►
From YouTube: EOSIO+ Meeting, January 13th, 2022
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
We've
got,
I
believe,.
A
17
or
18
people
now
20
20
people
that
are
on
the
guest
list,
but
only
third
teen
had
given
yeses.
So
once
we
get
to
give
it
a
few
more
minutes,
once
we
get
to
13,
then
we
can
get
it
kicked
off.
Is
that
two-thirds?
A
I
don't
know
if
it's
two-thirds,
but
some
a
lot
of
people
just
didn't
answer,
there's
only
one
person
that
said
they
couldn't
make
it
in
the
invite
itself.
It
was
buddy.
But
if
I
recall
jessie's
at
disneyland
yeah,
he
said
no
he's
not
joining
priorities,
right,
yeah,
probably
yeah,
and
he
even
said
like.
If
I've
got
a
choice
between
disneyland,
you
guys
sorry,
but
mickey
mouse
wins
all
right.
I've
got
lucas
joining.
B
E
C
C
C
D
I
I
was
in
the
new
in
in
canada
in
2019,
and
we
were
we
were
going
to
to
quebec
and
I
said
well,
we
could
just
drive
to
the
far
east
and
then
do
some
whale
watching
and
then
I
was
like
just
looking
at
the
map
and
it
was
like
a
thousand
kilometers.
This
is
like
you,
don't
drive
this
just
just
you
do.
D
A
Of
yeah
all
right,
so
yes,
the
question
in
the
chat.
Thank
you
justin
will
we
report
this
and
ramy
is
saying
yes,
he
is
recording,
but
I've
also
given
and
I'll,
give
you
as
well
ready
recording
permissions
within
zoom.
So
you
should
be
able
to
record
there
if
you
want,
if
that's
easier
and.
H
H
Eve,
it's
recording
to
your
cloud,
though
so
I'll
just
need
you
to
drop
me.
The
link
after.
A
All
right,
so
we
did
have
a
tentative
agenda.
We've
got
13
people
now,
I'm
just
gonna
give
it
another
minute,
because
I
do
see
somebody
that
said
that
they
would
join.
No
that's
a
duplicate
kristen.
I
have
two
persons,
so
maybe
that's
a
duplicate
actually
might
be.
Okay,.
A
I
Eves
is
saying
in
the
chat
that
he's
going
to
rejoin
a
second.
He
has
some
issues
with
his
computer.
Do
we
have
enough
people
that
we'd
like
to
start
with,
I
think
so,
12.
K
H
We,
since
we
I.
K
H
H
I
In
general
would
be
helpful
when
you
enter
into
the
zoom
that
you
comma,
which
chain
you
are
so
we
all
know.
A
Hello
yeah,
I
think
it's
it's
worth.
Somebody
else
cheering
today,
I'm
having
issues,
and
I
would
not
be
surprised
that
it's
gonna
happen
again.
It's
probably
not
wise
for
me
to
be
the
chair.
If
somebody
else
would
like
to
take
that
responsibility
today,
that
would
be
awesome.
I'm.
I
Happy
to
start
basically
aaron-
and
I
had
a
long
discussion
earlier
today
about
the
importance
of
us
self-organizing
priority
for
what
we'd
like
to
work
on
once
the
working
groups
have
finished
their
recommendations.
I
I
It
gets
to
digest
it
and
I
think,
from
there
it's
a
little
unclear
what
the
next
steps
are
going
to
be,
and
I
think
that
it's
important
that
us,
as
representatives
of
the
networks,
we
talk
that
out,
because
what
we're
actually
trying
to
achieve
here
is
a
way
for
us
to
work
together
and
ensure
that
priorities
across
then
all
of
the
networks
are
discussed
and
that
we
make
sure
that
any
concerns
that
any
of
the
networks
have
about
what's
being
worked
on,
why
it's
being
worked
on
whether
there's
other
priorities
that
are
critical
for
that
specific
network?
I
You
know
it
all
needs
to
be
taken
into
consideration,
and
I
think
that
it's
really
important
that
when
we
get
to
the
point
where
we're
ready
to
start
prioritizing
that
we
as
a
group
have
already
established
what
processes
we're
going
to
be
using
how
we're
going
to
be
voting,
what
mechanisms
we're
going
to
be
using
just
so
that
there
isn't
a
delay
when
the
time
to
actually
get
to
work
actually
happens
that
we're
ready.
J
I
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
smart
people
on
this.
Call
that
have
opinions
on
how
autonomous
decentralized
groups
should
work.
I'd
love
to
hear
their
opinions.
I
don't
think
that
I'd
like
to
make
a
proposal.
I
think
it's
a
little
off
the
cuff.
I
just
think
that
we've
we've
had
a
lot
of
discussion
about
things.
You
know
like
what
the
name
of
the
community
version
of
eos
supposed
to
be,
and
I
think
that
that's
valid,
I
understand
the
implications
for
development
purposes.
I
I
I
think
the
the
concept
that
we
should
be
focused
on
is
providing
some
sort
of
executive
function
for
the
networks
as
a
whole.
You
know
like
in
a
democratic
way,
but
there
has
to
be
some
sort
of
level
of
prioritization
of
all
the
work
that
there
is.
I
I
don't
know
if
you
guys
have
like
had
a
chance
to
read
through
those
papers,
I've
been
editing
the
wallet
plus
one
and
the
api
plus
one
and
I've
read
through
most
of
the
core
plus
one,
and
it's
literally
hundreds
of
pages,
of
really
smart
recommendations
for
what
we
could
all
be
doing,
and
it's
as
far
as
I'm
concerned,
literally
years
of
work
and
for
us
to
be
able
to
decide
what
we
start
with
and
why
we
start
with
that.
Somebody
has
to
make
those
decisions.
I
The
community
absolutely
needs
to
be
involved,
and
I
think
that
we,
as
formalized
representatives
of
different
networks,
are
gonna,
be
acting,
at
least
in
the
beginning,
as
the
function
of
deciding
the
base
priorities
for
what
we
start
with.
And
why
and
those
discussions
need
to
start
now.
As
far
as
I'm
concerned
top
priority.
L
L
L
We
think
our
network,
whatever
network
it
may
be,
should
help
fund
those
initiatives,
and
I
think
that's
what
creates
kind
of
the
the
core
of
what
this
group
could
accomplish.
It's
a
way
for
us
to
come
together,
identify
things
that
are
important
and
be
able
to
bring
it
back
to
the
stakeholders
of
the
various
networks
themselves
and
say
like
this
is
priority
and
one
network.
Any
individual
network
could
pick
out
one
individual
idea
and
say
we
want
to
help
champion
in
this.
L
There's
a
there's,
nothing
wrong
with
that,
but
if
we
can
come
together
somehow
to
be
able
to
work
on
championing
the
idea
together,
that's
going
to
be
a
lot
stronger
and
make
sure
it's
compatible
across
all
the
various
platforms,
so
yeah
that's
kind
of
what
we
talked
about
a
little
bit
this
morning.
L
This
review
phase
that's
going
to
happen
and
I
would
even
consider
some
of
the
stuff
that's
been
coming
out
from
dan
recently
to
fall
into
this
review
phase.
The
ideas
that
he's
putting
forth
should
absolutely
be
included
in
all
of
these
discussions
as
things
that
could
potentially
happen
to
benefit
all
of
the
greater
ecosystem,
as
well
as
proposals
from
potentially
other
people.
I
don't
I
don't
there's
no
processes
in
place
for
that.
L
Yet
so
that's
a
taller
ask
but
then
again,
there's
no
processes
for
individual
influencers
to
be
able
to
publish
proposals
either.
What
we
have
now,
though,
is
there's
just
going
to
be
a
ton
of
recommendations
coming
out
in
the
next
month.
Let's
say
month-ish
and
a
lot
of
people
in
this
call
and
in
the
communities
that
we're
kind
of
representing
that
are
going
to
have
feedback
and
being
able
to
coalesce.
That
is
going
to
be
something.
I
We
should
be
talking
about
like
what's
the
intent
of
aggregating.
All
of
that
feedback
like
how
is
that
supposed
to
happen?
Where
is
it
supposed
to
happen
so
that
everybody
can
see
it
in
one
place
so
that
it's
something
that's
manageable,
because
if
it's
in
twitter
and
telegram
and
discord
and
in
forums
and
in
reddit
I
mean
like
it's
all
going
to
get
lost
right
and
that's
that's
not
what
we
want.
We
want
something
that's
kind
of
like
understandable
by
the
larger
community
right.
L
How
do
we
coalesce
together
into
a
combined
opinion,
if
that's
even
possible-
and
that
also
applies
to
things
like
naming
the
community
edition
of
the
code
base?
We
don't
have
those
processes.
Yet
we
need
those
processes
and
I
think
one
of
the
agenda
items
I
don't
have.
The
agenda
in
front
of
me
was
to
talk
about
getting
project
management
involved
in
the
group,
so
we
could
start
formalizing.
This.
I
Stuff-
and
I
know
kirsten-
has
joined
us
as
from
the
telos
tcd.
