►
Description
You can follow the documentation of this stuff here:
https://github.com/eosnetworkfoundation/eosio-plus/blob/main/subgroups/Governance-Systems/readme.md
A
I
may
need
some
help
when
it
comes
to
the
point
of
okay,
tell
it
to
stop
recording
or
something
but
okay,
so
jumping
back
in
kind
of
the
first
question
is:
who
are
the
members
that
can
vote
or
rank?
One
of
the
things
we'll
be
doing
is
not
just
voting
like
yes
or
no
we'll
be
ranking.
You
know
here
are
eight
things
inside
the
wallet
api.
I
mean
the
wallet
blue
paper,
which
of
these
eight
do,
we
think,
is
the
most
important
which
do
we
think
is
the
least.
B
B
We
currently
actually
only
run
seven,
which
means
that,
if
we're
voting
by
number
of
bps,
then
ultra
is
already
at
a
disadvantage.
Unless
we
have
like
some
more
complicated
calculations
about
you
know,
we
divide
up
governance
tokens
by
bps,
or
something
like
that
which
I
I
don't
think
is
is
a
good
idea.
I
think
that
we
should.
B
A
Either
the
point
I'm
trying
to
make
is:
we
need
to
have
a
bucket
of
people
that
we're
discussing
so
like
what
I
don't
want
to
do
is
say.
Oh
we're,
gonna
have
five
people
from
eos
nation
voting
and
you
know
because
they're
all
engaged
and
they're
all
in
the
meetings
like.
Maybe
they
should
coordinate
what
they
want.
So
I'm
trying
to
like
get
buckets
of
entities
of
engaged
parties
instead
of
just
I
think,
gets
to
vote.
I
mean
that
would
be
one
way
to
do
it
right.
B
B
I'm
saying
like
x,
number
of
votes
and
then
like
we
could
decide
on
how
that
works,
because
there's
some
considerations
about
like
if
somebody
is
sick.
If
there's
a
catastrophic
accident,
you
know
like
those
kinds
of
things
they
have
to
be
considered
within.
You
know
the
context
of
voting
on
potentially
tens
of
millions
of
dollars.
C
B
The
chain
it
should
be
up
to
the
chain.
Part
of
what
I
was
thinking
about
was
that
that
selection
process
of
like
internally
that's
actually
like
a
piece
of
discrete
software,
which
should
be
probably
built
as
in
an
open
source
manner.
And
if
you
want
to
run
it
on
your
chain,
then
you
can
use
that
to
decide.
You
know
who
your
representatives
are
and
then
like
in
cases
like
ultra
or
wax
or
private
chain,
etc
they
are
going
to
have
their
own
preferences
internally
according
to
their
hierarchy.
A
Right,
well,
we
have
some
people
like
eos
nation
that
are
block
producers
on
multiple
chains
right,
so
they
obviously
are
contributing
a
lot
into
this
process.
There's
a
lot
of
their
members
in
these.
In
these
meetings
they
would
have
to
either
get
you're
saying
be
nominated
as
one
of
the
end
votes
for
one
of
the
chains
or
they
possibly
wouldn't
be
included.
And
that's
that's
my
one
concern.
There
are
people
here
that
are
maybe
not
as
affiliated
to
one
chain
versus
the
other.
They
run
on
multiple
chains
right.
B
And
I
I
suppose
like
for,
for
those
kinds
of
edge
cases,
we'd
have
to
say
only
you
know
you
can
only
be
a
representative
of
one
chain
at
a
time
like
if
you
want
to
migrate
from
you,
know,
telos
to
eos
or
to
wax
or
whatever
that's
fine,
but
you'll
only
be
voting
in
in
the
name
of
them.
As
a
representative
of
that
local
network,
you
know,
because
it's
not
just
bps
that
we're
talking
about
here,
like
there's
a
lot
of
technologists,
a
lot
of
people
that
hold
a
lot
of
tokens.
B
B
B
Let's
go
back
to
the
beginning
and
talk
about
like
what
we
actually
require
here
so,
okay.
To
my
to
my
mind,
we
need
two
things.
We
need
a
way
to
decide
what
we're
gonna
build
right
and
we
need
a
decide
what
we're
and
we
need
a
way
to
fund
it
right,
like
those
those
are
like
the
two
parts
to
our
government
system
that
are
required.
No
we're
not
the
funding
sub.
B
Funding
funding
like,
if
you
think
about
all
of
this,
like
as
an
msig
right
so
you're,
saying
like
this,
is
what
I
want
to
do
and
then
you
say
now
go.
Do
it
there's
like
two
discrete
parts
and
if
we're
talking
about
payment
being
part
of
the
the
model
like
you
decide
who
gets
paid
what
gets
paid
and
who
gets
paid?
And
then
you
say
now:
I'm
gonna
go
pay
them.
