another
call
with
you
on
the
scalability
plus
call
earlier
this
week
you
had
a
separate
document
that
didn't
look
like
the
document.
Where
is
that?
How
do
we
find
that
one.
B
I
haven't
published
it
yet
we're
still
working
on
it.
It's
not
not
just
final,
but
it's
it's
getting
there.
It's
getting
quite
close.
This
is
essentially
like
a
pretty
much
almost
an
academic
paper.
When
eric
and
I
started
discussing
the
the
faster
finality,
we
agreed
that
all
of
these
kind
of
general,
postulates
and
and
whatnot
should
be
expressed
as
mathematical
proofs
before
so
because
it's
kind
of
like,
if
you
look
at
all
of
these
consensus
mechanisms,
typically
they
come
up.
B
They
come
with
some
sort
of
a
a
paper
that
can
explain
how
these
conditions
are
met
and
why
they
cannot
like
stall
the
chain
or
or
or
break,
and
what
I
think
it's
really
important
as
a
preliminary
document
to
any
of
these
proposals,
so
so
yeah.
So
that's
that's,
but
that
should
be
done
reasonably
soon
like
it's,
mostly
anything
at
this
point
and
we'll
be
able
to
present
the
first
draft
of
that.
B
C
B
Now
I
agree,
and
definitely
it's
going
to
be-
I'm
just
just
finishing
it
to
like
that-
that
kind
of
started
as
a
collection
of
more
or
less
random
thoughts
that
gradually
now
and
discussions
like
eric
and
I
have
been
going
for
and
now
andrea
one
of
our
guys,
also
like
as
part
of
the
discussion,
so
we've
just
been
going
back
and
forth
and
kind
of
kind
of
converging
to
this
like
to
a
final,
workable
thing.
But
it's
that's
good.
G
Great
that
is,
you
know
doing
all
that
math
work
is
a
project
unto
itself
for
the
proofs,
and
then
you
know
that
allows
us
to
do
the
actual
implementation.
I
I
don't
know
I'm
not
going
to
be
able
to
verify
that
math.
I
know
that
that
eenf
has,
I
think,
a
phd
in
cryptography
or
something
is.
Is
there
gonna
be
a
review,
an
internal
review
process
just
by
another
person
on
that?
Well,.
B
G
E
F
G
B
B
G
I
would
propose
for
this
group
moving
forward
that
that
be
our
modus
operandi,
when
we
have
when
we
have
hardcore,
mathematics
or
cryptography
or
anything
that
we
set
as
a
high
standard
for
our
group
to
you,
know,
measure
five
times
and
cut
once
yeah.
If
we
don't
there's,
you
know
it's
not
something
I'd
rather
I'd
rather
err
on
the
side
of
too
much.
E
B
I
forgot
that
just
one
thing
I
kind
of
a
little
bit
related,
and
I
mean
maybe
you
guys
tell
us,
have
an
idea.
I
think
one
of
these
two
scalability
plus
calls
so
far
at
least
one
of
them.
I
don't
think
we
had
anyone
from
telos
representing,
and
it
would
probably
be
good
if
you
guys
could
could
delegate
someone
to
be
to
be
there
on
these
calls,
just
because
there's
quite
a
bit
of
discussion,
that's
going
on
mostly
so
far.
B
G
Yeah
yeah
thanks
for
mentioning
that,
and
I
and
I
agree,
I
think
the
reason
that
is
that
exists
is
because
in
the
early
days
telus
folks
were
you
know,
taking
part
in
a
whole
lot
of
things,
and
we
were
looking.
You
know
a
whole
lot
of
those
working
groups
and
we're
just
looking
for
looking
for
things.
You
know
to
to
not
be
caught.
G
B
Be
on
so
thanks
for
mentioning
that
yeah.
No,
no
worries,
also
with
with
regards
to
that
we're
kind
of
still
a
guest
on
the
first
agenda
item.
But
there's
we
like.
I
said
we
have
these
other
now
descriptions
to
to
to
review,
and
I
guess
we
should
probably
get
get
started
also
like
discussing
and
discussing
them
in
that
group
and
not
just
make
it
about
fast
finality.
B
But
we
have
synchronous,
call
that's
quite
high
on
the
list
as
well
and
then
I'm
gonna
have
at
some
point,
like
I
guess,
like
a
trustless
ibc
and,
and
all
of
that
like
so
so
so,
there's
gonna
be
the
like
more
broader
discussions
about
some
of
these
other
topics
that
are
gonna
be
gonna,
be
happening.