Maybe
kirsten
you'd
like
to
introduce
yourself
and
give
a
little
bit
of
your
history,
because
some
of
us
know
you,
but
most
of
them
most
of
us
don't.
D
Yeah,
I'm
sure
happy
to
do
that
so
a
castle
based
on
based
in
germany
close
to
hamburg.
I
just
recently
started
full-time
as
program
manager
on
the
tcd
side
of
telus.
I've
been
consultant
for
software
technology
since
the
early
2000s,
mainly
managing
big
corporate
projects
and
also
a
lot
of
cross
cross
country
and
global
projects.
So
this
is
my
my
background.
D
I've
been
being
doing
this
for
for
a
long
time,
with
very,
very
complex
projects
and
and
on
the
tcd
side
and
for
telos
we're
just
reorganizing
the
processes,
the
organization
we're
scaling
up
and
I'm
part
of
this
strategy
to
professionalize
the
processes
that
we
work
with
and
have
the
organization
a
little
bit
streamlined.
So
we
can
match
the
the
roadmaps
and
developments,
so
I'm
I've
been
in
the
eos
in
the
community
since
since
day,
one
using
it
a
lot.
D
I've
been
writing
a
lot
of
articles
about
about
exchanges
on
tribe,
as
it
still
was
on
on
eos
and
moved
to
two
towers.
Basically
so
I
think
aaron
and
I
had
some
twitter
communications
a
while
ago
about
eos,
so
so
yeah,
but
I'm
happy
to
be
in
the
community
and
to
pick
this
up
and
obviously
I'm
just
joining
in
I've
been
reading
all
the
chats
that
being
there
on
on
telegram
and
discord
that
took
quite
a
lot
of
time.
D
I
didn't
have
the
access
to
those
documents
that
you
were
referring
to
rami,
but
most
of
them
are
most
likely
also
also
read
and
understand
and
get
my
point
in
there.
So
so
from
that
perspective,
I'm
german,
so
I
might
be
a
little
bit
too
over
structured
at
some
point.
You
may
you
may
stop
me
at
at
some
point
of
time,
but
as
far
as
I
understood
justin,
it's
also
more
like
an
interim
role
that
that
I
will
be
in
here
until
a
full-time
person
is
picking
this
up.
J
Yeah,
so
that's
one
item
for
this
meeting
today
is:
we
need
to
make
a
decision
because
obviously
kirsten's
put
his
name
up,
or
rather
we
volunteered
him
and
we
have
sorry
I've
forgotten
the
other
group's
name,
but
we
need
to
decide
you
know
who
do
we
want
to
move
forward
with
for
that
project
management
role
in
the
interim
until
we
hire
someone
more
permanently.
I
I
think
stanislav
from
zeiss
and
was
offering
somebody
from
their
group
to
act
as
ipm.
C
C
I
Question
as
a
resource,
why
not?
Okay-
and
I
guess
the
question
here
is:
if
we're
going
to
be
bringing
in
an
external
pm
as
kristin's
role
is
intended
to
be
temporary,
correct.
I
So
this
is,
this
is
really
the
question
like
we.
We
should
be
figuring
out
like
what
we
need
kirsten
to
actually
do
and
what
the
timelines
actually
are
right.
So,
let's
start
with
that,.
J
Well,
all
right
so
put
together
a
proposal
for
what
the
project
manager
role
should
be
in
the
interim.
I
didn't
see
any
issues
with
that
personally,
do
you
guys
mind
sharing
that?
I
missed
that
in
the
in
the.
I
H
One
of
the
other
things
to
consider
is
so
kirsten
was
volunteered
by
the
taylors
foundation
to
fill
this
role
and
he's
already
employed
by
the
taylors
foundation.
So
it's
kind
of
that's
why
he's
called
a
volunteer,
but
he's
not
donating
the
time.
That's
there.
It's
just
through
the
taylor's
foundation.
H
With
the
eos
network
foundation,
we
suggested
the
initial
grant
of
250
dollars,
but
so
if
the
project
management
role
is
to
be
a
paid
position
from
whatever
this
organization
becomes
of
of
eosio
plus
we're
calling
it
now,
we
also
need
to
decide
on
the
m-sig
and
which
entities
would
be
involved
with
that,
because
the
enf
does
need
an
invoice
from
a
legal
entity
to
be
able
to
make
all
of
this
happen.
So
there's
a
few
different
things
that
we
still
need.
D
J
Yeah,
I
believe
we
can
and
I'm
happy
to
do,
that
if
the
decision
is
made
that
we
do
it,
I
mean
it's
not
going
to
make
a
difference
either
way
because
it's
going
to
go
under
a
name
seek
so
yeah
we're
more
than
happy
to
do
that.
You
know
so
you
guys
have
it
for
tax
reasons
or
whatnot.
L
If
that
is,
I
suppose
is
that
a
priority
right
now,
if
there
is
no
do
we
need
access
to
that
now
or
do
is
the
first
step
to
actually
set
up
an
entity
that
could
accept
that
by
itself,
a
new
entity
that
represents
this.
H
I
think
it
would
depend
so,
and
I
don't
think
it's
top
priority,
because
kirsten's
employed
by
the
taylor's
foundation,
so
this
kind
of
is
our
it
was
an
interim
role
initially.
Maybe
it
turns
in
if
it
turns
into
something
bigger
and
then
this
or
let's
say
a
month
or
two
from
now.
We
have
an
organizational
structure
to
this.
Then
we
could
figure
out
how
to
make
the
payments
work.
So
I
don't
think
it's
a
priority
for
this
meeting,
but
we
do
need
to
make
that
consideration
at
something
over
the
next
few
weeks
or
months.
L
J
H
One
of
the
things
that
was
was
a
priority,
so
there
were
two
things
we
wanted
to
come
here
with,
and
that
was
name
suggestions,
because
mike
can
speak
to
this
from
the
clarionos
team.
The
longer
we
delay
on
the
name,
the
more
difficult
it
is
to
go
backwards
and
change
everything
in
the
repo.
H
So
that's
why
that's
kind
of
like
priority
to
continue
on
on
the
code,
progress
that
the
clarionis
team
is
making
on
that.
The
other
thing
that
was
on
the
agenda
and
we
could
drop
it
in
text,
chat
or
talk
about
it,
but
each
chain
was
meant
to
kind
of
bring
their
differences
in
their
nodeos
instances
to
kind
of
give
everyone
an
understanding
of
the
differences
between
the
chains
and
where
they
can
kind
of
align
on
where.
C
Sorry
timeline
that
we
mentioned.
I
think
we
should
look
at
like
two
years
project
right,
I
mean
with
all
the
all
the
development
proposals
that
we're
gonna,
publish
and
amount
of
coordination,
and
I
think
two
years
time
span
would
would
look
quite
realistic.
I
mean
for
this
group
to
function,
to
to
exist
and
and
to
to
be
able
to
produce
so
that
that's
my
suggestion
and
that
actually
influences
I
mean
we
need
to
also
to
think
about
a
project
management
role
which
is
quite
sustainable
and
permanent
within
at
least
two
years.
A
A
C
From
the
suggested
lists,
right
suggest
the
priorities
and
offer
funding
yeah.
B
C
That
it's
it's
a
decision
I
mean
besides
decision
point
is
kind
of
decided
already
right.
We
have
enough
as
a
deciding
and
major
sponsor
for
this
activity
and
different
organizations
and
chains
need
to
figure
out
for
themselves
how
much
they
can
contribute
and
with
money
or
workforce
or
or
both,
and
maybe
they
can
take
some
parts
of
implementation,
because
some
teams
have
actually
their
own
internal
engineering
teams.
A
One
thing
that
would
be
good,
then,
is
setting
deadlines
on
when
other
projects,
if
that's
the
direction
on
when
other
projects
are
able
to
make
those
decisions
and
offer
funding.
Should
that
be
the
case
so
that
we're
not
here
in
eight
months,
still
figuring
out
what
chains
can
provide
and
everybody
else
is
stagnating
in
the
meantime,
but.
A
The
the
blue
papers
and
I'm
not,
of
course,
one
direction.
C
But
that
is
the
the
challenge
for
the
pm
to
actually
kick
the
butts
and
and
make
people
deliver.
There's
more.
M
To
it
than
that,
you
can't
incur
costs
on
other
chains
right,
yeah,
so
yeah,
I
I
from
my
perspective.
I
think
we
have
to
recognize
the
reality
of
the
situation
that
develop
like
the
development
priorities
at
the
end
of
the
day,
are
going
to
be
decided
by
the
team
doing
the
development
which
is
going
to
be
mostly
influenced
by
the
team
funding
by
whoever's
funding
that
team
doing
the
development.
M
So
if
we
focus
on
this
group
trying
up
to
come
up
with
a
list
of
priorities,
we
might
be
kidding
ourselves
that
that
list
of
priorities
is
going
to
have
any
weight.
If
we
don't
first
come
up
with
a
way
to
how
do
we
give
all
of
the
chains
a
way
to
have
weight
in
the
decision-making
process
for
development,
and
it
sounds
like
right
now
we're
talking
about
how
do
we
decide
what
are
the
best
priorities,
but
we
haven't
yet
addressed
the.