When
you
say
I'm
now,
I'm
gonna
go
pay
them.
That's
actually
like
a
payment
that
happens
on
chain.
So
that's
execution.
C
B
That's
all
like
part
of
this,
like
right,
paying
the
bill,
but
like
that,
paying
the
bill
like
when
you
pull
the
trigger
to
say
I'm
gonna
pay
you
there
has
to
be
somebody
that
goes
and
says.
Okay,
you
did
what
you
actually
are
supposed
to
do
and
that's
that's
the
execution
part
of
the
model.
That
has
to
be
like
the
check
that
says:
okay,
you're,
proposing
all
these
things
you
can't
just
like
you,
don't
have
like
carte
blanche
to
like
go
and
like
pay
for
it.
B
A
We're
looking
at
the
code
that
goes
back
into
the
software
development
sub
group
of
how
the
we're
using
committers,
and
so
we
have
to
try
to
keep
our
scope
to
what
governance
is,
in
my
opinion.
Otherwise
we,
you
know
you're
all
welcome
to
join
those
other
groups,
but
that's
the
charter
of
those
groups
right.
So
the
committer
and
contributor
model
is
the
model
that
the
software
development
group
is
saying.
A
That's
how
we're
ensuring
there's
no
bad
actors,
that's
how
we
make
sure
third-party
code
does
not
come
in
that
wasn't
requested,
or
it
doesn't
do
what
was
requested.
That's
how
there's
code
reviews
and
all
that,
so
that's
that's
different
than
how
do
we.
You
know
prioritize
who
gets
to
prioritize
and
then
what
is
the
prioritization
process
which
to
me
is
more
of
what
governance
is.
C
Right,
there's
some
so
there's
some
there's
so
there's
a
lot
of
crossover,
of
course,
and
it
all
kind
of
they're
all
we're
building
all
these
pieces
that
have
a
lot
of
links
to
each
other.
I
think
that
there
I
think
that,
basically,
if
we
want
to,
if
you
want
as
we're
looking
into
the
nuts
and
bolts
right
of
making
a
decision
is
basically
who
who
gets
to
who
gets
to
approve,
and
you
know
and
control
the
funds,
the
flow
of
funds.
C
We
have
to
con
figure
out
a
few
things
like
we
will
have
to
figure
out
where,
where
these
votes
are
going
to
be
held
right
so
where
and
where
the
funds
are
going
to
be
deployed,
because
if
we're
going
to,
if
we're
saying
hey
it's
it's
the
it's
the
right
to
to
deploy
those
funds,
then
then
the
funds
have
to
be
held
on
the
platform.
That's
that's!
That
is,
you
know.
A
B
So
I'm
not
I'm
not
saying
that
chains
need
to
go
and
do
their
own
thing,
but
I'm
saying
that
if
there's
a
mechanism
where
we
decide
together
what
gets
built
and
then
we
assign
you
know
you
have
to
go
pay
for
this
out
of
your
your
local
networks.
Tokens
out
of
the
budget
that
you
know
is
has
been
agreed
to
is.
Is
that
reasonable?
Because,
like
the
way,
this
was.
A
Discussed
previously
in
the
larger
group,
or
at
least
what
I
in
my
discussions
with
eve
of
what
you
know,
we
thought
the
process
would
be.
Is
this
subgroup
this
io
plus
group
itself?
Not
the
governance
subgroup,
but
eosio
plus
would
get
money
from
all
of
the
chains
together
in
a
weighted
version
of
their
market
caps.
Kind
of
that,
if
you've
looked
at
the
one
proposal
that
came
out
and
those
those
would
be
funding
this
eosio
plus
group
to
then
do
whatever
development
the
the
group
decided
on.
B
Right
but
that's
that's,
that's
a
that's
a
way
of
looking
at
running
a
project
in
a
very
like
centralized
way,
but
we
don't
necessarily
have
to
be
a
centralized
solution
like
I
understand
that,
like
that's
what
was
discussed
until
now,
I'm
just
saying
that
maybe
that's
an
assumption
that
we're
making
which
isn't
absolutely
true.
I.
C
C
We
would
end
up
doing
doing
it
in
in
sort
of
a.
If
we
do
that,
though,
by
the
way
guys,
then
it
basically,
the
the
the
funds
have
to
travel
to
the
platform
where
they
are
decided
where
the
decision
is
made
on
a
blockchain,
I'm
assuming
that
we're
doing
that
and
then
dispersed
it
would
it
would
probably
need
to
be
dispersed
to
to
subgroups
where
there
is
some.
C
There
is
some
further
committee,
or
something
that
or
manager.
That
runs
it
that
you
know,
because
we're
not
just
gonna
unless
we're
just
gonna
turn
over
giant
grants
of
things
to
to
groups
to
to
deploy
with
no
oversight
in
the
in
the
end
of
whether
they've
done
it
or
not,
which
I
think
is
a
recipe
for
disaster
we
need
to.