So
so,
even
even
even
if
you
don't
have
anything
to
say
with
regards
to
fashionability
you'll
probably
have
opinions
on
the
others.
A
All
right,
just
in
the
spirit
of
moving
things
along,
I
think
we've
gone
on
quite
long
with
the
top
20
item
list.
I
think
we're
good
if
there's
anything
else.
To
add
to
that
we
can
compute
the
discussion
in
the
channel,
if
not,
if
everybody's,
okay,
I'll
just
move
to
the
next
item,
the
I
guess
the
other
one
should
be
an
easy
one.
Jeff
I'm
guessing
at
this
point,
you've
added
the
developers
from
all
chains
onto
the
current
github.
C
Meant
ted,
yes,
so
guillaume
has
given
me
a
list
and
I
added
them.
I
realized
now
I
didn't
have
jessie,
who
is
poplexity
and
somehow
it's
giving
it's
giving
me
a
bit
of
a
trouble
adding
him
I'm
trying
to
put
him
into
the
oh.
I
need
to
buy
a
seat
nice
ui
here.
So
while
I
have
most
of
the
people
added,
I
think
what
we're
missing
is.
C
And
lucas
have
you
given
me
your
github
account
to
add
you.
Let
me
send
it
to
you
right
now.
Thank
you,
yeah,
I'm
trying
I
I
have
jesse
as
an
outside
collaborator.
I
realize
he
needs
to
be
in
mandel,
dab
or
mandolin
men
and
for
whatever
reason,
I'm
getting
an
error.
When
I'm
trying
to
add
him
right
now,
I
probably
have
to
move
him
into
the
organization
or
something
he's
an
outside
collaborator.
I
can
switch
that
as
well
and
put
him
inside
the
organization
as
well
and
then
I'll.
C
G
I
I
have
been
working
on
the
grant
framework
version
of
it,
which
is
a
lot
more
in
depth,
and
I
met
with
jeff
earlier
this
week
to
talk
about
ideas
on
how
to
form
the
road
map
side.
Of
that
the
rfp
is
a
completely
different
angle
of
it.
I
started
on
the
grant
side
of
things
because
I
was
asked
a
couple
I
think
maybe
like
a
week
or
two
before
this
rfp
thing,
the
side
of
it
came
up.
I
And
I'm
not
exactly
sure
this
proposal
has
been
written
in
multiple
ways,
but
it's
always
been
the.
This
is
the
proposal
of
how
it's
going
to
be
done
and
now
on
this
side,
the
rfp
needs
to
be
created
on
here's,
the
requirements
and
the
goals
is
this:
I
guess
I'm
looking
for.
Is
this
being
created
as
an
example
or
what
is
this
being
created
for
you're
actually
bidding?
A
Somebody
to
bid,
whereas
in
this
case
what
we're
saying
is
please
bid,
which
is
why
I
think,
when
you
asked
last
week,
you
were
saying,
would
I
be
able
to
use
what
I
use
in
the
grant
framework
and
at
face
value
anyways?
I
think
the
answer
is
yes,
because
the
grand
framework
you
are
saying
hey,
please,
I'm
bidding
for
this.
C
B
B
B
From
from
from
what
that
document
looks
like,
it
seems
to
me
also
like
it
probably,
I
guess
like
solve
some
of
these
transparency
and
or
legal
issues
about
about
the
whole
process.
So
it
feels
like
we
should
probably
just
for
consistency,
keep
it
like
for
everyone
that
that
was
participate,
or
we
adjusted
so
that
everyone
has
everything
to
work
with.
G
A
But
just
to
confirm
so:
we've
gone
to
the
original
authors
of
the
blue
papers
and
we've
asked
them
to
bid
on
the
items
so
that
we
can
so
so
that
we
can
receive
bids.
So
are
you
saying
that
we
should
go
back
and
ask
them
to
fill
out
the
request
for
proposal
form
which
we
still
haven't
completed
yet
for
them
to.
B
Do
so
to
me
to
me,
I
mean
like
it
feels
that
that's
this
this
like.
Well,
I
don't
know,
I
don't
know
if
you
guys
well
ted
knows,
because
he
was
was
part
of
who
was
working
on
these,
but
essentially
like
the
way
it
looks
like
it's.