A
So
this
I
thought
that
the
idea
behind
this
group
is
which
what
are
the
priorities
that
will
be
potentially
implemented
at
the
protocol
level
or
at
the
highest
protocol
level
that
impact
all
chains.
Not
what
are
the
priorities
of
your
own
individual
chain
that
may
or
may
not
have
input
from
other
chains.
M
A
Things,
if
I
don't
want
that
group
to
become
that
where
one
chain
can
tell
another
chain,
we
don't
want
you
to
go
in
that
direction
from
the
business
side
of
things
and
a
lot
of
the
items
within
the
blue
papers
are
enhancement
proposals
in
a
way
that
could
affect
everybody.
There
are
also
certain
things
that
that
eos
or
any
other
chain
may
decide
to
do
regardless
of
what
other
people
do,
because
they
don't
impact
the
other
chains,
they
benefit
all
chains.
I.
I
Think
the
way
that
I've
been
thinking
about
it
is
actually
in
the
other
direction,
where
networks
should
be
able
to
have
an
avenue
for
allowing
them
to
have
an
impact
on
development
decisions
that
are
taken
either
by
clarion
or
other
groups
who
are
working
on
a
protocol
level.
Because,
frankly,
the
idea
to
go
with
2.0
and
not.
You
know
the
head
of
the.
I
Not
not
from
head
is
problematic
for
ultra
and
there
was
no
discussion
with
our
team
about
that
decision
and
that's
the
kind
of
thing
that
I'd
like
to
have
a
process
in
place
where,
when
decisions
are
made
like
that,
that
impact
all
all
networks
that
there's
some
sort
of
discussion
where
we
can
raise
our
hand
and
say
hey,
listen
guys.
That's
that's
great,
but
like
this
impacts
us
in
xyz
way.
Let's
discuss
this.
A
A
I
But
just
trust
me:
we
just
can't
give
access
to
the
developers
themselves,
so
discussions
can
be
had
you
know
on
specific
instances
within
you
know,
protocol
level
code,
where
you
know
we
can
talk
about
that
stuff.
J
I
Last
week,
luke
dropped
a
link
to
the
proposals
that
fio
puts
up
on.
I
think
it
was
github
the
firewall
correctly
or
confluence,
and
it's
an
excellent
methodology
where
changes
that
are
proposed
for
network
protocol
level
stuff,
there's
some
sort
of
discussion
period
and
we
get
to
talk
about
it.
And
if
the
decision
is
that
the
networks
vote
to
do
the
thing
that
isn't
great
for
us,
then
we'll
deal
with
it.
That's
fine,
but
there
I
think
there
needs
to
be
some
sort
of
discussion
period.
That's
all.
J
A
A
B
A
Maybe
the
naming
is
one:
maybe
it's
not
one
of
them,
but
ultimately,
if
we
just
meet
once
per
week
and
nothing
ever
gets
done,
I'm
not
sure
that
there's
value
in
this
in
this
this
group
either.
So
absolutely
we
will
need
to
at
some
point
move
forward
right.
L
A
N
From
what
I've
seen
like
todd
has
already
started
work.
Well,
I
mean
he's
already
forked
it
all
into
mandel.
So
I
mean
if
they
actually
start
working
on
it
and
making
changes,
then
it
becomes
harder
to
you
to
ever
really
change
that
down
the
line.
N
So
I
mean
it's,
it's
being
renamed
from
eos
io
from
what
it
looks
like
now
anyways.
So
it's
not
really
something
we
can
push
down
the
line
from
being
renamed
from
eos
io
itself.
So
that's.
A
Why
that's
what
we
talked
about
last
week,
so
the
idea
was:
do
we
proceed
with
mandela
or
do
we
choose
a
different
name
and
I
think
even
eos?
The
chain
said
we
don't
particularly
care
about
mandel
if
there's
another
name
that
people
want
to
get
behind,
but
the
idea
that
a
name
should
be
chosen
right
now:
it's
mandela
as
a
placeholder,
whether
or
not
it's
chain-basing.
A
I
I
It's
like
just
not
that
higher
priority
thing.
We
have
things
that
we
really
need
to
work
on
together
as
a
group
and
selecting
the
name.
I
Make
a
change,
sure,
understandable
and
and
going
with
mandel
is
acceptable.
I
don't
think
that
at
least
from
ultra's
perspective
it
impacts
us.
So
my
vote
is
simply
we
go
with
that.
C
L
L
So
that
represents
a
lot
of
effort
in
renaming
and
until
a
final
name
has
come
up
with
we're
not
going
to
rename
any
of
our
tools.
Nor
is
it
a
priority
for
us
these
tools,
like
we're
just
as
happy
to
keep
them
as
eos
io
today,
so
they
can
continue
to
use
used.
It
is
a
distribution.
C
J
C
C
You
don't
need
to
rename
every
instance
of
usio
into
new
and
you
might
actually
conflict
with
some
copyright
issues
or
intellectual
properties.
If
you
start
renaming
every
every
occurrence
of
yours
are
you
but
isn't.
L
C
Do
any,
I
think
the
clearing
team
went
a
bit
too
far,
renaming
all
packages,
because
I
mean
it's
not
only
us
io
there's
like
five
different
libraries
and
they
don't
need
to
be
your
name.
They
they
can
stay
with
their
names.
K
K
We
simply
needed
a
name
at
like
bare
minimum,
a
name
for
the
repo
that
wasn't
esio,
so
at
minimum,
that's
the
requirement
and
what,
wherever
we
put,
that
we
did,
we
did
propagate
that
through
the
code.
K
If
you
want
to
do
more
than
that,
less
than
that,
it's
why
I'm
pushing
now
like
we
could
still
change
it
now,
if
you
guys
agree
that
we
don't
care,
call
it
mandel
go
with
what
you
have
that's
pragmatically
the
ideal
solution
for
us,
but
the
whole
reason
we're
having
these
meetings
is
to
to
gain
consensus
and
have
it
be
a
community
decision.
K
So
if
there
were
strong
feelings-
or
you
know,
ideas
about
not
only
names
but
directions
for
what
do
we
name
and
read,
what
do
we
rename
and
what
would
we
not
rename
that's?
Why
we're
having
this
conversation?
So
there
is
still
a
chance
now
and,
as
someone
said
earlier,
the
more
time
that
goes
by
the
less
of
a
chance
right,
the
harder
it
becomes
to
to
make
that
change.
O
P
There
was
a
lot
of
confusion
between
eos
and
eosio
and
and
traditionally
not
in
any
way
to
disparage
dan
lammer,
but
he's
been
accused
of
being
more
on
the
engineering
side
of
blockchain
technology
and
less
on
the
marketing
and
usability
and
perception
side
of
blockchain
technology
and-
and
that's
where
I
think,
maybe
this
is
a
larger
important
decision
than
we're,
giving
the
time
required
to
do
it
from
a
marketing
perspective.
What
is
the
messaging
of
what
we're
trying
to
build
and
we
have
a
lot
to
overcome
as
far
as
that?
P
H
So
the
one
thing
that
was
considered
the
name
is
like
the
domains
and
everything
around
that.
So,
like
you
think
about
the
ecosystem,
as
it
is
now,
we
don't
own
the
eos
dot,
io
domain
so
like,
as
I
forget,
who
mentioned
just
sticking
with
eosio
like
we
don't
own
that
domain.
All
of
the
training
resources
are
currently
on
that
domain,
all
of
the
documentation's
on
that
domain,
whatever
name
this
is
it's
going
to
kind
of
host?
H
J
A
A
H
K
Right
but
there's
not
a
lot
of
that
out
there,
but
that
may
be
of
interest.
We
don't
have
to
get
that
name
perfect
either.
We
could
replace
mandel
not
too
long
from
now.
Right,
like
we
have
a
bunch
of
ways
we
can
approach
the
problem.
We
just
need
something
now.
So
if
we
consider
mandel
a
placeholder,
that's
fine!
If
nobody
really
cares,
we
just
stick
with
that.
That's
fine,
but
we
probably
will
be
interested
in
branding
it
really.
At
some
point,
mandel
could
just
be
considered
a
placeholder
for
now.
A
To
answer
your
question
as
well:
aaron
like
why,
today,
why
not
next
week
what
would
change
between
now
and
next
week
for
you
next
week
to
be
comfortable
in
choosing
a
name,
because
that's
the
discussion
we
had
last
week
was
why
not
last
week,
let's
move
it
to
next
week,
I'm
okay
with
that!
Just
it'll
be
next
week
and
the
following
week
and
the
following.
L
L
P
Balance
this
you
know
you
did
a
wonderful
post,
it's
about
the
level
of
extent
you
put
into
the
branding
of
the
eos
network
foundation.
I
feel
like
this
is
an
order
of
magnitude
in
that
of
that
era.
Size
like
with
it
we're
literally
determining
the
future,
and
my
hunch
is
because
I've
been
in
software
a
while
a
placeholder
becomes
permanent,
whether
you
realize
it
or
not.