We
need
to
you,
know,
learn
the
lessons
of
like
telos.
C
Telos
works,
which
is
you
know,
you
really
need
you
really
on
complex
projects
need
to
have
some
once
the
money
has
been
allocated
and
put
into
a
certain
fund.
You
still
need
somebody
who
is
responsible
and
going
to
hold
the
gonna
hold.
The
the
you
know,
whatever
work
group,
that's
doing
that
to
their
to
their
deliverables
and
deadlines
and
everything.
C
C
A
I
have
to
I
have
to
I
have
to
agree
entirely.
Then
we
should.
Maybe
we
should
stop
the
call
and
merge
the
groups
and
find
a
new
meeting
time,
because
there's
a
whole
separate
group
that
their
whole
charter
is
just
doing
funding
and
the
funding
they're
putting
up
from
what
I've
been
hearing
is
different
than
where
you
two
are
going,
and
I
don't
know
if
you
two
are
on
the
funding
group
or
not.
C
C
You
know
some
re
make
some
reasonable
decisions
around
around
the
question
of
once.
Funds
are
raised.
How
how
does
the
desperate
group
make
reasonable
consensus
decisions
about
how
they're
used
and
then
apply
them
that
the
other
one
is
is
really
more
looking
at
external?
You
know
how
external
questions
of
how
do
we?
How
does
a
group
like
this
go
out
and
actually
raise
funding
anyway?
Are
there
and
they're
both
really
big
and
complex
things,
so
we
need
to.
We
need
to
reduce
those
to
simpler
things
before
we
can
merge
them.
C
C
We're
not
talking
about
funding
we're
talking,
we're
talking
about
making
payments,
making
allocating
funds
so
like
we're
again
we're
conflating
two
different
things
that
have
similar.
You
know
words
for
them,
so
our
so
the
funding
thing
is
looking
for
is
figuring
out
how
external
funds,
the
methods
by
which
external
funds
will
be
brought
in
and
made
available
to
to
the
team
to
allocate
what
we're
doing
in
governance
is
figuring
out
the
method
of
that
allocation.
So
so
you're
talking
you
know,
so
the
other
group
is
figuring
out
how
we're
gonna
be
a
sale.
C
A
detail,
that's
a
that's
a
d,
it's
an
important
detail,
but
we
can
figure
out
a
lot
before
we
do
that,
and,
and
also
some
of
the
things
that
they
some
of
the
yes,
some
of
the
things
we
end
up
deciding
we'll
be
informed
by
some
of
the
some
of
the
work
they
do
and
vice
versa.
But
but
if
we
merge
these
things,
it's
just
I
mean
look.
What
we're
looking
yeah.
It's
not
gonna
happen.
It's
not
gonna
happen.
C
B
A
C
C
They'll
have
to
be
very
clear:
spec
and
they'll
be
and
they'll
be
some
kind
of
project
manager
that,
or
you
know,
group
that
ensures
that
the
things
on
you
know
the
the
things
on
those
on
those
those
specs
that
we
vote
on
the
one
that
ultimately
goes
vote
on
voted
on.
The
the
deliverables
and
whatnot
are
on
milestones,
are
delivered
right
and
and
pay
it
out
from
there
we're
looking
to
figure
out
how
we're
going
to
pay
into
a
into
a
group.
But
that's
what
we're
going
to
do
that?
A
C
C
We
have
to
figure
out
how
we're
going
to
based
on
who
the
members
are
right
and
what,
if
there's
different
membership,
ranks
what
you
know
that
who,
who
votes
right
and
and
part
of
that
you
know,
we
can
say,
look
we're
gonna,
we're
gonna,
say
we're
gonna,
assume
that
there's
paying
and
non-paying
or
different
level
paying
members
and
and
as
previously
proposed
there's
gonna
be
some
there's
gonna
be
some
separation
between
who
gets
to
vote
and
who
doesn't
right.
You
can
be
an
observer,
you
can
be,
but
it's
some.
C
We
don't
have
to
decide
where
you
cross
that
threshold
immediately,
we
just
have
to
say
look,
there
will
be
voters
and
observers.
There
may
be
there
there.
It's
probably
not
a
bad
idea,
at
least
for
us
to
start
exploring
that
there
would
be
people
who
are
approved
by
the
group
to
propose
things
like
where
it's
not
just
a
free-for-all,
that
we
have
to
deal
with
a
lot
of
things
like
we
can
say
you
know
those
things
you
know.
A
We
we
have
a
bunch
of
things
that
need
to
be
ranked
already
that
we're
waiting
to
try
to
figure
out.
Okay,
let's
rank
these.
We
even
in.
If
you
look
inside
the
the
wallet
blue
paper,
they'll
have
or
the
api
blue
paper.