We
have
to
kind
of
create
that
document,
which
is
a
questionnaire
really
like
a
form
that
people
feel
when
they
want
to
bid
on
something.
So
in
this
case,
in
this
case,
really
is
what
we're
saying
is
whoever
wrote.
C
That
I
think
that
I
agree
with
you
in
principle.
I
think
that
does
skip
one
minor
step
and
one
step
is
jeff
and
I
should
make
read.
The
blue
paper
make
the
template.
It's
a
template
right
now,
so
it's
a
generic
template
that
will
be
used
for
every
single
rfp
fill
in
the
key
parts
out
of
the
blue
paper
for
the
sdks
and
then
give
it
to
aaron
for
him
to
reply.
C
What
he's
going
to
do
in
response
to
the
rfp?
That
would
be
skipping
no
steps
so
aaron
doesn't
fill
the
whole
thing
out
and
answer
it
himself.
We
fill
out
a
basic
rfp
using
what's
in
the
blue
paper,
aaron
answers
it
and
we're
done
that's
what
should
we
have,
but
that's
even
better
yeah
and
we
we
have
not
done
that
yet
jeff
and
I
have
not
done
that.
C
We
started
to
work
on
faster
finality,
but
faster,
not
finality
kind
of
took
a
life
of
its
own
as
our
egg
and
and
guillaume
started
doing
mathematical
proofs,
and
we
were
kind
of
all
left
in
the
dust
going.
Okay,
we
need
to
wait
for
them
to
complete
or
we're.
You
know
the
little
amount
we
have
in
the
faster
finality
document.
Right
now
isn't
good
enough,
and
so
we
need
what
they're
doing
with
with
guillaume's
document
that
he'll
share
soon
to
finish
that
one.
B
Does
that
make
sense
that
I
can
make
perfect
sense?
I
think
so,
and
I
mean
like
on
on
the
side
of
the
rfp
for
fast
finality
anyway,
we're
we
can
do
it
in
parallel,
because
as
soon
as
someone
essentially
reviews
that
that
overview,
that's
already
out
there,
I'm
very
comfortable
finishing
this,
like
the
the
template.
Basically,
I
think
the
template
and
plugging
in
yeah
that
overview
as
that
you
put
to
kind
of.
A
C
C
All
right
was
starting
to
help
jeff,
but
then
he
started
to
work
with
guillen,
and
so
it
kind
of
moved
in
a
direction
of
getting
a
lot
deeper
and
we're
waiting
for
that
to
be
able
to
plug
that
into
the
rfp,
because
the
short
little
paper
that's
written
right
now,
in
my
opinion,
is
not
enough
to
put
into
an
rfp.
We
do
have
a
short
paper
that
anyone
can
look
at
right
now
for
faster
finality
and
in
my
opinion,
it's
not
enough
to
write
an
rfpm.
C
Okay,
I
mean,
unless
we
knew
we
were
going
to
give
it
to
say,
ux
or
wax
or
telos
to
implement
or
give
it
to
the
enf.
You
know
guys,
then
I
think
we'd
be
safe,
but
if
we're
literally
putting
this
out
as
an
rfp,
you
know
the
nice
thing
is
enf
and
and
ux
are
kind
of
co-writing
what
they
want
to
begin
with.
D
A
C
A
C
I
agree,
aaron
is
on
hold
and
we
should
give
aaron
an
rfp
that
I
think
we
have
enough
and
I'll
take
responsibility
for
this.
I
think
we
have
enough
information
if
we
had
made
sdk
our
pilot
case
to
give
everybody
an
rfp
to
look
at
and
aaron
to
give
back.
We
could
have
gotten
that
done,
but
faster
finality
came
out
of
ad
hoc,
so
we
had
nothing
written
down
other
than
two
words
faster
finality
to
write
the
rfp
and
even
jeff
got
it
partially
done
it's.
It's.
B
C
Yes
yeah,
so
we
could
have
done
sdk.
The
sdk
blue
paper
part
was
good
enough.
We
could
have
transported
that
into
the
rfp
and
given
aaron
an
rfp
which
he
could
have
replied
to,
but
we
all,
as
a
group
picked
faster
finality.
First.
That
was
probably
a
mistake.
I
should
have
said
no,
no,
no,
let's
not
do
that,
but
we
jeff
was
running
a
parallel
initiative
to
kind
of
flesh
out
all
the
ad-hoc
levels.
Actually
he
was
doing
all
20
of
them,
but
and
faster
finality
was
had
been
partially
worked.