So
this.
A
P
Yeah,
that's
the
great
point,
and
so
I
feel
like
without
a
significant
thought
process.
To
answer
your
question.
You
asked
to
aaron
someone
from
a
project
management
perspective,
saying
hey
we're
going
to
actually
do
some
research
on
what
domains
are
available.
What
twitter
accounts
are
available?
What
you
know
all
this
stuff
that
you
can
actually
properly
market
and
brand
this,
because
people
will
ask
us-
and
we
do
you
know-
exchange
listings-
tell
us
what
what
technology
stack
you're
based
on.
P
We
do
tell
them
we're
eosio
based
that
is
a
that
is
a
a
thing
they're
going
to
have
to
understand
and
know
what
it
is
and
to
zach's
point
all
that
content
is
maintained
by
somebody.
It's
apparently
going
to
be
this
group,
so
this
is
a
really
important
decision
and
to
define
what
this
group
is
and
how
we
market
and
communicate
about
ourselves.
P
We
don't
think
that
through
properly,
I
feel
like
we're
going
to
be
in
some
trouble,
so
I
do
feel
like
it's
an
important
decision
and
I
know
we
want
to
move
quickly,
but
I
mean,
unless
someone's
tasked
like
in
a
subcommittee
to
go,
do
this
between.
You
know
the
next
x
number
of
days,
then
we
are
just
going
to
go
with
mendo
and
that'll.
Be
it,
but
you
know,
do
we
know
if
we
have
the
domain?
Do
we
have
the
twitter?
Do
we
have
all
those
things?
I
don't
know.
J
Yeah,
this
also
affects,
like
onboarding
of
developers
like
developers
of
whatever
chain,
whether
it's
eos
telos,
vo,
whatever
they
consider
themselves
to
be
eos
io
developers
at
the
moment,
and
do
we
want
to
just
like
make
them
overnight
mandel
developers?
Or
do
we
want
to
think
through
that,
like
what
is
going
to
bring
in
the
most
developers
for
this
technology
base?.
H
J
H
H
A
Or
you
say
you
might:
if
so
eos
has
this
business
need,
there's
not
a
business
need
for
you
guys,
you
guys
didn't
just
divorce
for
brought
one.
Yes
just
did
and
they
have
a
business
need.
Yes,
the
chain
has
that
business
if
eos
forks
and
calls
it
mandel
and
in
eight
months
this
group
chooses
to
call
it
starfish.
I
H
This
is
kind
of
getting
the
work
done
like.
How
do
we
reach
consensus
on
this?
That's
it
was
kind
of
a
softball
like
we
came
up
with
the
priority
for
last
week.
It's
like
all
right.
Let's
come
back
here
and,
let's
all
agree
on
something
a
name
is
fairly.
I
mean
I
I
get
that
thought
should
go
into
it,
but
like
wow,
even
if
someone
came
here
with
a
really
good
name,
there
needs
to
what
is
the
consensus
process?
Do
we
just
raise
our
hands?
H
I
mean,
if
it's
an
overwhelming
majority
of
the
people
on
this
call,
then
sure
if
it's
split
50
50,
then
maybe
we
need
to
think
of
a
different
method,
but
that's
all
part
of
this.
It's
it's
so,
like
you
said
it's
the
business
need
for
eos,
because
you
guys
a
lot
of
the
other
chains
haven't
been
really
carrying
an
esio
flag,
it's
more
or
less
hidden.
Only
on
a
technical
level.
People
understand
that
from
a
marketing
standpoint,
you
guys
probably
don't
really
use
the
ocean
that
much.
A
Their
way
to
make
sure
that
nobody
knows
that
they
even
have
any
affiliation
to
eos
right
and
that's
where
eos
the
chain
is
at
it
doesn't
want
affiliation
to
eos.
It
is
the
business
need
for
eos
itself,
but
what
I'm?
What
I'm
getting
at
is
if
we,
if
eos,
chooses
to
do
this,
because
this
is
not
going
to
be
the
only
time
that
we
encounter
a
situation
like
this,
if
a
chain
chooses
and
needs
to
do
something
for
its
own
means,
what
will
happen
in
the
future?
A
How
can
we
go
back
on
that,
so
eos
brands
itself
mandel
in
the
meantime,
you
guys
are
all
yasayo
developers,
you
don't
care,
you
don't
need
to
change
that.
How
can
we
consolidate
that
in
the
future,
when
we
do
have
a
process
to
be
able
to
consolidate
it
when
we've
hired
a
marketing
and
branding
firm,
where
we've
chosen
a
name
where
we've
built
branding
around
that
and
eos,
then
it's
on
it's
now
it's
on
its
shoulders
to
then
go
to
the
new
name
and
brand
to
the
new
name.
A
K
Yeah
just
to
just
to
put
it
in
a
new
repo
and
do
the
renaming
we've
done.
Todd
has
scripts
that
I'd
imagine
would
be
relatively
straightforward
to
make
another
naming
change,
so
we
could
use
mandel
again
as
a
placeholder
just
to
do
the
divorce
and
then
start
a
marketing
start,
a
real
marketing
effort
where
we
go
get
social
handles
and
whatnot
and
just
do
another
rename.
K
And
while
that's
not
perfect,
this
gives.
H
K
It
gives
us
a
path
forward
is
possible
and
we're
kind
of
in
this
quiet
period
right
where
how
much
is
that?
How
much
is
this
temp
name
gonna
matter
for
the
next
couple
months?
Few
months
right,
however
long
it
takes
to
get
a
marketing
research
campaign
done,
I
think
we
could
get
that
done
with
minimal
impact,
and
just
maybe
everybody's
just
on
pause
waiting
for
that.
Second,
everyone
who
knows
is
on
pause
waiting
for
that
actual
secondary
name.
Could
we
treat.
H
Mandel,
like
an
upgrade
name
like
we've,
always
just
upgraded
based
on
numbers
within
eosio,
but,
like
you
look
at
a
theorem
like
there's
the
london
hard
fork,
just
treat
mandel
like
that.
This
is
the
the
version
of
this
update
and
then
we
could
have
something
more
permanent.
So
what
I
don't
understand
is
the
difficulties
on
the
clarion
team
of
renaming
later
and
that's
why
I'm
leaning
on
mike
for
that,
because
that
was
one
of
the
things
that
was
brought
up
last
week
that
led
to
the
urgency
yeah
I'll
I'll,
verify
that
right
now.
P
If
I
can
make
a
suggestion
onto
the
core
point
that
we're
trying
to
define,
as
far
as
how
do
we
make
decisions,
one
of
things
we've
been
doing
along
with
the
fips
with
fiat-
that's
been
very
helpful.
Is
we
have
a
steering
committee?
You
know
eric's
on
that.
I'm
on
that
david
and
pablo
were
the
co-founders.
You
know
the
chief
of
product
and
chief
executive
in
terms
of
like
a
lot
of
day-to-day
stuff.
We've
got
head
of
marketing
there
and
we
and
it's
open.
P
We
have
open
steering
committee
meetings
every
week,
one
one
week
we
go
over
initiatives
that
have
been
kind
of
talked
about.
We
prioritize
them
and
we
just
come
to
consensus.
It's
literally
going
through
a
jira
board
going
all
right,
here's
all
the
stuff.
We
know
we
want
to
do
or
hey
somebody
submitted
a
new
initiative
from
the
community.
P
Let's
take
a
look
at
it
and
there's
there's
multiple
step
processes
of
initiatives,
opportunities
which
we've
agreed
to,
but
we
don't
have
internal
resources
to
have
them
and
then
worker
proposals
which
is
like
okay,
here's
either
a
group
or
a
team
and
we're
gonna.
You
know
actual
proposal
to
get
something
done
and
pay
them
and
and
then
they
have
the
formalized
fit
process
as
well
and
it's
it's
served
us
fairly
well
and
we've
essentially
just
gone
by
consensus.
P
It's
basically
been
an
m1a
consensus,
I
mean
full
consensus,
I
mean
we'll
discuss
something
and
unless
the
whole
steering
committee
agrees-
and
we
only
have
about
six
people
on
the
team,
so
it's
a
little
bit
easier.
This
is
12
or
more.
So
it's
going
to
be
much
more
difficult,
but
you
know
obviously
eric
and
I
would
only
get
one
vote
potentially
I
I
would
just
submit
as
a
possible
way
just
in
the
interim
to
get
decisions
made.
We
treat
ourselves
as
the
steering
committee
for
eocio
plus
and
we
actually
go
through
a
similar
process.
P
We
don't
need
jira
and
confluence.
We
can
literally
do
this
from
a
spreadsheet
and
share
google
doc
and
we
can
have
all
of
our.
You
know
those
hundred
things
that
were
mentioned
earlier,
put
them
in
there
and
these
these
meetings
take
a
long
time.
Sometimes
it's
like
two
hours
to
go
through
and
really
clean
up
the
initiatives
they
could
like
sort
them
and
prioritize
them
go
through
them
painfully
one
at
a
time.