They
have
option
a
b
c
for
four
of
them,
so
first
we'd
have
to
like
vote,
which
one
we
want
a
b
or
c,
and
then
okay
now,
which
ones
do
we
think
we
should
fund
or
not
fund?
And
then
what
order?
Should
we
do?
What
goes
into
mandel
3.2?
C
C
A
If
we
can
at
least
and
so
to
me,
I'm
looking
at
this
very
you
know
much
on:
let's
get
some
stuff
done.
You
know
we
have
this
list
of
stuff
from
these
four
blue
papers,
which
will
break
into
a
series
of
like
sows
or
whatever
pieces
that
will
will
vote
on
option
a
through
c
and
then
we'll
vote
on
which
ones
we
think
go
into
which
releases
which
ones
we
just
do
not
want
to
fund.
A
There's
some
things
on
some
of
those
that
I
look
at
and
say
I
I
wouldn't
fund
that
if
I
was
the
voter,
but
we
don't
know
who's
voting
yet
and
so
pretty
soon
we're
going
to
be
like
who's
approving
this
or
does
just
eve-
and
this
is
not
what
he
wants.
Does
he
just
say?
Well,
I'm
putting
most
of
the
money
in
so
I'm
just
going
to
start
approving
stuff
because
we're
waiting
now.
So
that's
what
I'm
trying.
C
To
do
we
don't
do
that.
That's
right!
That's
why
it's
important
yeah
we're
first
of
all
that
last
one
we're
not
going
to
do.
Secondly,
yes,
as
you've
identified,
we
really
actually
need
two
governance
processes,
one
being
the
interim
process.
We
use
within
this
group
that
we
should
fast
track
so
that
we
can
ultimately
get
to
the
second,
which
is
what
the
what
the
new
entity
will
use.
They
don't
have
to
be
identical.
D
D
Let
me
does
it
make
sense
if
we
kind
of
list
all
the
different
voting
use
cases
where
we
say
well,
there's
going
to
be
voting
for
new
members
of
the
chain,
there's
going
to
be
voting
for
like
the
guests
or
participators
that
might
be
might
be,
one
might
be
added
to
the
group.
So,
like
the
people
like
aaron,
where
somebody
proposes
and
say
well,
I
I
would
propose
to
have
aaron
on
this
as
a
non-voting
member
to
give
his
expertise.
So
we
discussed
that
also
in
in
the
other
meetings.
D
I
would
tend
to
say
that
these
positions
are
also
voted
for,
and
so
so
and
then,
if
we
have
voted
for
for
the
for
the
positions
in
the
eosio
plus
organization,
I
would
tend
to
say
that
that
we
could
add,
like
funding
guidance
to
that.
So
I
say:
well
we
trust
those
people,
because
we
we
voted
for
them,
so
they
have
like
a
budget
control
of
xyz,
whatever
currency
to
to
do
their
business.
D
So
so
you
don't
end
up
with
like
multi-six
with
45
people
that
needs
to
be
signed
until
a
payment
for
an
advert
agency
can
be
done.
So
I
think
that
that's
kind
of
we
we
need
to
have
like
a
guidance
of
what
kind
of
funding
is,
is
then
giving
to
the
eosio
plus
assignees
that
that
can
can
basically
spend
this
on
simple
multi-sigs
and
what
are
the
things
that
need
to
be
voted
on
by
a
larger
group
of
people
and
then
for
in
general?
D
We
we
did
have
the
decision
for
this
one
chain,
one
vote
to
make
the
process
easier.
So
it's
basically
the
majority
of
seven
chains.
Currently
that
can
decide
things.
So
I
think
we
could
still
kind
of
have
this
in
this
document
as
an
initial
guidance.
So
we
we
are
in
a
position
to
to
make
decisions
in
the
current
state
and
say
we
have
the
seven
chains
of
the
seven
chains
agree.
D
Then
the
then
we
can
move
forward.
The
chains
themselves
need
to
find
out
a
way
of
determining
who
the
voters
are
going
to
be.
So
if,
if
we
look
at
talos
as
an
example,
we
could
have
like
a
voting
or
election
process
in
our
decide
engine.
That
would
say
who
would
you
want
to
be
the
voters
for
the
tellers
on
the
eosio
community,
and
then
we
have
like
five
people
or
six
or
seven,
that
the
community
can
vote
on
and
say
yeah.
D
We
think
those
people
can
kind
of
can
can
best
represent
us
in
this
com
in
this
committees
and
then
maybe
that
we
have
like
specialist
voters
for
like
technology,
business,
development,
marketing
initiatives
and
so
on
that
that
could
be
could
also
be
assigned.
So
the
committees
or
the
voters
here
could
also
be
split
into
those
that
are
more
like
technical
or
more
biz,
dev
or
business
oriented,
and
then
going
back.