C
C
It
is
a
lot
of
work.
We
don't
have
any
product
managers
to
start
cranking
these
rfps
out,
and
you
know
it
is
a
template.
So
it's
not
terribly
hard,
but
it's
jeff
and
I
kind
of
trying
to
do
these
in
addition
to
all
of
our
day
jobs,
but
that
makes
the
process
public
it
can
it
all
can
be
published.
It
can
all
be
viewable.
C
It
just
will
slow
things
down.
I
mean
we
can
we
can
kind
of
circle
back
with
the
rfps
so
that
we
don't
slow
people
down,
but
it
would
be
good
to
know
the
teams.
That
said,
yes,
we
want
to
work
on
that
we
could
maybe
get
their
rfps
knocked
out
first,
so
that
we
don't
slow
them
down
like
aaron.
Obviously
we
can
get
errands
done
sometime
by
next
week
and
aaron.
Can
you
know
it'll
be
easy
for
aaron
to
reply
to
it
and
why
don't
we?
Why
don't
we
do.
B
So
I
think
we
it's
only
going
to
be
like
a
handful
anyway,
because
we're
saying
we
would
probably
like
only
do
like
five
or
something
this
initially.
So
so
it's
I
mean
for
these
five.
It
probably
probably
it's
probably
worth
it
to
to
proceed
like
that.
Just
wait
for
the
first
one
based
off
like
sdks
and
then
apply
the
same
methodology
for
for
the
other
four
and
take
it
from
there.
C
A
A
C
A
I'm
okay
with
that,
I'm
okay
with
us
doing
the
rfp
and
I'll
just
go
back
and
say:
listen,
we're
gonna!
Send
you
the
rfp,
and
that
way
you
it's
not
really
wasted
to
work
anyways.
If
they're
preparing
a
bid,
they're
going
to
reuse
the
content
and
put
it
in
the
format
that
we're
asking
for
through
the
rfp
that
that's
okay,
but
then
that
way,
it
maybe
gives
them
a
little
bit
more
leeway
as
well.
We
didn't
set
any
dates
or
anything
like
that
regardless,
so
this
would
formalize
the
process.
A
C
A
Well,
it
is
possible
that
the
bid
that
they
submit,
we
ultimately
reject
right.
Hey
we're
gonna,
we're
gonna
fix
unsellable
ram.
I
want
seven
million
dollars.
Good
luck
with
that
see
you
later
and
then
we
go
out
to
public
tender
right
and
the
work
wouldn't
be
wasted
from
the
rfp,
and
there
would
also
be
the
trail
as
to
why
we
rejected
the
bid
in
the
first
place.
Yes,.
B
Right
and
I
mean,
of
course,
there's
there's
there's
priorities
as
well
like
in
the
sense
that,
for
example,
sdk,
which
is
very
high
on
the
list.
It
is
a
perfect
case,
because
chances
are
it's
going
to
be
like
approved
very
quickly,
so
we'll
have
a
it's.
It's
going
to
be
transparent,
we're
going
to
have
like
the
the
precedent
in
a
sense,
and
then
everything
else
will
be
right
from
there.
B
A
All
right
so
we'll
move
on
to
the
next
item.
If
that's
okay,
we've
lost
lucas
by
the
way
and
but
we
still
have
quorum
and
we've
lost
out
this
as
well,
but
jesse's
here.
So
we
we
do
still
have
telos,
ux
and
eos
online
next
item:
we'll
try
to
go
a
little
bit
faster
identification
of
feature
delta
differences
for
the
four
chains
versus
mandel.
That,
I
guess
is
on
going.
A
Was
there
anything
to
report
on
that?
So
lucas
was
supposed
to
verify
for
wax,
but
he's
not
here
so
I'll
just
highlight
it
so
that
we
can
find
out
next
week.
Tell
us
no
changes.
So
we
should
be
good
and
ux
sees
this
as
a
useful
activity,
no
urgent
requirements,
so
you're
good.
I
guess
yum
on
your
end.
Yes,
so.
B
B
Yeah
both
essentially
like
it's
telos,
is
running
vanilla.
Yes,
io
we're
running
a
slightly
modified
version,
but
that's
like
changes
are
very
easy
to
support
upstream
and
wax,
which
was
going
to
verify
it
and
as
far
as
the
system
contracts
for
each
chain.