What
do
you
think
about
this?
What
do
you
think
about
that?
You
come
to
consensus,
to
organize
them
and
and
order
them.
P
I
I
feel,
like
it's
gonna,
take
probably
more
than
just
a
weekly
call
in
this
case
to
get
us
started
because
there's
so
much
that
could
be
done
and
there's
timelines
that
have
to
be
met.
But
you
know
to
your
point
aaron
as
well.
I
think
the
consensus
in
my
opinion
is
you're
on
this
call,
because
you
are
so
incredibly
significant
to
this
ecosystem.
We
all
use
your
wallets.
For
example,
I
say
the
same
for
saeed
and
the
values
brought
to
blocks
io.
P
They
explore
and
you
know
those
type
of
things
as
well
as
representing
photon,
so
I
feel
like
if
we
can
use
that
process
just
from
who
we
have
here,
one
vote
per
chain,
one
vote
per
important
ecosystem
member,
then
we
can
at
least
have
a
process
before
and
we
can
always
improve
that.
But
that's
something
we
can
start
today
if
there's
a
thought
process,
because
I
just
can't
think
of
another
way
to
do
it
right
now,.
D
Yeah,
I
I
would,
I
was
actually
trying
to
propose
that
is.
Is
there
really
one
chain
has
one
vote
and
every
chain
is
in
a
position
to
to
propose
an
ecosystem
business
like
errands
to
be
part
of
the
voting
process,
and
if
the
majority
of
the
trains
agree,
then
this
this
party
can
be
added
to
to
the
voting.
D
P
The
only
adjustment
I
would
make
that
would
be
the
the
suggestion
that
we
actually
do
unanimous
votes
which
again
might
be
slow,
might
be
difficult.
It
might
not
even
be
possible,
but
it's
something
that
and
basically
eliminates
the
weight
problem
like
if
we
were
going
to
say.
Oh
your
market
cap
is
so
much
bigger
than
ours
or
so
much
smaller
than
ours.
P
Why
do
you
get
an
equal
vote
if,
if
you're,
reaching
unanimous
consensus
anyway,
it
doesn't
matter
you've
all
kind
of
worked
it
through
talked
it
through
and
you
feel
confident
yeah
maybe,
and
we
do.
We
have
situations
in
the
steering
committee
where
someone
says
you
know
what
I
disagree,
but
I'm
gonna
go
with
consensus
and
here's
the
I've
voiced
the
reasons
I
disagree.
We've
talked
it
through
I've.
P
I've
shared
my
opinion
and
now
I'm
in
full
support
of
what
the
group
agrees
to
and
that's
what
I
think
good
teams
effectively
do
they
sometimes
even
yell
and
scream
and
debate
hard
and
that
you
know
there's.
You
know
they
can
disagree,
but
ultimately,
if
they
come
to
consensus,
they
can
move
forward
in
support
of
it.
P
You
know
maybe
later
they'll
be,
like
I
told
you
so,
but
but
they
could
at
least
you
know,
be
functional,
and
that
might
be
just
a
quick
way
that
we
could
try
because
hey
if
we're
all
in
consensus,
you
know
really
there's
not
much
conflict.
You
only
run
the
conflict
when
someone's
like
no
beat
in
the
ground,
I'm
going
to
divorce
you
if
you
continue
in
this
path.
You
know.
D
Yeah,
I
I
personally
think
that
the
the
size
of
the
chain
shouldn't
be
shouldn't,
be
a
relevant
of
relevant
information,
because
if
changes
are
agreed
in
this
group
that
might
lead
to
a
train
not
being
compatible
anymore
through
the
esi
or
source
code
or
whatever
is
called
then
then
this
is
an
issue.
So
I
personally
think
that
the
size
of
the
chain
shouldn't
be
important.
D
It's
it's
important
that
they
are
based
on
the
on
the
old
eos
ir
code
and
that
they
participate
in
this
group,
and
then
they
have
one
vote,
as
all
other
trades
would
have
this.
This
would
be
my
personal
opinion
and
recommendation
to
go
this
route
because
it
just
makes
so
everything
so
much
easier
and
then
to
be
able
to
vote
in
ecosystem
parties
on
a
on
a
simple
majority,
or
we
say
everybody
has
to
agree.
D
I
think
that
that
would
be
a
proposal,
then
at
least
to
have
the
team.
That's
that's
been
able
to
or
is
able
to
cast
the
vote.
I'm
not
sure
if
we
really
have
to
do
secret
votes
because
we're
discussing
those
things
anyway.
So,
but
that's
something
that
we
would
also
have
to
find
consensus
on
probably
on
a
secret
vote.
If
we
decide
that
every
every
train
has
one
vote
and
we
can
vote
in
ecosystem
parties.
H
So
requiring
everyone
to
reach
consensus
is
going
to
make
decision
making
very
difficult,
and
to
do
so,
you
need
to
set
criteria
of
who
gets
a
vote
just
because
we're
on
this
call
like
if
it's
one
chain,
one
vote.
How
do
you
decide
which
chains
are
approved
like
eva
raphael
was
invited
to
the
sio
plus
group
he's
not
on
this
call
they're
a
private
implementation?
They
run
all
of
their
own
infrastructure.
H
H
We
could
all
vote
on
something
and
say
we
need
it,
but
then
you
got
to
figure
out
how
it's
going
to
be
paid
for
exactly
that's
a
huge
component
to
this
aaron
or
eve
could
probably
speak
there's
way
more
than
me,
but
from
the
working
groups
and
the
budgets
coming
out
of
it
speaking
to
former
and
current
block
one
employees
and
what
they're
currently
and
previously
we're
investing
into
the
functions
that
would
fall
under
this
group.
It's
over
10
million
dollars
a
year
easily,
so
it
it's
that.
M
A
Yeah,
I
I
because
I
think
we
need
to
figure
out
what
is
value
and
some
of
it
may
be
actual
funding
like
tokens
or
or
fiat,
or
something
like
that,
but
some
of
it
also
may
be
man
hours
within
hours.
Basically,
you
know
human
resources,
so
I
don't
think
it's
just
when
you
say
put
up
or
shut
up.
I
think
it's
more
than
just
money.
It's
it's
whatever
are
you.
A
A
We
have
membership
dues.
How
are
we
going
to?
How
are
we
going
to
be
inclusive
when,
like
what
zach
just
said,
if
there's
a
cost
of
20
million
dollars
per
year,
we
can't
shut
out
people
that
makes
no
sense
either
right.
That
would
go
against
the
purpose
that
I'm
trying
to
to
create
here
as
well
and-
and
I'm
the
one,
arguably
perhaps
with
the
largest
purse
strings
right
now,
and
I
don't
think
that
that's
right.
J
I
mean
from
our
perspective,
it
doesn't
really
matter
for
telus,
because
you
know,
if
I'm
going
to
be
honest,
like
our
needs
are
probably
going
to
align
with
eos.
So
it
would
probably
be
advantage
to
say
you
know,
stake
weighted
voting
and
see
eos
get
the
greatest
vote,
because
you
know
we
run
exactly
the
same
code
and
everything
I
don't.
J
Just
another
perspective,
though,
is
that
you
know
the
the
opportunity
cost
of
any
delay,
because
you
know
you
know
trying
to
weight.
Things
is
actually
going
to
be
worse
because
you
know
there's
greater
competition
than
even
into
eosio
and
that's
correct
other
technologies,
and
you
know
the
the
market
cap
of
eos
or
even
telos,
or
any
of
these
is
going
to
be
dictated
by
how
fast
we
move
forward.
J
So
I
think
there
is
a
huge
opportunity
cost
to
getting
too
caught
up
on
how
some
chains
should
get
more
waiting
and
the
reality
is,
as
I
said
before,
the
eos's
needs
are
actually
going
to
come
out
on
top
either
way
because
it
is
the
most
vanilla
you
know,
along
with
some
other
chains,
you
know
so
you're
going
to
get
the
end
result.
So
there's
no
point
in
getting
too
caught
up
on
that,
because
you're
going
to
lose
the
larger
battle.
A
With
that,
with
with
everything
you
said,
really,
it
has
historically
that
eos
is
kind
of
the
guinea
pig
whenever
new
code
comes
out.
I
just
talked
about
this
with
aaron
that
eos
the
chain
was
typically
the
first
one
to
deploy
the
first
one
to
be
attacked
the
first
one
to
then
figure
out
what
the
bugs
are.
It's
got
the
largest
treasury,
so
it
was
the
most
obvious
one
to
attack.
That's
historically
been
the
case.
Will
it
remain
the
case?
No
idea.
C
Let's
come
first
to
disagreement,
then
figure
out
how
we
solve
the
disagreement
right
at
the
moment.
We
don't
have
anything
to
argue
about,
so
I
mean
there's.
No,
I
mean
we
don't
have
a
subject
for
voting
yet
and
there's
not
so
much
disagreement
so
once
there
is
any
kind
of
conflict
or
conflict
of
interest
or
or
any
kind
of
dispute,
then
we
need
to
put
forward
some
ways
to
resolve
this.
