►
Description
The EOSIO Coalition members discuss this week's agenda covering Scalability+, project templates, Wallet+ SDK and the TOP20 item list. They also talk about the importance of quality assurance regarding RFP bids.
00:00:00 Intro
00:00:05 Beginning
00:01:31 Scalability+ Meeting time and date by All members
00:09:38 Project and Program templates by Jeff Werner
00:39:32 Wallet+ SDK Document by Jeff Werner and Aaron Cox
00:47:30 Priority TOP20 item list update by Kersten, Yves, and Jeff
00:51:50 Proposal Brand Development update - Justin and Yves
00:56:45 Scalability+ RFP bids and quality assurance by Yves and Jeff
01:16:08 Wrapping it up with the Scott Kelly Space NFT
01:17:40 END
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.
// 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
A
And
to
that
it
was
requested
that
there
be
that
function
also
added
to
the
scalability
plus
we
can
recall
either
in
the
form
of
kirsten
or
jeff,
so
that
minutes
can
be
captured,
my
rewards,
created,
etc.
To
add
some
administrative
support,
formal
administrative
support
to
that
call,
and
there
was
a
vote
that
was
taken
and
the
four
representatives
jesse
lucas,
young
and
myself
have
agreed
with
allocating
funds
towards
this.
B
B
D
B
E
Possibly
jeff
could
do
the
meeting
from
2
to
3
30
for
the
scalability
plus
jeff.
Would
you
be
okay,
running
kind
of
a
one
of
these?
You
know
kanban
boards
of
in
a
tool
of
your
choice,
whether
it
be
one
of
the
various
tools
I
can
remember
the
trello
or
trello
or
github
projects
or
whatever
it
would.
It
would
be
hard
to
move
that
meeting,
because
that
would
mean
we'd
have
to
move
the
mandel
meeting
kirsten
I
mean
if
it
was
strongly
that
you
joined
we
could
just.
E
E
E
H
A
E
E
A
We
do
have
oci
that
attends
that
meeting,
so
osgi
is
now
on
a
rolling
contract
with
the
enf,
where
they
they
are
tackling
on
a
lot
of
the
issues
that
are
legacy
issues
in
eosio.
I
think
we
are
up
to
2350
or
something
like
that
and
we're
just
rolling
them
off
one
by
one
by
one,
alongside
the
other
priorities
and
and
such,
and
so
that
that's
really
the
benefit
to
everybody.
So
if,
if
other
chains,
even
if
it's
just
one
representative,
maybe
more
technical
in
nature
of
the
other
change,
there's
definite
value.
I
B
Every
two
weeks
would
actually
be
interesting
because
our
our
steer
co
is
bi-weekly.
So
if
we
would
manage
to
do
that
any
other
week
and
jeff
you
do
you
don't
have
the
resource
to
to
join.
In
that
we
we
could
find
a
find
an
agreement
to
do
to
do
that.
That
should
be
possible
on
a
bi-weekly
basis,
so
are.
B
E
B
Good
we
we
had
a
meeting
this
week,
jeff
ted
and
I
actually
jeff
and
I
met
twice
to
discuss
about
templates
and
the
way
we
would
report
on
the
on
the
actual
portfolio,
which
is
the
combination
of
all
programs
and
the
programs
and
the
projects
inside
the
programs.
So
so
maybe
we
can
pick
this
up
as
an
agenda
point
jeff.
Would
you
like
to
maybe
share
share
your
screen
to
show
those
documents
because
they're
obviously
made
by
you?
H
This
quick
overview
scorecard,
you
know,
I'm
sure
most
of
you
have
seen
this.
We
grouped
the
projects
into
their
program
components,
in
other
words,
api
plus,
is
a
program
that
currently
has
four
projects
that
are
going
to
be
in
various
states.
In
this
case,
transaction
life
cycle
is
a
project.
That's
actually
almost
done.
That's
oci
has
been
working
on
that,
but
the
other
three
projects
are
still
in
the
rfp
development
phase.
H
Looking
at
this,
what
we
will
do
is
in
a
gray
color.
We
will
project
out
planned
schedules
once
the
project
starts,
and
you
know,
depending
on
the
team,
some
teams
will
have
internal
project
managers
who
can
do
that
on
their
own,
in
other
cases,
kirsten
or
myself,
or
maybe
an
external
project
manager
can
assist
with
that,
but
come
up
with
a
schedule
that
has
appropriate
milestones
that
we
can
check
the
progress
of
and
report
back
now
each
program
will
kind
of
have
a
breakdown
of
whoops.
H
This
call
is
not
a
steering
committee
for
every
project
and
program
out
there.