D
A
So
I
put
some
use
cases
down
a
new
member
of
the
committees,
approval
of
blue
paper
sections
for
funding
and
development
ranking,
which
is
a
little
different
than
voting
or
the
blue
paper
sections
for
manual
release
funding
of
work
outside
of
the
blue
papers.
That
would
be
stuff
in
the
future
since
we're
like
a
snake
trying
to
swallow
a
pig
right
now
with
all
the
stuff
in
the
blue
papers.
A
A
C
So
I
think
I
think
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense
it's
good
to
have
to
to
have
this
process
where
we
enumerate
all
the
things
we
could
vote
on
and
then
and
then
put
them
into
buckets
and
figure
out,
which
ones
have
similar
processes
and
and
whatnot.
That's.
That
is
a
good
long-term
thing.
We're
not
going
to
do
that
in
the
next.
You
know,
however,
many
minutes
of
this
of
this
of
this
call
right,
12
minutes
or
so
we've
probably
got.
But
what
I
would
say
is
that
we
we
could
we.
C
What
we
can
do
is
there's
already
been
an
a
an
interim
voting
method
approved
for
how
we're
going
to
work
inside
the
goat
inside
this
group,
and
we
know
we
need
to
have
that,
and
so
I
think
our
first
thing
was.
We
should
just
codify
what
we've
what
the
group
already
decided,
which
was
for
votes
within
this
group,
we're
going
to
use
we're
going
to
use
telus
aside,
we're
going
to
you
know
those
tools,
we're
going
to.
C
C
So
I
owe
you
guys
that
I
are
you
guys,
a
a
more
specific,
updated
walkthrough,
although
you
can
look,
you
can
see
it
on
decide,
voter.app
how
it
works
and
we
can
make
a
series
of
polls
and
things
like
that
and
assign
a
voter,
for
you
know
account
for
each
for
each
chain
and
then
and
then
the
chain
themselves
can
decide
how
who
gets
to
control
the
keys
to
that
in
in
their
own
respective
ways.
So
what
we?
C
What
we've
said
prior
to
this
and
this
this
was
this-
was
you
know,
maybe
two
or
three
meetings
before
you
came
in
ted,
we
said
we're
going
to
we're
going
to
have
like
like
romney
or
somebody
just
said
we're.
Gonna,
have
you
know
each
chain
each
of
the
seven
chains
gets
for
now
gets
a
vote,
and,
and
we
will
vote
on
you
know
we
will
vote
using
that
method.
C
It
also
allows
us
to
use
to
do
clause
by
clause
amendments
in
in
foundational
documents
right
that
we
make
you
know
so
that
we
can.
We
can
make
updates.
One
thing
we
know
from
most
forms
of
governance,
government
and
in
the
world
that
have
existed.
Is
you
you
ultimately
need
to
vote
on
a
specific
written
piece
of
you
know
a
written
document
as
a
you
know,
specific,
a
pro
proposal
that
lays
everything
out.
C
That
will
happen
as
opposed
to
have
ranking,
and
you
know
that
that's
a
way
to
make
to
maybe
contribute
to
the
document,
but
but
ultimately
you
have
to
vote
on
a
bill
right
or
a
proposal
or
or
you
know
not,
we
have
to.
It
has
to
become
a
concrete
thing
that
has
everything
that's
being
approved
and
not
approved,
because
there
will
be.
You
know
with
seven
different
chains.
We're
gonna
have
we're
gonna,
have
some
wheeling
and
dealing
of
well
I'll
vote
for
this.
A
Point
sure
so
we
have
these
four
blue
papers
and
they
have
ranging
from
like
13
and
one
of
them.
I
think
eight
is
on
the
low
side
and
the
other
one.
I
didn't
actually
count
the
ones
in
the
doctor,
you
one,
but
you
know
going
through
them
all
breaking
each
of
there's
individual
proposals
and
all
of
them.
Some
are
proposals
to
just
write.
Another
white
paper.
Some
are
proposals
like
it's
already
being
funded.
A
The
the
api
life
cycle
is
already
being
worked
on
right
now
and
it's
going
to
go
into
mandal
3.1,
but
those
are,
it
are
discrete.
You
know
you
could
look
at
them
as
discrete
proposals
which
there's
approximately.
Let's
just
call
it
40
that
we
already
have
sitting
in
front
of
us
that
we
should
be
looking
at
saying.
Do
do
the
chains
like
this
proposal
or
not
like
it.
A
If
all
the
chains
come
back
and
say
this
one's
just
too
half
baked,
maybe
if
the
people
want
to
go
back
and
sharpen
their
pencil
we're
going
to
vote
no
on
it
for
now
and
then
once
we
get
to
the
nose
versus
the
yeses,
then
it's
like
okay.
Well,
we
have
some
that
we
feel
are
kind
of
ready
to
go.
Do
do
we
want
to
which
one
is.