This
we
can
just
do
it
like
that.
C
I
C
L
I
would
wager
that
the
amount
of
effort
it
would
take
from
teams
like
mine,
far
exceeds
teams
like
mike's.
When
it
comes
to
a
rebranding
effort,
I
probably
have
three
or
four
more
times
the
amount
of
repositories
that
are
labeled
as
eosio
that
need
to
be
changed
to
mandel
and
then
potentially
need
to
be
changed
to
something
else
in
the
future
than
what
is
currently
maintained
there.
So,
each
of
them
I
mean
they're
compatible
right,
we're
not
breaking
compatibility,
that's
not
the
point.
They
need
to
be
renamed
if
we're
moving
away
from
eos
io.
L
C
L
C
There
were
such
cases
before
there
was
sun
solaris.
If
you
know
I
mean
sun
microsystems
had
solaris
was
a
brand
name
and
operating
system,
then
oracle
bought
it
and
then
oracle
still
maintains
salaries
as
a
trademark
trademark,
but
all
core
developers
left
oracle
and
they
they
made
a
few
distributions.
One
of
them
is
called
open,
solaris,
the
other
one
is
smart
os
a
few
more.
Basically,
they
all
know
that
they
are
coming
from
celery
service
and
the
course
core
system
was
still
solid.
They
don't
kill
the
name
completely.
They
just
they
brand.
C
They
market
their
own
product
as
smart
os,
which
is
then
later
in
the
communication.
Smartwatch
stems
from
use
from
solaris
and
that
that
is
totally
fine
with
everyone.
A
I'm
not
opposed
to
what
you
just
said
aaron,
so
maybe
let's
maybe
let's
take
this
out,
because
this
is
not
yasayo
so
how
it
impacts
the
esio
though,
but
like
the
larger
group,
what
I
would
if,
if
we
go
in
that
direction
for
for
for
the
rest
of
the
group,
when
we
don't
do
a
second
brand
essentially,
then
I
would
want
to
have
a
clear
deadline
on
when
this
group
is
going
to
come
up
with
a
name
and
a
clear
process
on
how
they're
going
to
come
up
with
that.
A
B
A
P
Can
I
position
it
maybe
a
little
bit
differently?
Let's,
if
we
were
doing
this
like
in
the
video
protocol
way
you
represent,
has
are
bringing
a
proposal
to
the
eosio
plus
committee
steering
committee
and
saying
here's
what
we'd
like
to
rename
it.
What
do
you
all
think
and
then
we
would
essentially
vote
on
that
and
as
part
of
that,
you
might
bring
your
proof
of
you
know,
qualifications
for
that.
P
You
know
in
your
deliverables
of
the
work
you
did
to
represent
that
you
know
just
like
you
would
want
someone
to
validate
that
they
did
the
work
if
you
were
to
pay
them
to
come
up
with
a
good
name.
Essentially
you
guys
did
that
work.
You
came
up
with
a
name
and
now
you're
going
to
defend
it
for
us,
the
steering
committee.
You
know
that
might
be
one
way
to
approach
this
to
say
you
came
up
with
mandel
cool.
Why
do
you
have
the
domain
name?
P
Do
you
have
the
twitter
like
what
work
went
into
that
and
if
it's,
if
the
work
is,
is
not
acceptable
to
this
group,
then
we
can
decide
yeah,
it's
not
good
enough.
We
need
to
actually
do
some
more
work
or
if
the
work
is
done,
it's
cool
and
we're
like
sweet.
As,
as
dan
said,
you
haven't
been
down
the
dictator,
we're
cool
with
that
man.
No,
it
is
and
we'll
make
it
happen.
Do
you
guys
have
supporting
evidence
for
or
recommendation
for
that
name
change
or
that
suggestion.
A
I
think
maybe
it's
called
mantle
for
x
y
reasons
and
be
like
no,
but
I
like
that
name,
and
that
is
in
line
with
what
I
am
working
on,
and
so
yes,
I'm
good
with
that,
and
then
us
then
having
the
business
need
to
create
a
repo
and
then
the
like,
you
mentioned
earlier
kind
of
the
more
marketing
need
to
also
follow
through
on
that
and
then
the
divorce
and
then
the
ip,
etc,
etc,
etc.
So,.
A
Is
how
we
started
this
call
last
week
as
well?
If
I'm
not
mistaken,
the
domain
is
already
secured.
There
are
resources
that
already
secured,
but
those
costs
are
insignificant.
So
it's
not
that
big
a
deal.
What
I'm
saying
is
if
this
group-
and
I'm
good
with
that
so
aaron
brings
up
some
some
concerns
that
are
eos
concerns,
not
necessarily
yes,
I
o
concerns.
Yes,
there
are.
A
All
I
would
want
is
that
a
commitment
from
this
group
that
whoever
it
is
decides
to
take
that,
on
with
the
with
an
actual
deadline
of
working
towards
proposing
a
name,
it
doesn't
need
to
be
the
enf
enf
is
not
a
benevolent
dictator
of
yasayo
at
all.
That's
why
we're
funding
this
group
and
that's
why
we
created
this
group
is
to
figure
out.
Eos
is
a
player
within
that,
but
is
not
the
player.
So
it's
not
necessarily
the
enf.
That's
going
to
be
doing
that.
Work.
A
Enf,
though,
is
putting
funds
available,
because
there
are
costs
to
doing
this
type
of
work,
their
cost
for
people's
time,
but
then
also,
if
you're,
suggesting
going
out
to
branding
agency,
that's
a
cost,
but
somebody
needs
to
essentially
take
on
that
role.
Just
like
what
stan
suggested
with
you
know,
zaisan
taking
on
the
the
role
of
of
a
project
manager,
they
propose
a
cost.
The
proposal
we
need
we'll
need
to
do
the
same
thing
with
branding.
A
What
I
don't
want
is
that
in
two
months,
we're
having
the
discussion
again,
because
nobody
took
on
that
that
that
task
and
essentially
eos
now
loses
out
and
we've
mitigated
a
risk
for
a
period
of
time
and
now
becomes
much
greater
business
risk
for
eos.
It
is
already
a
business
risk
for
eos.
This
is
why
we're
suggesting
something
why
we're
forking
away?
A
C
H
H
A
professional
agency
and
I'd
even
suggest
that
enf
is
in
the
worst
position
to
do
this
because
we're
the
newest
organization.
Yes,
we
have
the
largest
market
cup
we
represent.
We
are
the
newest
organization,
we're
still
growing
our
team,
we're
working
on
our
own
branding
for
the
enf
itself,
like
we're
we're
not
in
the
best
position
to
take
on
this
file
of
the
the
marketing
and
branding
that
everyone
can
get
behind
of
this
name.
J
Next
week,
obviously
like
welcome
more
than
one
proposal
for
us
to
go
through
if
anyone
else
wants
to
bring
a
proposal
forward.
L
And
I
think
that's
why
I
brought
up
why
this
call-
and
I
know
it's
because
there
is
effort
that
goes
into
renaming
from
a
technical
level,
which
I
don't
want
to
do
twice
either,
and
I
zac
you
earlier
had
said
that
this
was
a
simple
decision
and
I
don't
personally
agree
with
that.
L
I
think
that
coming
up
with
a
name
is
one
of
the
most
important
parts,
because
it
sets
a
lot
of
things
in
motion
moving
forward
branding
related,
we
spent
like
nine
months
coming
up
with
some
of
our
names
before
we
like
settled
on
it
and
then
moved
forward
with
it.
It's
it's
a
hard
decision
to
make
and
I'm
I
don't
think
we
should
take
a
long
time.
L
I
agree
with
what
eve
said
that
we
shouldn't
come
back
to
this
in
two
months
and
nobody
has
done
anything
like
that's,
not
a
desired
situation
right
now.
We
should
try
to
move
forward.
This
should
be
the
first
decision
we
make
with.
However,
we
make
decisions
and
we
should
move
on
this
quickly,
because
then
we
can
engage
on
rebranding.
These
things
documentation
libraries
tools
whatever
it
may
be.
For
all
of
these
chains
that
are
going
to
be
able
to
use
them
so.
A
Justin,
you
said
you
could
come
back
next
week.
I
guess
that's
what
we
said
last
week
just
to
clarify
what
do
you
mean?
What
would
you
come
back
with
next
week?
You'd
have
already
engaged
a
branding
agency
already
done
some
some
some
surveys
out
there.
I
would
imagine
that
that's
not
possible
within
a
week,
yeah.
A
E
E
J
J
100,
if,
if
it
was
urgent
and
we
needed
to
do
it
within
a
week,
what
I
would
come
back
with
was
would
just
be
the
the
name
itself.
What
domains
we
can
register,
what?
What
twitter
and
social
and
things
that
we
can
register
and
a
reasoning
why
we
should
go
with
this
name
and
it
would
be
a
yes
or
no
vote.
J
H
A
Twitter
in
this
domain
that
what
we
have
right
now
isn't
what
we're
missing,
whether
or
not
that
name
jives
with
the
full
brand
and
and
the
direction
that
we
can
get
behind,
and
so
that's
not
going
to
happen
in
a
week.