I
think
we're
already
like
way
too
far
off
to
even
consider
maintaining
like
yeah,
maybe
maybe
with
some
exceptions,
for
example
rex
because,
like
I
think,
I
think
we
don't
use
it,
but
the
other
three
chains.
I
think
I
believe,
use
it.
J
B
C
A
Now
we're
switching
over
to
the
in
progress
items
we
don't
have,
but
I
can
talk
about
this
one
so
proposal
brand
development
we're
having
a
meeting
if
I'm
not
mistaken
next
monday,
and
so
we
should
be
able
to
give
an
update
next
week.
I
believe
that
next
monday
and
maybe
aaron,
you
know
a
little
bit
more,
I'm
not
too
certain.
I
believe
next
monday
we're
actually
going
over
the
proposed
names
correct.
A
I
A
So
update
to
come
either
way.
No,
no
today
so
we'll
leave
that
on
there
still,
it
seems
to
still
be
on
track,
though,
for
the
may
12th,
I
guess
deadline
and
then
the
idea
would
be
that
we
would
be
coming
back
to
this
group.
I
think
we
should
go
in
camera
at
that
time
to
showcase
what
the
I
guess,
the
ultimate
names
proposals
would
be,
and
then
this
group
would,
I
guess,
determine
through
voting
what
they
would
want
to
to
have
it
communication
strategy
and
updates
brandon.
A
K
Yeah
we're
just
kind
of
hanging
tight
until
the
group
establishes
priorities,
probably
sometime
after
this
next
bi-weekly
update,
comes
out,
we'll
I'll
get
a
twitter
spaces
on
the
calendar,
and
that
might
coincide
really
nicely
with.
Maybe
we'll
know
a
bit
more
about
the
naming
and
can
do
it
at
that
time.
A
C
What
this
item
is,
I
I
I
can
show
you
I'll
put
in
the
chat,
I'm
not
sure
everyone
will
be
able
to
see
it.
Maybe
even
you
and
I
can
take
this
offline
because
it
it's
it's
it's
making
it
where
there
is
a
status
report,
that's
available
in.
Basically,
you
know
in
google
slides
that
shows
each
week
where
the
status
was.
You
can
look
back,
it's
something.
Jeff
is
already
doing
for
like
bywire
and
recovery
and
yield
and
stuff
like
that.
C
I
don't
know
that
it's
needed
for
this
group
and
the
question
is
is
later.
Would
we
want
to
be
able
to
publish
these
types
of
documents,
weekly,
statuses
and
track
that
I
think
it
would
be
better
if,
if
jeff-
and
I
showed
you
I-
I
would
say
that
just
no
the
little
bit
I
know
douglas-
I
don't
think
he
would.
He
would
find
it
of
great
value,
but
it
would
be
great
to
first
at
least
see
what
you
think
of
it.
We.
A
C
C
If
you
get
onto
the
bottom
of
it,
it's
the
one
we
went
over
yesterday
with
bywire
and
he
would
literally
do
that
for
this
entire
group
manage
it
to
where
there
was
a
snapshot
every
week
of
where
the
status
was
so.
This
mirror
board
would
get
snapshoted
every
single
week
into
a
google
slide
so
that
you
could
go
back
in
history
and
see
you
know
just
it
just
depends
if
you
felt
that
this
group
had
value.
C
I
I
didn't
think
that
I
felt
like
the
mirror
board
was
kind
of
good
enough,
but
it
was
something
that
I
don't
know
if
he's
already
showed
it
to
kirsten
as
well,
because
it
would
take
jeff
and
kirsten
to
kind
of
manage
keeping
it
up
to
date.
Every
week.
Have
it
ready
and
then
all
it
did
did
was
it
made
a
snapshot
that
showed
you'd
be
after
today,
they'd
snapshot
where
we
got
to
and
then
after
every
single
week,
then
you'd
have
the
history
which
you
could
step
through.
C
A
Jeff
er
kirsten
is
the
chair
or
the
the
de
facto
chair
that
we've
appointed
jeff
is
kind
of
the
de
facto
coach
here
that,
unfortunately,
neither
of
them
are
here
today,
but
I
would
say
they
should
talk
and
see
if
they,
if
it
would
add
value
to
them
as
co-chairs
and
because
it's
a
tool
for
them
to
help
them
lead
the
meeting
to
the
rest
of
the
group.
So
I
would
I
would
default
back
to
them
whether
or
not
they
think
it's
useful,
because
we
wouldn't
be
using
it.