That's
what
the
working
group
meetings
would
be
for,
but
this
is
we're
reporting
status
back
to
you
and,
if
there's
any
major
issues
that
would
delay
anything
across
getting
the
benefits
out
for
these
programs
that
would
show
up
on
this
screen.
H
H
H
B
So
you
don't
have
to
work
with
license
software
licenses
and
everything,
and
it
is
also
a
case
that
most
of
the
project
teams
will
have
their
own
tools
they're
working
with
and
and
they
will
obviously
use
github
with
a
lot
of
its
functionality.
So
we
decided
against
a
solution
like
gyra
trello
whatev.
What
have
you
to
manage
these
kind
of
things
while
it
would
be
nice
to
have
like
a
burn
down
child
and
all
those
nice
statistics?
B
We
think
that's
at
this
at
this
point
of
time
is
overdone
to
do
this
and
with
this
kind
of
reporting
we
should
be.
We
should
be
well
well
aligned
to
kind
of
manage
those
projects
as
they
flow
in
it's
obviously
a
key
point.
There
will
be
the
project
management
resources
which
we
think
we
might
still
need
some
additional
capacity
to
manage
this
at
some
point
of
time,
and
and
obviously
there
is
one
person
joining
enf
as
far
as
I
I
hear.
B
Finally,
a
lady,
wonderful
and
we
we
are
in
towels,
we
are
in
progress
to
hire
a
product
manager,
so
that
role
could
possibly
also
take
some
of
that
responsibility
if,
if
required-
but
I
I
I
would
think
that
there
might
be
some
some
some
bottlenecks
within
the
project
and
program
management
for
those
big
programs.
So
that's
that's
kind
of
the
the
point,
but
as
a
tool,
I
love
this.
It's
it's
easy
to
handle
it's
easy
to
manage.
Everybody
has
excel
or
google
sheets.
E
And
to
add
to
that,
the
teams
that
are
actually
working,
whether
they
be
you
know,
the
api
life
cycle
under
oci
happen
to
do
everything
in
jira
and
that's
great,
but
they
already
have
sheets
like
jeff
showed
jeff
showed
their
actual
sheet.
So
this
is
a
process
that
we've
been
working
because
we
found
with
the
working
groups
that
are
working
with
the
enf
today
they're
using
notion
they're
using
trello
they're
using
you
know,
asana
and
monday,
and
every
if
you've
ever
heard
of
the
tool
they're
using
it,
and
there
was
no
way
to
convince
everyone.
E
Oh
here,
if
you're
going
to
work
at
the
enfp
or
you're
going
to
work
with
the
you
know,
force
consortium,
you
have
to
move
to
this
tool
and
instead
we
just
said:
look
we'll
use
your
tool,
do
what
you
really
feel
most
comfortable
with,
but
just
give
this
update
sheet.
So
I
think
you
know
that
we've
found
that
it
has
worked
nicely
and
it
is
nice
that
it's
just
google
sheets
and
everything
I
did
have.
Oh,
we
also
have
a
product
person
starting
may
31st,
so
that
person
can
also
help
as
well.
E
That
was
already
our
intention
that
they'd
help
you
know
write
some
of
these
rfps
etc.
But
you
know
this
is
this
is
the
biggest
area
and
we
would
probably
have
them
start
to
come
in
and
work
on
this.
The
last
question
I
had
jeff
was:
you
had
mentioned
that
things
would
be
under
the
working
group,
and
my
understanding
is
that
working
groups
have
kind
of
eased
back
now,
and
so
you
know
eve,
do
you
still
see
like
the
api
working
group
or
the
core?
The
core
plus
is
not
really
in
there.
E
If
you
notice
it
had
one
item,
and
that
was
contract
page
that
will
pull
aside
but
api
and
wallet
and
audit.
If
there
were
things
that
were
going
a
little
bit
astray,
would
they
would
that
those
working
groups
still
be
doing
that
or
what
would
we
use?
As
that,
I
thought
you
would
mention
that
to
me
before.
A
The
way
that
I
that
I
see
it
so
those
working
groups
have
since
said
the
I
guess
the
we
could
go
back
to
the
original
authors
and
ask,
but
essentially
their
their
job
has
been
done.
The
compensation
that
they
received
has
already
gone
out,
and
so,
if
we
wanted
to
be
engaged,
then
we
would
need
to
engage
in
a
new
contractor.
A
A
One
is:
there
was
no
over
complication
of
leveraging
other
tools
and
such
we
are
still
so
small
as
an
organization
like
talking
about
having
licenses
and
using
particular
software
just
use
the
free
stuff,
and
we
have
so
few
items
to
tackle
on
anyways
right
now.
I'm
really
happy
you
guys
went
in
that
direction.
A
A
K
Yeah
I
like
it
too,
to
to.
I
can
echo
a
lot
of
that.