So
I
what
would
be
be
voting
on
next
week,
if
not
the
same
thing
that
we're
essentially
voting
on
that.
We
said
that
we
would
vote
on
this
week.
J
Well
like
take,
for
example,
turing
like
if
I
propose
that
name,
because
that's
one
of
the
ones
that
I
would
consider,
I
would
want
to
kind
of
research.
The
original
comment
that
dan
made
on
twitter
about.
J
I
think
it
was
something
to
have
during
completeness-
and
you
know
the
the
base
software
so
I'd
want
to
touch
base
with
him
and
see
if
that
is
correct,
and
that
would
be
the
basis
for
suggesting
that
turing
name
along
with
you
know
a
number
of
other
research
points,
so
that
that
would
be
what
I
would
be
sort
of
proposing.
J
I
think,
but
it's
dependent
on.
You
know
those
research
points.
Someone
could
also
do
that
for
mandel,
and
that
would
you
know,
provide
two.
You
know
potential
names
and
we
could
make
a
selection
on
one.
A
C
I
Yeah,
it's
it's
quite
late
here
and
we're
kind
of
going
round
and
round
in
circles
here.
Can
we
can
we
come
up
with
some
some
idea
of
what
we'd
like
to
target
this
week
so
that
we
can
have
some
effective
meeting
next
week.
C
What
are
they
also
we
didn't
get
any
so
some
people
expressed
that
they
don't
really
like
how
it
sounds.
That's
the
only
concern
right.
We
don't
have
any
other
objections.
G
H
Yeah
so
I
believe
domains
are
secured,
but
no
branding
agency
was
consulted,
it's
more
or
less.
The
idea
was
sticking
to
math
or
science-based
names,
as
opposed
to
greek
gods,
or
any
type
of
thing
like
that.
Get
away
from
the
christianity
get
away
from
the
greek
gods.
Just
math
is
the
universal
language.
That
was
the
idea
behind
it
and
it
kind
of
ties
into
some
of
the
other
aspects
of
eos.
A
I
C
Sure
we
need
to
vote,
I'm
not
sure,
because
I
mean
it
is
the
east
thing
right,
the
soft
choosing
the
sort
of
branch
which
is
most
significant.
I
mean
the
whole
rebranding
is
the
most
significant
question
for
years.
Other
blockchains
will
just
fork
off
from
mandala
and
they
can
they
can
maintain
their
own
software
with
their
own
name
and
just
use
mandel
as
upstream
branch.
That's
right.
I
I
I
really
I
realized
yeah,
I
realize
that's
the
implication,
but
if,
if
we're
trying
to
act
as
some
sort
of
guiding
body,
then
the
votes
should
be
accordingly
where,
whereas,
if
it
doesn't
matter
to
you
vote
accordingly,.
L
Impacts
the
core
code
base
you're
only
talking
about
the
core
code
base
and
none
of
the
tooling
around
it.
This
decision
will
impact
all
of
the
tooling
that
is
global
to
everything
when
we
get
a
unity
plug-in,
so
people
can
start
building
video
games
that
are
integrated
with
all
of
these
chains.
It's
going
to
be
branded
with
this
name
like
there
are
a
lot
of
external
products.
L
H
There
this
is
going
whatever
stood
behind.
This
name
would
have
to
be
its
own,
probably
not
for
profit.
It's
gonna
have
to
have
its
own
marketing
arm
its
own,
like
web
admins,
its
own
social
media.
People
like
this
is
its
own
organization
here
like,
and
it's
not
necessarily
eos.
It's
not
necessarily
enough.
So,
like
someone's
got
to
do
all
of
this
like
it's,
it
is
much
bigger
than
a
name.
H
L
Or
at
least
like
a
commonly
used
brand,
that
is
public
domain
that
we
can
all
use
like
at
bare
minimum
like
that
was
kind
of
the
original
ask
and
some
of
what
was
going
on
last
year.
Late
last
year
was
like,
let's
put
the
brand
into
the
public,
so
we
can
all
just
use
it
and
be
a
part
of
it
like
linux
is
not
necessarily
an
owned
brand
by
a
single
or
well
is
it.
L
I
don't
know
to
be
honest,
there's
a
foundation,
you
know
there's
and
then
they
I'm
assuming
they
own
that
name,
but
there
are
a
ton
of
organizations
that
are
part
of
that
giant.
Scope
of
software
development.
D
But
I
I'm
with
rami
there
so
generally,
the
question
is:
if
first
question,
would
you
all
all
those
that
are
still
there?
Would
you
all
agree
that
for
the
voting
we
go
with
with
a
simple,
simple
majority
based
on
one
vote
per
chain,
because
that
that
would
enable
us
to
vote
for
something
at
least.
J
H
L
I
am
happy
to
also
just
provide
input
and
let
representation
of
the
chains
as
it's
determined
do
the
voting.
I
mean
I'm
happy
to
make
my
voice
heard.
Obviously,.
D
Yeah,
so
you
mo
you
have
more
like
a
consulting
function
and
and
influencer
function
to
the
how
you
call
the
division.
I
don't
know
what
the
english
word
is
for
that,
so
so,
but
then
we
can
either
decide
to
to
have
third
parties,
have
a
vote
or
just
be
consultants,
but
can
we
all
agree
that
every
chain
has
one
one
vote
that
is
carried
out
by
somebody?
That's
nominated
by
the
train
itself,.
D
No,
so
so
we
can
agree
on
that,
so
would,
and
should
we
second
question
is:
should
third
parties
like
aaron
have
a
vote
themselves,
or
should
they
be
consulting
or
influencing
the
the
people
on
board
so
should
they
have
a
vote.
P
I
would
say
just
to
make
it
clean.
I
would
say
that
any
chain
that
doesn't
take
aaron's
consulting
seriously
is
frankly
stupid.
So
I
would
think
it's
he's.
It
might
have
been
one
of
the
highest
valued
consultants
that
we
have
for
the
tooling
he's
built.
So
it's
in
our
best
interest
to
make
sure
his
ideas
like,
for
example,
the
the
the
key
structure.
P
We
could
just
say
you
know,
because,
ultimately,
if
the
chains
aren't
doing
a
good
job,
then
technical
service
providers
like
braymast,
you
know
and
their
tooling
will
go
elsewhere
to
other
chains.
So
we
want
to
keep
them
happy
and
engaged.
So
I
think
it's
our
best
interest
to
vote
in
a
way
that
keeps
them
happy
and
it's
just
cleaner
of
every
chain,
but
I
do
think
potentially
the
open
source
question
still
needs
to
be
discussed
and
resolved,
and
potentially
I
know
we
talked
about
you
know
one
chain,
one
vote.
P
D
We
can
have
a
vote
and
and
decide
together
if
that's
gonna
be
100
vote
or
if
it's
like
a
simple
majority.
So
so
we
can
agree
on
that
also.
But,
but
I
think
that's
a
theoretical
case
that
we
don't
have
right
now
so
for
now,
if
we
would
say
one
vote
one
chain
and
as
I
understand
you
look
if,
if
that's,
if
I
interpreted
it
correctly,
you
would
say
that
aaron
should
have
a
vote
because
he's
so
important
and
has
done.
P
Yeah
and
then
also
to
the
point
that
was
made
earlier.
As
far
as
you
know,
the
chain
electing
a
representative,
you
know
eric
and
I
are
both
on
this
call-
we've
got
two
people
from
telos.
You
know
our
voices
might
influence
the
you
know
decision
if
you
had
50
people
from
theo.
Obviously
that
would
change
this
conversation
as
well
right,
so
we
might
even
want
to
have
a
conversation
about
like
a
normal
board.
P
You
have
your
board
members,
and
then
you
have
people
that
are
auditing
or
you
know
they're
able
to
just
listen
in
but
don't
have
a
vote.
You
know,
for
example,
these
are
things
that
there
are
structures
for
as
far
as
like
how
you
do
boards
and
things
like
that,
maybe
we
could
learn
from
some
of
those
perspectives.
Sure.
C
Yes,
there's
another
problem:
what
is
a
chain
right?
So
if
you
look
at
blocks
that
I
owe
have
used,
proton
wax
tell
us
a
few.
They
are
actually
represented
here
of
europe
chain,
which
is
well
I'm
kind
of
representing
it,
but
not
really
because
it's
a
blockchain
where
we
don't
have
anything
running
on
it
yet
and
then
there's
coffee,
which
is
some
strange
object.
I
don't
even
know
what
they're
doing
and
how
how
they
want
to
participate
in
this
kind
of
discussions
on
x,
dot,
dot
io
we
have
well
boss,
is
dead
already
in
star.
C
When
I
I
know
what
insta
network
is
it's
a
small
blockchain,
they
don't
really
care
about
what
we're
discussing
here
and
and
most
probably
they
will
just
transform
into.
I
don't
know
throne
or
anything,
because
it's
just
a
token
distribution.