A
What
I'm
saying
is
jeff
in
person
would
be
filling
out
that
information
and
perhaps
showcasing
it
during
these
meetings.
So
I
believe
that
to
them
to
make
that
decision
as
to
whether
or
not
they
think
it's
useful
to
essentially
share
this
group
and
then
us
I
wouldn't
see
I
mean
worst
case
scenario.
If
we
don't
like
it,
we
just
don't
go
to
them.
We
don't
read
them.
D
C
So
if
they
would,
they
would
still
run
this
meeting
out
of
the
mirror
board.
They
would
just
have
that.
What
would
happen
is
because
there's
really
no
difference
right,
let's
say
guillaume
missed
the
meeting.
He
could
go
to
the
mirror
board
and
see
the
status
or
he
could
go
and
find
this
slide
because
at
least
immediately
after
the
meeting,
they
would
agree
up
until
the
very.
A
Next
week,
I
would
then
definitely
see
value
in
that
because
going
back
to
this
mirror
board
and
seeing
kind
of
getting
a
snapshot
of
where
we're
at
is
and
me
leading.
The
meeting
right
now
is
not
really
intuitive.
I
would
much
prefer
one
pager
like
what
you're
describing
okay,
all
right
and,
from
my
point
of
view-
and
I
don't
know
for
some
reason-
I
can't
can't
open
this
chat
while
sharing
the
screen.
I
don't
know
why,
so
I
can't
showcase
what
ted
is
is
unless
ted
you
want
to
send
the
link
elsewhere.
A
C
C
This
he
well
typically,
what
he
tries
to
do
is
get
like
francis
to
do
the
recovery
one
and
someone
from
yield
to
do
that,
one
in
what
it
usually
falls
back
to
it's
part
of.
Why
we're
looking
to
hire
a
support
person
for
jeff
is
when
they
don't
have
it
done
he
can
they
can
because
they're
they're,
managing
it
in
17
different
tools,
literally,
that
that
person
would
scrape
them
all
into
the
consolidated
format.
C
B
E
C
So
this
is
kind
of
a
high-level
rolling
snapshot
produced
every
single
week
after
the
meeting
that
so
you
could
look
back
and
see
what
happened
every
week
if
this
had
been
going
on,
whereas
the
mirror
board
just
shows
you
currently
where
things
are
at
versus
snapshotting,
where
they
were
at
the
end
of
each
week.
Yeah
I
mean
it's
not
as
high.
C
Because
all
they're
really
doing
is
adding
new
items
or
statuses.
The
key
milestones
are
generally
kind
of
set
and
then
you're
just
talking
about
what
got
done
in
the
highlights.
What's
coming
up
in
the
upcoming
activities
and
then,
if
anything
is
blown
up
like
a
risk
or
an
issue
that
you
want
to
note,
that's
happening
so
it
yeah,
it
should
be
15
a
no
brainer
a
week.
J
Seems
like
that,
I
I,
although
I
don't
think
we
have
as
much
concern
here
in
this
group,
but
you
know
generally
in
crypto.
If
you
provide
a
date
and
you
don't
hit
it
on
the
dot
you
get
eaten
live
so
elisa.
Tell
us,
we've
always
gone
with
milestone,
driven
and
very
similar
to
what
you
have
here.
We
go
red,
yellow,
green.
We
say:
what's
in
progress,
we
say
what's
been
completed,
we
don't
give
dates,
we
don't
even
give
quarters,
because
people
take
the
quarter
to
mean
the
first
day
of
the
next
quarter.
C
C
A
Here's
where
faster.
Finally,
these
apps
here
are
the
wrists
as
we
see
them.
Here's
the
general
idea,
here's
you
know
progress
report
like
all
in
one.
The
idea
is
that
it's
all
in
one
page,
whereas
the
mural
board
right
now
is
now
I'm
zooming
out.
So
it's
one
page,
but
it's
actually
not
one
page,
because
I
can
expand
every
single
item.
C
A
A
B
C
J
And
the
the
to
be
clear:
dlt
is
detroit
ledger
technology,
the
new
eos
detroit
brand
and
their
worker
proposal
passed
today.
I
just
saw
a
post
during
this
call
where
so
they're
funded
to
do
that
through
the
telus
worker
proposal
system
and
they'd-
probably
be
the
best
ones
to
present.