A
So
my
my
point
is
that
I
what
you're
I
agree
with
what
you
were
saying
douglas
and
the
the
key
thing
is,
I
think
some
of
the
sections
of
some
of
the
blue
papers
already
qualify
at
being
at
a
level
that
they
could
be
decided
for
funding
or
not.
I
think
some
of
them
are
just
bad
recommendations
and
probably
will
just
get
voted
down
like
we're
gonna
vote
no
on
this,
like
the
change
will
probably
agree
and
say
we
don't
think
this
should
get
funded
at
all.
A
Maybe
they
can
go
back
and
take
another
pass
at
you
know,
tightening
that
up
and
making
the
proposal
better,
but
then
we'll
be
left
with.
Let's
even
say,
10,
you
know
out
of
the
40,
maybe
it'd
be
20,
but
let's
just
do
stuff
out
of
these
10.
Maybe
only
four
can
go
into
mandel
3.2
and
maybe
four
can
go
into
manual
303
to
be
renamed
later.
A
The
narrative
like
dan's
fractally
stuff,
is
whipped
up
a
bunch
of
people
and
confused
everyone,
and
we
are
doing
a
lot
of
great
work,
but
we
need
to
come
out
with
a
narrative,
saying
here's
what
we're
doing
and
having
a
process
to
say.
Here's
how
the
blue
papers
are
going
to
turn
into
the
road
map
would
be
helpful.
So
I
wrote
a
paper.
I've
shared
it
on
a
number
of
the
group
saying
hey.
This
is
a
proposal.
A
E
A
C
Can
propose
an
answer
to
that
question
and
sort
of
short
short.
You
know
shortcut
the
the
long
decision.
It's
not
going
to
work
if
we
are
voting.
If
we're
having
a
million
votes
on
things
that
you
know,
may
you
know
may
or
may
not
work
or
you
know
what
we
need
to
do
is
have
similar
to
what
you
know.
C
The
way
to
the
way
that
we
decide
is,
you
know,
there's
a
lot
of
discussion,
there's
a
lot
of
things
on
it,
but
ultimately
somebody
who's
in
a
proposed
who's,
approved
as
a
proposer
by
the
group
has
to
sponsor
a
proposal
and
that
proposal
you
know
instead
of
going
well,
let's
vote
on
one
and
let's
vote
on
two
and
let's
vote
on
three.
That
proposal,
like
that
person,
shortcuts
the
system
and
says
this
is
the
of
of
these
13.
C
This
is
the
one
I
think
it
needs
to
work,
but
having
talked
to
the
community,
I
think
we
need
to
change
this,
and
this
and,
and
that
is
that-
can
be
brought
to
a
vote
through
a
simple.
You
know:
richard's
rules,
type
process,
the
that's
that's
captured,
but
then
technically,
captured
on
blockchain
using
decide
voter
somebody
else
could
you
know,
could
have
a
competing,
a
competing
proposal,
but
they
have
to
you
know
you
basically
have
to
get
a
sponsor
to
to
say.
This
is
what
I
want
us
to
vote
on.
C
Otherwise,
we're
going
to
have
a
million
things
to
vote
on,
it's
never
getting
it
done.
We
have
to
have
a
filtration
system
and
that
filtration
system
needs
to
be.
Somebody
who
you
know
needs
to
be
some
somebody
that
we,
as
a
group
have
decided
either
has
a
vote
because
they're
a
blockchain
or
has
a
vote
because
they're
they
have
expertise.
You
know,
and-
and
you
know
it
could
be-
there
could
be
a
different
set
of
experts
for
each
of
the
blue
papers.
A
E
E
A
That
were
respected
in
the
community.
They
were
already
highly
respected
members.
So
now
we
need
to
start
to
filter
them
and
say
you
know,
and
so
what
we
did
at
the
enf.
You
know,
as
we
were
trying
to
move
forward.
We
said:
hey
anyone
that
wants
to
and
we
funded
this.
Anyone
that
wants
to
come
in
and
propose
an
enhancement,
an
alternative
or
an
additional
section
to
any
of
these
blue
papers
will
pay.
A
You
100
eos,
just
to
write
it
up,
and
if
the
authors
of
the
blue
paper
say
yeah,
this
is
a
good
enhancement
or
alternative
or
whatever
we
will
pay
a
thousand
to
two
thousand,
a
thousand
for
an
enhancement,
two
thousand
for
an
additional
or
an
alternative,
more
eos,
so
that
was
kind
of
getting
feedback.
So
every
chain
already
right
now
is
allowed
to
look
at
every
blue
paper
and
say
I
think
that
for
2100
eos,
I'd
like
to
see
this
alternative
or
I'd
like
to
see
for
1100
eos,
I'd
like
to
see
this
enhancement.
A
So
we
we
tried
to
prime
that
pump
already.
I
can
show
you
a
document
on
that.