D
But
then
then
they
don't
want
to
be
participating
here
anyway.
So
I
think
the
moment
that
somebody
approaches
the
group
and
says
hey
I'm
running
a
train.
I
want
to
be
part
of
this
and
be
part
of
the
decision
process.
Then
we
could
look
at
the
parameters.
What
is
the
definition
of
a
chain?
I
mean,
or
somebody
could
go.
D
I
like
zac
and
and
eve
you
could
go
back
and
say
what
would
you
be
your
decision,
a
definition
of
a
train
and
propose
that
so
we
we
don't
end
up
with
saying
no
we're
not
taking
this
decision
now,
because
we
don't
know
what
the
definition
of
a
chain
is
or
we
at
some
point.
We
have
to
define
something
and
make
one
decision
for
the
meeting
today.
So
so
the
next
meeting
we're
not
discussing
who's,
actually
able
to
vote
and
decide.
Well,
we
have
six
at
a
barrier
of
entry.
H
So
the
enf
said
we've
got
250
000
will
throw
in
that's
incredibly
high.
I
don't
expect
anything
else
to
do
that,
but
what
about
something
more
reasonable
put
skin
in
the
game?
Ten
thousand
dollars,
for
example,
just
a
buy-in
just
shows
you're
serious
about
this
and
you'll
keep
coming
to
the
meetings
and
keep
working
on
decisions,
and
then
we
could
that
could
be
part
of
the
threshold.
If
you
don't
have
any
skin
in
the
game,
your
chain
can't
even
produce
minimum
amount
of
capital.
Then
why
does
that
vote
count
like
that?
H
P
And
I
would
go
even
a
step
further,
as
we
kind
of
briefly
touched
on
on
the
previous
call.
If,
if
the
chains
are
you
know,
foundations
represented
here
interested
and
dan
have
the
same
idea.
I've
been
thinking
about
for
a
while.
Is
you
contribute
an
amount
and
then
essentially
you
get
back
not.
You
know
your
index.
P
For
example,
let's
say
you
know:
theo
kicks
in
100
and
we
get
back,
maybe
10,
grand
or
20
grand
of
made
up
of
the
other
tokens.
So
now
we
have
skin
in
the
game
of
the
members
of
this
team
that
we
want
to
see
them
be
successful.
I
mean
just
an
idea.
Obviously
it
would
make
more
sense
if
these
were
larger
numbers,
so
the
skin
in
the
game
really
really
mattered,
meaning
if
telos
blows
up
our
foundations
like
got
another
year
of
runway
or
something
like
that.
P
That
would
be
amazing,
but
you
know
it's
a
larger
topic
for
discussion,
but
I
do
think
the
idea
that
in
the
game
matters-
and
I
do
think
that
if,
for
example,
we've
allocated
a
budget
to
do
certain
things-
and
we
allocate
budget
to
this
group-
then
essentially
it's
the
same
kind
of
thing.
P
Well,
this
group
is
going
to
then
hopefully
get
some
of
those
things
done,
because
that's
where
we
put
the
money
and
if
we
could
actually
operate
effectively
that
way,
then
we
could
even
be
more
efficient
and
save
some
money,
because
maybe
something
we
were
going
to
do
anyway
is
two
other
chains
that
wants
to
do
it
also
sweet
now
that
just
cost
us
a
third
of
the
price.
You
know
we
like
that.
That's
ultimately,
I
think
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish
here
right.
D
Yeah,
but
it's
still
a
hypothetical
question,
because
right
now
the
major
change
that
our
interests
are
here,
or
at
least
invited.
So
so
we
can.
We
can
discuss
about
the
hypothetical
case
that
somebody
wants
to
join
in.
I
like
the
idea
of
having
like
an
access
fee
and
say
if
you
really
want
to
go
in
pay,
10,
grand
and
and
that's
fine,
because
that's
gonna
drive
away
somebody
who's,
just
forking
something
and
thinks
he's
now
operating
a
big
chain.
So
so,
but
that's
a
theoretical
approach.
So
from
that
perspective
I
mean
we
can
take.
D
I
I
took
a
note
of
that.
We
we
may
discuss
that
at
the
beginning
of
next
week
and
say:
do
we
want
to
have
this
buy-in
option
to
do
so,
but
going
back
to
the
voting,
then
we
all
agree
that
the
chains,
each
train,
have
one
vote-
that
we
have
obviously
highly
valued
consultants
that
are
added
to
the
group
and
and
are
very
welcome
to
give
their
opinions.
But
they
will
not.
They
will
not
have
a
vote
for
now.
C
Basically,
for
for
now
we
have
we
have
six
blockchains
representatives,
so
we
have
six
votes,
six
voices
right.
So
at
least
we
can
already
go
ahead
with
expressing
opinions
on
naming
and
in
parallel.
We
need
to
define
this
structure
with.
Probably
these
funding
contributions
right
and
whoever
wants
to
have
a
long-term
involvement
and
the
voice
in
the
system
needs
to
chip
in
with
some
minimal
amount
into
the
common
fund
for
spending.
D
C
But
I
mean
naming
and
organizing
this.
This
co-funding
will
take
many
weeks,
I
would
say
a
month
at
least
to
formalize
right.
It
needs
some
kind
of
agreement,
written
agreement,
probably
gonna,
run
through
legals
as
well
to
have
something
solid,
but
we
cannot
wait
with
the
naming
for
so
long
so
yeah.
I
think
we
need
to
go
short,
but
basically,
if
whomever
objects
against
mandel
needs
to
express
the
voice
and
explain
why
and
then
we
need
to
figure
out
if
it's
reasonable
objection
or
not.
L
Just
well
maybe
that's
how
we
kick
off
next
week.
It
sounds
like
we've
determined
kind
of
a
voting
structure
for
the
chains
to
vote.
L
We
have
the
six
chains
as
identified,
I'm
not
going
to
rattle
them
off,
and
this
gives
people
a
week
now
to
talk
with
their
communities
and
their
teams
and
see
if
there
are
objections
to
mandel
or
suggestions
that
are
better
than
opportunities
to
talk
with
branding
or
whatever
and
realistically
the
group
can
come
together
next
week
and
each
chain
can
either
say
yeah,
let's
go
or
here's
an
alternative
that
could
be
potentially
voted
on.
L
We've
dropped,
we've
lost
a
couple
people
and
that's
the
only
reason
why
I'm
saying
not
saying
like:
let's
do
it
right
now,
we
still
have
five
chains
represented.
B
C
Now
we
can
telegram
right,
that's
true:
we
need
to
define
the
short-term
goals
right.
The
short-term
goal
is
to
either
go
ahead
with
mandel
or
find
a
better
solution,
or
at
least
here
hear
out
to
someone
saying
no,
it
doesn't
work
because
that
and
that-
and
that
could
be
any
anything
it
could
be
some
trademark.
I
checked
the
trademark
looks
to
be
okay,
so
far,
there's
mandelbrot
software,
which
is
called
mandel,
and
that's
the
only
thing.
A
That
is,
software
relate
yeah.
We
need
to
check
a
nice
classification
to
see
where
that
may
or
may
not
be
an
issue.
D
Yeah,
so
so,
basically,
can
you
check
this
until
next
week?
Then
legal
aspects
I
mean:
if
there
are,
I
I
personally
not
not
trying
to
be
offensive.
I
think
a
large
part
of
the
community
would
be
happy
if,
if
we
move
away
from
eosio
entirely
from
that
name
to
to
not
have
the
the,
how
you
say
that
the.
F
Relationship
to
the
to
the
old
project,
so
it's
more
than
that
we
don't
hold
the
I
we
don't
hold
the
ip.
We
don't.
D
Exactly
so,
it
needs
to
be
renamed.
We
I
mean
every
everybody
is
agreeing
that
it
needs
to
be
renamed,
but
we
need
to
have
a
name
that
everybody
feels
comfortable
with
and
that
can
be
marketed
in
a
way
of
one
of
the
most
of
the
leading
technology
change
in
in
the
industry.
So
so
that
name
needs
to
have
a
special
flavor
to
it
and,
as
as
I
understand,
many
people
in
the
group
here
disagree
with
mandela
and
said
we
don't
want
to
have
it.
D
So
so,
let's,
let's
take
the
proposal
of
aaron
the
first
thing
next
week,
based
on
the
voting
parity
that
we
just
defined
and
voted
on
today.
The
first
thing
we
do
next
week
is
vote
on.
D
And
then
we
have
at
least
those
this.
This
isn't
now.
I
will.
I
will
write
some
minutes
and
distribute
them
not
tomorrow,
because
it's
already
pretty
late
but
latest.
When
is
the
next
meeting.
A
I
believe
it's
set
recurring
at
this
time.
Every
week
we
were
having
issues,
so
I
don't
know.
If
that's
the
case
zach,
can
you
confirm.
A
A
Whereas
other
time
slots
didn't
have
the
same
amount
of
participation
really
referring
at
yeah
so
an
hour
earlier,
so
instead
of
starting
at
three
eastern
times,
starting
at
2
pm
eastern
time,
okay.