You
know
I'm
sorry,
I
missed
last
last
week's
call,
but
I
I
had
you
know,
encouraged
everyone
to
sort
of
keep
it
simple
stupid
and
you
know
not
overdo
it
and
and
remember
that
the
people
we
have
in
charge
of
each
of
these
things
are
going
to
be
people
who
are
very
competent.
K
Who
get
things
done?
You
know
get
things
done.
I
think
none
of
us
would
be
here
if
we
didn't
do
that,
so
we
don't
need
nobody
needs
a
lot
of
hand
holding,
and
I
think
this
is
a
great
way
to
do
it.
I
saw
you
know
that
I
don't
think
we
should.
You
know,
be
dictating
things
just
as
everybody
agreed,
and
this
lets
us
move
forward
and
then
yeah
eve
to
your
point.
I
think
that
we
have
all
probably
seen.
K
As
many
technical
projects,
you
know
go
astray
from
lack
of
proper
prac
program
management
and
project
management
as
from
like
pure
technical
stuff,
so
maybe
even
more
so
I
think
it's
a
great
framework-
and
I
just
encourage
us
to
you-
know-
to
move
forward
like
good.
Well
done
everybody!
You
know
this
is
awesome.
Let's
move
forward
with
this
and
then
and
keep
getting
stuff
done.
H
You
know
we're
working,
obviously,
as
fast
as
we
can,
I
would
encourage
the
people
who
are
involved
with
the
rfps
to
respond
on
the
group
chats
as
quickly
as
possible,
so
we
minimize
delays
in
the
commenting
and
voting
and
so
forth
the
five
that
are
marked
green.
I
have
a
much
higher
confidence
that
we
will
have
the
rfps
complete
and
out
for
bid
by
the
end
of
the
month.
H
F
K
B
D
B
Okay,
yep
good,
so
one
thing
that
we
also
discussed,
because
this
is
obviously
the
technical
and
the
project
management
perspective
and
what
I,
what
I
showed
to
to
jeff
was
the
approach
that
we
recently
took
on
telus
to
kind
of
give
a
more
like
easy,
digestible
snapshot
of
what's
been
working
on.
That's
like
the
core
development
updates
that
we
issue
on
a
bi-weekly
basis
so,
and
we
we
do
split
those
into
kind
of
two
pieces
that
would
actually
brendon
would
probably
love
to
see.
B
Those
things
is
is
having
like
a
status
report
by
each
program
or
project,
depending
on
how
detailed
we
want
to
be,
I
think,
for
the
initial
part.
Obviously,
the
program
level
would
be
interesting,
having
like
a
brief
description
of
the
top
five
six
seven
items
short
a
little
icon
next
to
it.
So
so
we
choose
like
done
progress
untouched.
New
requirement,
delay,
obviously
no
delays
at
all
so
and
then
have
that
as
the
status
with
some
comments,
which
would
be
like
external
communication.
B
H
Let
me
say
one
thing
to
add
a
little
more
color
to
this,
so
we
believe
one
of
the
biggest
challenges
in
general
with
program
management
is
correct.
Communication
a
lot
of
times
a
lot
of
great
work
goes
on,
but
if
the
right
people
are
not
getting
information
that
creates
a
lot
of
problems
in
a
normal,
centralized
organization,
you
would
say
all
right:
are
we
communicating
with
the
executive
tier
frequently
enough?
Are
we
communicating
with
the
steering
committee
frequently
enough?
Are
we
communicating
with
individual
contributors
and
then
the
outside
world
is
normally
handled
by?
H
You
know
some
marketing
communications
team,
if
necessary
in
our
distributed
world,
it's
a
little
bit.
Well,
it's
actually
a
lot
a
bit
different
by
design,
and
so
we
were
trying
to
make
sure
that
we
are
communicating
appropriately
the
same
information,
but
we
also
realize
that
something
like
a
nine
box
or
project
status
report.
That's
like
too
heavy-handed
for
people
who
are
not
in
the
mists
trying
to
solve
the
problem,
and
so
that
really
was
the
context
and
kirsten
pulled
this
up,
and
you
know
that's,
I
think
what
we're
proposing
is.
H
Can
we
use
this
to
say
all
right?
We
will
work
with
the
communications
people
to
make
sure
the
information's
right
the
communications
people
could
use
this
on
some
sort
of
frequency
to
make
sure
that
we
as
a
whole
are
communicating
what's
going
on
with
wallet
what's
going
on
with
scalability,
what's
going
on
with
api.
H
I
would
suggest
zach
and
brandon
own
it
and
populate
it,
but
it's
like
a
communication
like
we
could
probably
even
set
up
like
a
a
half
an
hour
meeting,
so
that
is
we're
talking
through
it
because
you
know
brandon
and
zach
they're
going
to
be
able
to
write
things
in
a
much
more
palatable
way.