There's
also
richard
downing
who's
kind
of
working
along
with
dlt
to
on
the
concept,
so
we
would
need
to
coordinate
with
them,
so
they
can
present
it
and
then.
C
H
A
A
J
A
A
C
B
A
The
next
item
we
already
I'm
gonna,
skip
this
item,
because
we
can
finish
with
that
on
our
original
computers,
so
that's
actually
still
ongoing.
I
just
sent
out
the
message
to
say
that
we
will
send
out
the
rfps
and
the
formal
rfps
for
those
items
and
also
I'll
move
that
to
next
week
and
ted
jeff
to
create
rfps
for
each
of
the
20
priorities.
A
A
So
we
just
to
confirm-
because
I
guess
I'm
the
one
kind
of
in
the
middle
doing
the
back
and
forth
discussion
is
the
is
the
idea
that
I
will
go
back
to
ultra
and
say
that
any
contribution
that
they
would
want
to
make
would
be
a
voluntary,
essentially
donation
too,
and
we
would
include
them
in
the
faster
finality
group
regardless.
But
we're
not
talking
about
membership
at
this
stage.
Is
that
correct.
B
A
B
A
J
Yeah
and
I
didn't
respond
in
the
diagram
because
I
saw
other
people
say
what
I
meant
to
say
but
yeah.
I
think
the
ship
has
left
the
harbor.
Everybody
was
on
the
dock
when
it
left
and
they
just
spray
on
the
dock,
and
you
know
we
gotta
do
a
little
sea
trial
at
the
very
least
before
we
go
back
and
welcome
people
back
on
board.
We're
out
here
trying
to
you
know,
learn
the
ropes
of
of
the
coalition
for
like
a
season
whatever
that
is
so
yeah.
J
A
D
A
B
No,
I
I
it
makes
sense
essentially
like
what
would
I
guess
would
probably
make
the
most
sense.
Is
we
recompute
that
table?
Let's
say
the
way
we've
done
it,
but
with
ultra
in
the
calculation
and
then
whatever
like
percentage.
We
we
end
up
with
once
we
spec
out
like
faster
finality
and
how
much
budget
goes
towards
that
by
by
answering
a
proposal
for
people,
we
can
essentially
calculate
what
their
proportion
would
be,
and
that
would
end
up
being
essentially
what
we
what
they
they
would
pay
to
participate
into.
A
A
B
I
mean
I
mean
yeah.
Well,
I
I'm
just
not
sure
what
you're
asking
like
if
you
want,
if
you
want
us
to
recompute
these
numbers
like
happy
to
do
that,
no
problem,
it's
just
it's
just
like
my
my
understanding
is
that
maybe
darren
was
suggesting
to
come
up
with
a
formula
to
give
them
a
proposed
contribution
or
something.
But
that's.
A
B
A
Yeah,
so
I
guess
there's
two
acts
and
items
from
this.
If,
if
we
could,
because
they
did
request,
if
we
could
just
get
darren
to
recompute
without
doing
anything
extra,
just
recompute
what
it
would
have
been
just
so
that
they
you
know
again,
but
essentially
I
don't
think
we
presented
it.
So
that's
the
thing
I
think.
A
The
last
time
we
presented
numbers
proton
was
the
fifth
one,
but
ultra
wasn't
the
fifth
one,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
and
so
they
actually
never
got
what
it
would
look
like
if
they
were
in
the
coalition
at
this
stage.
So
we
would
execute
that
number
just
to
give
it
and
then
the
second
action
item
would
be
whoever
is
the
owner
of
the
scale
of
the
scalability
plus
working
group.
If
you
could
invite
david
as
well
as
rami
into
the
group
and
then
add
them
on
the
weekly
calls.
I
C
A
Well,
so
I
thought
that
the
donation
was
somewhat
irrelevant
in
the
unless
it
is
so
I'm
actually
seeking
clarification,
even
if
they
did
do
a
donation,
would
we
invite
them
in
the
scalability
plus
working
group
just
to
to
participate
and
listen
in
on
the
calls,
because
they've
shown
an
interest
in
it.
If
the
answer
is
no,
then
I
I
I
would
say
the
floor
makes
sense,
but
if
the
answer
is
yes,
then
the
donation
could
be
a
dollar.
It's
just
you're
cheap
if
you're
giving
a
dollar,
but
thank
you.