If
you'd
like
to
look
at
that,
I
mean
we've
already
tried
to
start
getting
this
rolling
because
we
have
these
in
a
queue
already
and
they
were
written
by
the
by
the
chains
and
block
producers
and
the
people
that
are
on
the
chains.
So
really
it's
more
now
a
matter
of
filtering
and-
and
you
know
deciding
and
ranking
right,
because
we
can't
do
all
40
of
say.
A
C
It
gives
a
series
of
miles
it
it.
They
basically
takes
this
broad.
A
proposal
is
something
that's
going
to
take
this
broad
list
of
possible
things
that
can
be
done
and
make
it
concr
may
turn
into
a
concrete
step
set
of
steps
about.
You
know,
what's
going
to
be
done
and-
and
you
know
that's
what
the
blue
papers
are,
have
you
read
all
the
blue
papers
yet
not
all
of
them,
but.
C
A
Yes,
they're
just
they're
a
list
of
discrete
proposals,
so
they
they
were
just
grouped
by
authors,
so
they're
independent.
So
for
the
wallet
for
example,
which
I
believe
has
eight
yeah,
there
are
eight
independent
things.
Some
of
them
are
actually,
in
my
opinion,
semi-mutually
exclusive.
If
you
did
this,
you
wouldn't
do
that.
That's
my
point
about.
I
think
we
need
voting
and
ranking.
C
That's
not,
but
that's
not,
so
that's
not
what
I'm
calling
a
proposal.
I'm
calling
your
proposal
saying
so,
let's
say
let's
say
blue
paper,
one
has
has,
you
know,
has
eight
different
things
right,
eight
different
possible
things
that
could
be
done
and,
as
you
said,
if
you
did
two,
you
wouldn't
do
three
right.
If
you
it's.
A
C
Yeah
yeah
yeah.
No,
I
we
wouldn't
do
like.
Yes,
it's
a
list
of
it's
a
list
of
things
that
could
be.
You
know.
Ultimately,
a
proposal
or
your
something
that
we
deal
with
is
going
to
be
a
combination
of
which
ones
you
can
get
included
and
which
ones
you
know
and
which
ones
get
omitted
and
then
what
and
the
ones
the
ones
that
get
included.
What
order
of
priority
and
and
whatnot
are
they?
Are
they
assigned
right?
C
And
so
and
the
only
way
to
do
that,
you
can't
start
with
a
big
group
of
people.
That's
that
many
most
most
are
marginally
engaged
at
best
and
and
then
put
a
whole
bunch
of
things
and
say:
okay,
we
gotta
short
rank
all
of
these
things.
Instead,
you
gotta
say
you
got
to
get
somebody
to
come
in
and
go
look,
I'm
here's.
What
I
would
do
I
would
do.
I
would
do
one
two,
five,
six
and
nine.
A
E
A
A
Even
if
it's
one
vote
per
chain,
you
know
n,
let's
just
call
n1.
For
now,
every
chain
gets
one
vote.
They
come
in
and
say
I
would
do
these.
I
wouldn't
do
these
and
then
we
compare
the
list
from
each
of
the
chains
and
it's
like
look
consensus.
Everybody
said
drop
these
three
everybody
kind
of
said.
Yes,
we
want
to
do
these
now.
We
say
great
and
maybe
there's
a
debate
on
one
that
got
a
50,
50
split
that
gets
resolved
and
then
all
of
a
sudden
we
say,
okay.
A
Well,
we
can't
fit
them
all
in
demando
3.2.
So
come
back.
Each
of
you
chains
come
back
in
a
rank,
prioritize
order,
that's
best
for
your
chain,
we'll
use
the
math
on
that
and
then
now
we
drop
them
in
the
roadmap.
And
that's
that's
essentially
what
my
proposal
is
right.
Each
chain
says:
hey,
you
know
I
just
didn't
want
to
presume
that's
what
the
voters
would
be
right.
Each
of
the
voting
members
say
we
don't
like
these
proposals
of
core
plus.
A
We
don't
like
these
proposals
of
api
plus
we
don't
like
these
at
wall
plus
and
and
when
we
take
all
of
the
voting
members
and
we
look
at
it,
we
say:
hey
these,
just
all
dropped
out.
They
can
be
resubmitted
later,
but
we're
not
we're
not
reviewing
them.
We
don't
have
enough
devs
anyway.
These
are
just
not
even
going
to
be
ranked
now
the
ones
that
survived
which
go
into
3.2
which
go
into
3.3
as
we
try
to
build
the
train
cars
leaving
the
station
and
that
way
all
the
chains
are
involved.
A
I
think
I
think
consensus
will
happen
more
than
we
might
expect
right
and
I
think,
especially
in
reading
the
blue
papers,
there's
some
sections
that
are
just
so
squishy.
I
can't
see
people
saying
yeah,
let's
throw
money
at
that
and
then
there's
some
sections
that
are
so
tight
that
you're,
that
would
be.