You
don't
ever
want
me
writing
communication
that,
like
I'm
the
most
boring
person
to
read
right
so
just
the
facts,
just
the
facts.
G
You
know
lead
for
lack
of
any
specific
person
that
might
be
able
to
fill
that
role,
and
I
thought
it'd
be
better
to
have
the
individual
teams
kind
of
communicating
what
they,
what
they
want,
highlighted
that
they've
contributed
to
what
those
things
are.
So
this
this
could
fit
into
that.
I'm
just
wondering
like
how
the
information
gets
like
do
we
go
to
the
information
and
retrieve
it
and
stick
it
in
here
or
or
can
we
do
something
where?
G
Because
the
teams
know
best
what
they're
up
to
and
so
for
my
vantage
point,
it
seems
like
if
they
could
populate
something
like
this
with.
You
know
like
a
bulleted
list
of
the
stuff
that
they've
been
working
on
over
the
past
cycle,
and
then
we
could
grab
that
and
pop
it
into
our.
You
know
bi-weekly
communications.
That
would
be
awesome,
but
I'm
not
sure
if
I'm
understanding
what
you're.
H
So
my
initial
thought
is:
we're
already
asking
the
teams
to
do
a
lot
anyway,
and
I've
noticed
that
with
the
rfp
process
I
mean,
if
you
think
about
it.
The
rfp
itself
is
like
once
we're
done
with
this.
We
could
give
you
money
and
even
that
is
like
getting
lost
because
there's
so
much
work
going
on,
but
our
project
management
hats
were
already
collating
a
lot
of
this
information
through
the
status
report
up
to
the
program
level.
I
think
it
might
be
like
pretty
easy.
H
If,
like
we
just
have
like
a
weekly
meeting
with
you,
I
mean
it
could
be
you
and
I
to
be
to,
and
I
can
just
go
through
stuff
and
then
you
can
say:
okay,
that
looks
good.
This
looks
good
and
try
it,
and
if
we
find
ways
to
improve
it,
you
know
let's
try
it.
Let's
just
do
it
and
see
what
works
right
and
then
we
can
improve
it
as
we
go
along.
E
I
think
the
meeting
is
good.
That
way,
you
you
know
kirsten
and
jeff
can
bring
the
nine
box
to
you.
That's
got
everything
in
it
plus
the
score
card
right
and
they
bring
that
to
you
and
then
you've
got
that
template,
knowing
you're
going
to
try
to
make
pros
out
of
it
and
they're
showing
you
like.
This
is
what's
going
on
on
this
one
and
you're
writing
that
in
a
more
palatable
form,
that
would
be
publicized
in
a
report
or
something,
but
they
they
know
what
all
that
is
that
way.
B
Yeah
makes
sense.
What
I
tend
to
do
is
is
ask
the
people
that
are
working
on
this,
to
give
me
like
five
bullet
points,
just
on
telegram
or
teams
or
wherever
and
then
just
bullets,
and
then
I
will
rephrase
them
and
and
put
them
into
the
document
so,
but
having
that
giving
to
to
brandon
and
zach
would
obviously
relieve
the
people
that
are
doing
the
actual
programming
work
of
doing
yet.
B
B
G
H
G
We've
been
on
the
bi-weekly
pace
so
far
and
with
what
I've
been
able
to
pull
out.
Bi-Weekly
works
really
well,
but
if
the
volume
of
information
starts
to
get,
you
know
like
there's
that
much
more
information
because
we're
better
at
getting
it
then
maybe
a
weekly
would
be
better.
But
I'd
say
for
now:
let's
just
stick
with
the
bi-weekly
and
see
if
we
like
it.
A
B
I
would
propose
by
weekly
because
the
worst
thing
we
can
do
is
kind
of
send
out
one
thing
every
week,
because
we
have
to
send
it
every
week
and
it
it's
not
much
movement
in
those
files.
It
kind
of
you
compare
them
and
it's
always
the
same
topics.
Then
then
people
won't
read
it
anymore,
so
I
I
would.
I
would
propose
to
go
on
a
to
b,
weekly
or
bi-weekly
schedule.
B
K
B
G
B
G
B
H
Aaron,
do
you
want
me
to
take
that
sure?
I
was
yeah,
it's
it's
basically
done,
but
we
are
waiting
for
all
of
the
members
inside
the
wallet
group
wallet
plus
group
to
essentially
vote
on
it
thumbs
up
from
aaron's
point
of
view,
he's
already
given
multiple
layers
of
feedback,
it's
all
in
there
and
I
believe
everything
from
aaron's
point
of
view
is
good
to
go.
So
we're
looking
for
additional
confirmation.