C
I
thought
it
was:
they
only
got
to
they
got
to
actively
participate
in
faster
finality,
since
they
were
interested
in
that
like
they
got
to
have
a
voice
if
they
made
a
floor-based
donation
and
then
they
can
se
anyone's
allowed
to
sit
in
scalability
plus
we
invited
all
the
chains
and
they
haven't
even
come
to
these
calls.
We've
made
all
these
calls
open
now
and
they're,
not
even
showing
up.
J
I'd
say
you
know
I
personally
kind
of
suggested
that
at
this
point
any
amount
of
money
doesn't
necessarily
get
you
a
vote,
but
we've
kind
of
established
that
everybody's
welcome
to
come
have
a
voice
as
long
as
you're.
You
know
contributing
in
a
healthy
manner,
and
you
know
not
really
disrupting
the
flow.
You
know
all
chains
are
welcome
to
join,
participate,
observe
you
know
their
ideas,
but
then,
when
it
comes
to
like
votes
we've,
that's
that
ship
sailed
right,
but
yeah
we're
not
we're
not
going
to
ignore
people
that
have
you
know
I
would.
J
A
B
I
mean
what
what
what
I
originally
proposed
and
since
we're
it
seems
we're
not
necessarily
like
exactly
man.
Just
I'm
just
gonna
repro
propose
it
again
because
I
think
it
solves
all
of
the
issues
is
essentially
they
can
make
whatever
donation
that
they
want.
Doesn't
no
floor
necessarily
or
anything
like
that.
However,
if
they
want
to,
you
know
like
have
some
sort
of
say
how
we
implement
it.
Then
we
treat
it
as
a
commercial
decision.
B
The
chain,
the
the
coalition
basically
looks
at
what
ultra's
proposing
if
they're
saying
like.
Oh,
can
you
just
like?
Do
that
little
thing?
That's
not
gonna
cost
you
anything,
and
it's
going
to
like
make
it's
going
to
work
with
our
implementation.
Then
probably
we're
going
to
be
okay,
no
problem,
even
if
the
nation
is
small,
if
they
ask
us
to
do
like
something,
that's
completely
out
of
our
way,
but
they're
willing
to
drop
a
million
bucks.
For
that
thing
to
be
done
sure
we
will
consider
it.
So
that's
that
that
was
my
opinion.
B
My
opinion
was
was
more
like
we
invite
them
they
they
they
get
to
to
listen
to
it.
If
they
have
any
specific
requests,
they
can,
they
can
voice
them,
and
then
we
decide
whether
or
not
it's
we
want
to
do
it
and
if,
if
they
want
to
give
a
donation
to
to
kind
of
help
nudge
us
in
the
right
direction,
I
guess
like
we're
open
to
it.
J
It's
it's
it's
a
fair
point.
I
would
hope
we
just
need
to
talk
to
them,
see
what
they
want.
Really
yeah,
like
you
know
we
should
be.
We
should
be
very
clear
like
if,
if
there's
something
that's
reasonable,
like
we're,
designing
something
and
somebody
that's
not
donating
anything
is
not
part
of
the
coalition,
but
represents
a
chain
that
you
know
is
using
the
software
and
they
say
hey.
J
If
you
do
it
that
way,
we
can't
take
advantage
of
it
that
breaks
us.
But
here's
to
your
point
something
simple
that
you
could
just
do
it
slightly
different
and
it
would
work
for
us
yeah.
Then
we
should
just
kind
of
say:
okay.
Well,
that's
fair,
we're
not
trying
to
like
box
anybody
out,
even
if
they
didn't
pay
up
or
bring
their
presence
to
these
meetings.
You
know,
as
a
coalition
member
or
whatever
we
shouldn't
box
them
out.
J
If
they
bring
something
up,
that's
reasonable.
We
should
do
it
then,
to
your
point
like
what,
if
what
they
bring
up
is
like.
Well,
that's
a
heavy
lift.
You
know
you're
the
only
one
that
needs
it
and
you
didn't.
You
know
join
the
boat
when
we
left
the
dock,
then
I
guess
at
that
point.
Maybe
we
do
have
to
discuss,
as
you
said,
a
commercial
driven,
yeah
approach.
J
A
The
only
item
is
to
add
them
into
the
group
and
then
say:
listen,
it's
a
donation
to
give
them
the
recalculated
table,
because
they've
asked
for
it
for
their
information
and
there's
nothing
else
to
do
at
this
stage
other
than
we
keep
proceeding
and
if
we'll
we'll
deal
with
whatever,
when
the
time
comes.
At
that
time,.