Maybe
there
would
be
some
recommendations
to
further
tighten
it
down
as
the
funding
went,
but
that
could
happen
after
the
the
prioritization.
The
chains.
C
What
you're
said
what
you're
describing
is
a
parliamentary
process
of
debate
and
discussion
right?
That
is
that
typically
come.
You
know
everywhere.
Basically,
the
key
constituencies
signal
what
they
will
and
will
not
support
yeah.
After
that,
that's
that's
an
important
part
of
the
process,
and
I
you
know,
I
think,
we're
assuming
that
there's
going
to
be
that
discussion,
but
in
terms
of
actually
driving
a
decision.
C
You
know,
and
sometimes
and
often
many
times,
many
people,
author,
a
distinct
thing,
saying:
okay,
we're
gonna
do
one
two
three
and
five,
and
because
you
can't
what
you
can't
just
rank
sort
your
way
out
of
this
at
some
point,
there's
going
to
be
there's
going
to
be
it's
not
going
to
work.
It's
been.
You
know
that
I,
in
my
view
and
looking
at
governance
systems,
you
know
across
the
world
and
across
time.
I
think
that
that's
not
going
to
work.
C
We
ultimately
still
need
somebody
and,
and
often
it's
it's
a
it's
a
you
know,
there's
a
series
of
competing
ones,
but
there's
specific
proposals
of
you
know
or
bills.
Essentially
that
say,
you
know
somebody
somebody
is
authoring
or
sponsoring
a
bill
that
says
we're
gonna
do
one
two
and
four,
and
somebody
else
says
we're
gonna
do
one
two
and
seven
right
and
and
those
all
in
the
end.
A
C
Point
you
don't
ultimately
know
that
in
you
know
in
in
some
simple
cases
you
may,
but
in
other
cases
that
will
pop
up
there'll,
be
people
who
say
well
I'll
do
two.
If,
if
we're
doing
seven
but
I'm
not,
but
if
we're
do,
if
we're
not
doing
seven,
then
I'm
not,
then
two
doesn't
work
anyway
and
some
you
know
so
they
could
like
to
a
lot.
But
only
if
it's
paired
with
seven
right,
that's
that's
going
to
come
up
and
there's
no
and
and
just
rank
sorting.
It
doesn't
doesn't.
A
Address
that
well
that'll
be
resolved
by
further
discussions,
trying
to
get
one
side
to
see
the
other
and
at
the
end,
there's
it
comes
down
to
a
vote
of
the.
If
there's
seven
chains,
there
would
be
seven
votes
and
the
vote
would
either
be.
You
know
prioritize
this
one
over
that
one,
or
vice
versa,
and
at
the
end
of
the
vote,
it's
otherwise.
You
just
have
to
say
well
we're
going
to
do
neither
because
you
you
can
well
the
steps
in
the
process,
decide
what
decides.
C
You're
you're
you're,
I
think
what's
happening-
is
that
you're
blending
some
steps
in
the
process
because
it
seems
like
it's
going
to
be
more
efficient,
but
it.
But
lessons
of
history
tell
us
that
it's
it's
not
likely
to
be
so.
The
steps
in
the
process
are
initial
information.
Gathering
right.
We
we
hear
from
community.
We
hear
that
we
get
these
blue
papers.
We
do
all
that
stuff.
The
next
step
is
discussion
and
debate.
Hey.
C
You
know
we
all
and
we
quickly
find
out
that
everyone
loves
proposal,
one
and
two,
but
some
people,
but
there's
a
lot
of
cons.
You
know
considerate.
You
know,
there's
a
lot
of
competing
visions
about
the
rest
and
you
don't
and-
and
you
don't
debate
it
until
you
get
to
consensus
because
you
don't
ultimately
get
because
that
doesn't
work
in
most
of
the
cases
right.
So
so
that's
why
the
next
step
in
the
process
is.
C
A
Right
back
to
where
we
were,
I
wanted
it
ranked
this
way
you
wanted
it
ranked
this
way
now,
I'm
writing
more
white
papers
to
propose
my
proposal
and
we're
still
going
to
come
down
to
having
a
big
discussion
to
sort
it
out
right,
so
we're
we're
at
noon.
I've.
I
think
we've
made
a
lot
of
progress.
Obviously
we
have
a
lot
more
to
go.
We
I
believe
I
set
this
up
to
recur
for
at
least
the
next
two
to
three
weeks.
A
I
think
I
set
it
up
for
three
weeks
and
so
I'll
let
people
move
on
to
their
next
meeting.
I
have
another
meeting
now,
so
you
know,
let's
pick
up
where
we
left
off
and-
and
you
know,
I
think
at
least
we've
got
some
progress.
So
thank
thanks.
Everyone
for
participating.
Do
I.
What
do
I
need
to
do
to
stop
the
recording.