J
A
A
A
K
Yeah,
absolutely
so
so
I
don't
therefore,
there's
not
really
much
reason
to
wait
forever.
Even
if
we
somehow
jumped
the
gun,
you
know
he
could
still
come
back
and
present
to
us.
So
I
just
say:
if
we
haven't
heard
from
him,
you
know
I
happen
to
know.
You
know
that
or
or
I
happen
to
believe,
that
I've
seen
he's
pretty
pretty
busy
right
now.
You
know
just
in
our
own
personal
conversations,
so
I
I
don't
think
we
need
to
to
you
know,
wait
he'll
he'll
get
back
to
us.
K
A
H
One
thing
we
do
need
to
I'd
like
some
guidelines
is
once
the
working
group
says
great
rfp
looks
good,
go
present
it.
How
would
you
guys
like
me
to
do
that?
Would
you
like
me
to
just
post
it
into
the
telegraph
channel?
Do
you
want
it
formally
presented
in
this
meeting
kind
of
thing,
and
I'm
not
just
talking
about
this
one,
I'm
talking
about
all
of
them
as
they're
ready
to
be
reviewed
at
this
level.
A
So
I
would
rather
we
post
in
advance
and
then
we
can
vote
as
to
whether
or
not
it's
ready
in
in
this
group
after
people
have
had
time
to
review
and
likewise
once
we're
ready
to
review
the
bids.
We
review
the
bids
prior
to
the
meeting.
So
all
the
work
happens
outside
of
this
meeting
and
really
the
questions
and
and
final
voting
happens
at
this
meeting.
That'll
be
my
my
opinion.
B
B
Okay,
so
that's
that
point
yeah,
so
what
you
probably
just
recognized
is
that
I
added
another
another
board
here,
because
I,
as
I
mentioned
last
time,
I
was
getting
more
and
more
confused
with
all
the
comments
about
various
blue
papers
and
executive
summaries
and
rfp
documents.
So
I
created
a
new
one
for
this
one
here
and
separated
it
by
the
different
programs
and
added
like
different
statuses,
like
it's
actually
blue
paper,
like
review
of
blue
paper
approval
of
blue
paper.
B
Obviously
those
are
all
in
that
state
except
the
the
ad
hoc
items.
Then
we
have
like
the
creation
of
the
exact
reduced
summaries,
the
rfp
creation,
rfp
review,
presentation,
approval
and
then
move
into
vendor
selection,
contract
negotiation
and
approval.
Obviously
we
can
add
some
more
status
columns
here
if
we
want
to,
but
I
that's
the
like
the
columns
that
I
I
could
imagine
when
I
created
this
earlier
today.
B
Okay,
so
I
just
guessed
that
support
for
supporting
letters
because
we
moved
this
over
to
the
other
board.
I
will
put
this
as
done
the
prior
top
20
items
list.
I
haven't
been
able
to
kind
of
work
through
that
to
look
at
the
different
statuses.
I
will
do
that
afterwards,
then
and
amend
that
here.
So
in
regard
of
the
items
five
and
ten
guillaume
is
there
anything
you've
been
able
to
kind
of
finalize
on
those.
D
A
C
Yeah,
that's
my
that's
my
understanding
as
well
in
general,
because
originally
we
said
that
the
I
guess,
like
the
the
coalition,
would
probably
tackle
we.
We
have
these
20
priority
items,
but
we
said
it's
probably
realistic
to
think
we'll
tackle.
I
think
we
said
between
five
and
eight
in
the
first
year.
I
think
so
like
that
was
ted's
comment
and
I
agree
so
it
makes
sense
to
kind
of
like
I
guess,
progress
a
little
bit
more
a
lot.
C
B
H
H
A
B
B
So
this
is
what
is
written
in
chat,
so
we
we
have
that
update.
So
in
regard
of
the
the
other
items,
is
there
anything
that
you
would
like
to
share
where
we
have
been
progressing?
Obviously,
everybody's
waiting
for
the
brand
brand
development,
but
justin,
unfortunately,
is
having
covet
and
is
it
doesn't
feel?
Well,
that's.
K
K
All
of
us
on
that
seem
to
have
very
similar
responses
to
one
of
the
four
and
they'll
be
getting
us
some,
some
information
back
on
that
the
prior
week
we
spoke
about
name
types,
not
a
list
of
names,
but
but
the
accomplishments
that
we
would
try
we're
trying
to
do
with
names,
and
we
keep
some
really
good
stuff.
I
think,
and-
and
so
I
think
we
are
waiting
just
for
for
the
brand
firm
to
come
back
to
us
with
both
of
those
things
and
that
we
are
moving
quickly.
A
I
believe
so
I
believe
now
that
we're
waiting
on
on
the
studio
to
get
back
to
us
with
the
the
final
three
type
of
thing
based
on
the
two
last
calls
that
we've
had,
and
I
would
imagine
that
we'll
get
that
next
week
and
then
from
there
we'll
probably
provide
some
some
feedback,
then
maybe
go
back
at
it,
maybe
once
more
so
we'd
be
presenting.
I
think
right
in
the.
K
K
They
wanted
to
make
sure
that
the
we
generally
liked
that
before
they
did
their
full,
you
know
level
one
level,
two
sort
of
trademark
search
and
whatnot,
so
they
don't
end
up
doing
that
on
every
you
know
on
everything,
but
that's
that's
kind
of
why
I
thought
three
weeks.
I
thought
they'd
get
back
to
us
something
this
week-ish
we'd
get
them
feedback,
they
they'd
come
back
with
something
a
little
more
dialed
in
and
then
and
then
either
that
or
one
more
meeting
would
get
us
to
what
we
would
be
presenting.
K
Yeah,
that
would
be
great.
I
think
I
think
this
is
you
know
we
may
be
off
by
a
week
in
either
way,
but
I
would
say
three
weeks
plus
you
know
I
think,
we're
still
very
much
on
track
for
three
weeks
plus
or
minus
for
this
group
to
be
making
you
know
be
hearing
what
what
we've
come.
You
know
what
the
work
group
has
put
together,
so
I
think
that's
at
least
reasonable.
I
don't
think
I
don't
think
it's
going
to
be
too
far.
B
G
B
B
A
Yes,
I
believe
this
is
new.
I
think
it's
after
last
thursday,
I
mentioned
that
in
the
audit
plus
group
that
slomus
had
declined
to
bid
and
that
sentinel
had
shown
interest
in
bidding
in
the
two
items
that
were
selected
by
this
group.
Since
then,
sentinel
has
informed
that
they
will
not
be
bidding
as
they
don't
have.
The
capacity
and
therefore
the
audit
plus
items
that
were
selected
in
this
room
will
all
be
going
to
open
tender
by
default
and
jeff.
I
believe,
that's
already
in
the
there.
K
Can
I
ask
you
a
question
eve:
yeah
go
for
it
yeah
another
one,
because
I
just
because
the
first
one
was
a
question.
I
guess
so
this
question
of.
Thank
you.
Thanks
for
the
answer
question
number
two
is
when
we
were
going
primarily
to
the
to
the
authors
of
these
of
the
blue
papers.
There
was
no
not
really
much
reason
to
worry
about
quality,
but
now
that
we're
going
to
open
tender,
I
you
know
I
audit
is
a
great
example
of
of
you
know.
K
Not
just
anyone
can
do
it
and
even
some
people
who
have
good
to
be
honest,
even
some
people
have
companies
that
have
good
or
well-known
names,
especially
in
auditing,
are
not,
in
my
view,
not
actually
very
good,
not
good
enough
to
be
worth
paying
for.
So
I
guess
my
question
is:
do
we
thought
about
like
how
are
we
going
to
what's
our
process
going
to
be
for
for
determining
sort
of
a
minimum
required?
K
You
know
quality
on
on
on
some
of
these
things.
I'd
hate
to
have
somebody
put
together,
a
a
big.
You
know
a
proposal
and
then
especially,
if
there's
not
very
many
proposals
and
then
for
us
to
go,
you
know
what
thanks,
but
that's,
not
you're,
not
good
enough
and
when
other-
and
I
even
more
not
want
to
see
us
have
have,
you
know,
have
very
few
come
in
and
say
and
say
well,
these
are
the
three
that
we've
got
to
choose
from.
K
If
none
of
them
are
good
enough,
because
there's
certain
there's
a
lot
of
things,
we
do
that
require
technical
excellence
or
nothing.
We
might
as
well
not
spend
money
on
it.
So
have
you
have
we
thought
about
that
or
have?
Has
anybody
talked
about
that
or
what?
What
do
people
think
about
how
we,
how
we
dictate
a
certain
level
of
of
technical
excellence
you
know
and
and
what?
If,
if
we
can't
find
those
you
know,
are
we
gonna?
K
How
are
we
gonna
decide
whether
to
you
know,
go
with
those
who
have
who
have
you
know
made
a
you
know
made
a
tender
versus
versus
determining
you
know.
If
something
is
so
so
important
that
we
can't
just
give
it
to
anybody,
that's
kind
of
a
concern
I
see
coming
up
and
based
on
what
you
were
talking
about
and
and
well
I
figured
I'd,
probably
explained
it
to
death.
So.
A
H
H
So
from
that
point
of
view,
we're
safe,
but
then
it
becomes
these
the
process
of
all
right.
How
do
we
decide
what
is
good
enough?
Now?
There's
a
big
big
scale
right.
You
were
talking
earlier.
I
think
we
all
agree
that
we
don't
want
to
over
complicate
processes
that
we
don't
have
to
so
for
the
ones
right.
Now
that
we're
just
trying
to
get
out,
we
have
to
the
one
to
the
authors.
H
We
haven't
focused
as
much
on
that,
but
really
what
we
should
be
doing
for
the
ones
we
are
going
to
have
complete
strangers
is
we
should
be
looking
at
every
requirement.
We
should
take
the
time
to
weight
the
requirements
because
not
all
requirements
equal,
they
could
really
nail
the
important
one
and
not
get
a
low
hanging.
You
know
or
an
important
one,
or
vice
versa
and
then
kind
of
decide
that
we're
going
to
go
through
these
looking
at
each
requirement
separately
to
evaluate
as
cleanly
as
possible
in
terms
of
the
technical
evaluation.
H
K
That's
yeah
yeah.
I
didn't
I
didn't
want
to
interrupt.
You
yeah.
I
think
I
think
that's,
I
think,
you're.
Definitely
in
the
zone
again,
I'm
bringing
it
up
now
trying
to
bring
it
up
a
little
bit
early
because
we
don't
need
to
have
a
solid
answer
for
it,
but
I
do
see
it
becoming
something
that
we
we
want
to
start
thinking
about
a
process
around
and
what
you
described
there.
It
sounds
like
a
good
beginning
for
process.
K
You
know
it
there.
There
are
there's
some.
You
know
dangers
on
all
sides
like
we
don't
want.
If
it's
a
small
community,
we
don't
want
the
people
to
put
a
lot
of
time
into
into
proposals
that
you
know
we're
ultimately
going
to
say.
Well,
you're
not
good
enough
for
this,
because
there
might
be
something
else
that
they're
perfectly
good
enough
for,
and
we
don't
want
to
alienate
them
so
that
you
know
so
that
our
small
community
doesn't
doesn't
make
proposals.
K
So
we
don't
want
them
wasting
our
time
or
their
time,
but
yeah.
We
just
need
a
we
just,
but
we
also
don't
want
bad
people
doing
stuff.
So
I
think,
I
think
what
you
propose
is
the
right
way
to
begin
and
more
than
anything,
I
just
want
us
to
be
aware
of
it,
because
I
can
see
scenarios
where
somebody
comes
in
and
wants
to
audit
something,
and
maybe
they
have
the
right
bona
fi.
K
That's
a
that's
a
specific
area
where
I
think
a
lot
of
people
like
if
you're
one
of
us,
you
might
have
a
different,
a
different
opinion
of
who
the
really
group
you
know
the
really
trustworthy
audit
organizations
are
that
doesn't
necessarily
track
with
what
you
know.
Most
people
in
this
space
would
would
say
they've
the
ones
they've
said
they've
heard
of
so
that's
a
that's
a
special,
that's
a
special
category
for
me,
but
I
just
want
us.
K
A
I
think
you'll
also
get
a
little
bit
more
details
when
you
see
the
rfps
as
they
are
brought
up
next
week,
so
right
now,
they're
with
the
original
authors
as
kind
of
the
template
itself
for
the
rfps,
the
shell
right
say,
is
kind
of
being
refined.
So
some
of
the
things
that
you
mentioned,
which
are
really
important,
came
out
when
the
sdk
one
was
sent
to
aaron
for
review
and
certain
things
like
you
mentioned,
whereby
this
could
turn
off
people
from
submitting,
because
it's
an
overcomplicated
process
you've
seen
that
yeah.
A
So
there
were
some
questions
in
there
that
just
didn't
make
sense
at
this
stage
because,
like
you
say,
a
lot
of
the
people
that
will
be
applying
likely
are
within
our
communities
and
so
they're
already
somewhat
vetted
they're,
not
an
external
party,
and
it
was
something
like
you
know.
Can
you
give
me
the
last
five
years
of
of
financial
records
etc?
Just
doesn't
make
sense.
A
D
A
Less
relevant
or
actually
it
is
highly
relevant,
and
so
what
we've
done
is
the
current
process
and
the
rfps
will
really
lay
that
out
kind
of
is
more
lenient
on
that
front
as
it
were
smaller.
But
if,
like
jeff,
mentions
people
within
our
communities,
don't
bid
on
items,
then
the
more
astringent
process
would
go
up
because
it'd
be
truly
open
tender.
A
A
D
A
I
think,
but
the
two
other
items
that
sentinel
was
thinking
of
bidding
on
are
are
very
specific
in
terms
of
applicability
to
eos
io.
So
it's
unlikely
that
a
third
party-
that's
not
in
the
eos
o
ecosystem
would
fit
on
right
now,
and
so
that
would
likely
be
more
internal,
which
then
lowers
the
barrier.
To
who
do
we
think
can
handle
that
a
lot
of
the
teams
that
we've
been
working
with
essentially
have
been
doing
a
job
interview
for
the
last
four
years.
So
the
likelihood
that
you'd
say
listen.
K
K
Yes,
I
fully
agree.
I
think
that
I
think
that
we
should
that
a
two-tier
sort
of
discovery
process
seems
to
make
sense
just
because
you
know
either
the
people.
Those
are
going
to
be
people
who
are
the
authors
themselves
and,
or
you
know,
or
because
they're
going
to
be
people
who
you
know
a
lot
of
us
have
worked
with
closely.
A
They'll
be
linked
to
one
of
these
four
groups
right
beyonce
right,
that's
my
thinking!
The
talent
pool
out
there
is
relatively
small,
but
I'm
thinking
that
the
majority
of
these
priorities
at
the
onset
anyways
will
be
bid
either
internally
by
the
people
within
the
coalition,
or
you
know,
at
arm's
length
of
people
within
the
coalition.
A
G
A
K
Of
us
yeah
we
should
we
should
grow
that
just
don't
think
we're
there.
Yet,
no
we're
not.
I
agree
very
much
we're
we're.
We
should
grow
the
talent
pool.
I
think
that
there's
there's
a
a
small
worry
about
optics
people
outside,
not
really
understanding
this
saying:
oh
they
just
giving
work
to
themselves
when
the
reality,
when
our
our
valid
response
would
be
we'd
love
to
give
it
to
more
people
yeah
we.
You
know
this
is
pretty
special
stuff,
so
that's
to
be
expected.
A
I
mean
the
way
that
we
do
this
as
well.
Right
now
is
everything
is
recorded,
like
this
call
right
now.
Everything
is
then
published,
so
the
process
itself
is
quite
transparent
right.
I
think
within
the
current
misfortune
of
the
last
couple
days,
or
so,
there
is
opportunity,
though,
because
we've
actually
put
two
million
dollars
in
a
treasury
that
now
is
worth
less
than
that
if
we
hadn't
done
so
a
few
weeks
back,
yeah.
A
Concrete
funds
that
will
be
deployed
for
these
items,
and
so
people
now
are
potentially
looking
for
more
work
right
and
we've
kind
of
secured
our
treasury.
So
I
think
we're
really
really
well
positioned
to
be
able
to
with
open
arms
accommodate
more
developers.
Ideally,
I
think
we're
like
we
could
come
out
of
this
much
stronger
than
we
entered
this
for
sure
at
an
excellent
accelerated
pace
that
I
thought
would
happen
due
to
external
factors.
K
K
A
A
So
also,
this
is
this
kind
of
pilot
slash
we're
still
in
beta
phase
right
of
this
process,
so
I
think,
we'll
also
grow
as
a
coalition
in
terms
of
the
process,
internal
processes
of
how
do
we
even
review
the
rfps
who's,
the
one
that
you
know
reviews
a
little
bit
more,
especially
when
they're
very,
very
technical?
How
do
we
then
determine
how
each
of
us
votes,
and
what
are
we
comfortable
with
to
say?
Yes,
I'm
good
with
this,
and
then
yes,
I'm
good
with
assigning
this
bid.
A
B
A
A
B
A
B
B
Okay,
so
I
think
we
we've
covered
most
of
the
topics
we
for
the
next
week.
We
have
this
action
plan
updated.
I
I
will
work
on
that
with
with
jeff,
so
so
that's
kind
of
have
have
that
visualization.
That
will
also
remove
some
of
the
complexity
from
this
board.
Is
there
anything
else
that
you
would
like
to
cover
any
detailed
discussion?
We've
lost
some
people
already
so
we're
down
to
eight.
C
A
C
I'm
considering
doing
that
as
well,
obviously
like
if
we,
if
we
if
we
were
to
consider
them
one
in
the
same.
We
also
need
to-
I
guess,
like
add
elements
to-
I
guess
the
the
deliverables
of
the
fa
of
the
trustless
ibc
to
the
faster
finality
and
and
it's
it's
already
kind
of
almost
getting
there,
because
one
of
the
like
some
of
the
latest
comments
by
eric
have
to
do.
I
mean
with
with
like
clients
and
typically
like
clients.
C
A
I
think
maybe
there's
value
in
having
two
separate
ones
yeah,
but
it
just
means
more
work
on
the
rfp
front,
but
it
would
really
make
it
distinct
and
I
think
it
would
highlight
as
well
what
the
cost
of
one
is
versus
the
other
right,
seeing
as
in
your
case.
Actually
this
is
kind
of
intellectual
property
that
you
guys
already
have
built.