►
From YouTube: EOSIO+ Meeting, February 24th, 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).
A
All
right,
all
right,
it's
recording
I'll
need
the
link
afterwards
ago.
It
will
record
on
your
cloud.
B
C
And
to
anybody
listening,
I'm
sorry
if
the
first
part
of
the
video
is
hardly
understandable.
D
B
D
Okay,
so
I
I
will
do
these
these
two
kind
of
amendments
and
then
publish
the
final
document
on
the
in
the
telegram
group,
so
everybody
has
that's
hand
and
can
distribute
it
into
the
chains
for
review
or
not
for
comment,
because
it's
not
decided
but
for
review.
Okay,
that's
excellent!
So
can.
C
We
talk
quickly.
Can
we
talk
quickly
about
what
our
plan
is
to
export
this
to
the
wider
communities
like
we're?
We've
put
this
together
as
a
mutual
understanding
between
ourselves,
but
what's
the
next
step
right.
E
Yeah
definitely
surface
it
to
communities.
I
think
you
know
do
a
spell
check
and
get
it
out
there.
The
the
whole
point
of
this
is
is
to
you
know,
to
serve
the
our
various
communities,
and
you
know
they
need
to
be
able
to
to
see
what
what
our
plan
is
and
also,
I
think
you
know
we
gain
a
lot
by
hearing
back
from
them.
E
So
can
we
can
somebody
take
on
the
dissemination
of
the
document.
C
Well,
really,
the
dissemination,
to
my
mind,
should
happen
through
all
of
the
different
communities
as
in
like
I
don't
think
that
it
should
come
from.
You
know
the
enf,
for
example,
if
we
can
have
each
of
the
different
communities
just
put
out
a
note
saying:
hey,
listen,
like
we've
been
talking
about
the
stuff.
This
is
the
understanding
that
we
came
to
we'd
like
to
hear
you
know
from
our
community
what
you
guys
think.
C
I
think
that
that
would
go
a
long
way
to
bridging
bridging
the
gap
and
bringing
kind
of
like
a
unified
communication
standard
across
all
of
the
different
ecosystems
like
I,
I
think
it's
a
little
problematic
just
that
the
just
there
there's
one
entity
that
defines
the
communication,
which
is
the
enf
not
that
they're
doing
a
bad
job,
they're
doing
an
excellent
job.
But
I'm
saying
like
from
a
a
perspective
of
like
the
other
ecosystems,
oh.
B
So
yeah,
that's
that's
I
I
fully
agree.
Each
change
should
be
responsible
for
their
own
communication
because
this
committee
doesn't
exist
yet
this
eosio
plus
entity
is
not
existing.
Yet
even
us
agreeing
to
this
document
means
absolutely
nothing
because
there's
no
funds,
there's
there's
nothing
right,
fully
agree
and
yeah.
The
enf
wasn't
trying
to
communicate
to
your
respective
communities.
So
if
it
was
a
failure
yet
because
we
weren't
doing
it
because
they're
not.
C
Right,
I
understand
and
I'm
saying
that,
like
like
we've,
we
spent
a
lot
of
time
building
out
this
document.
Thinking
about
it
talking
about
it,
there
was
good
reason
for
it
and
we
should
just
be
clear
on
what
the
next
steps
are.
E
B
E
A
D
F
A
E
G
E
Yeah
because
because
if
you
know
typically,
I
would
I
would
say
this
is
the
kind
of
document
that
would
be
posted
on
on
a
github
somewhere.
So
it
was,
you
know,
time
hashed
and
you
know
version
tracking
and
things
like
that
were
available.
B
E
Right
and
it
doesn't
really
matter
who
the
owner
is
at
this
point
because
again
like
like
you've,
said
it's
nothing
yet,
but
it
does.
Let
us
you
know,
fix
it
to
a
date
and
and
disseminate
things,
and-
and
you
know
once
there's
an
organization
the
ownership
can
be
handed
over
to
that.
D
E
E
Well,
I
mean
it's,
we
would
create
a
free
public,
github
and,
and
hopefully
the
you
know,
there
will
be
additional
documents
following
and
one
thing
that
ipfs
won't
easily
store
is
when
the
when
the
document
was
uploaded.
You
know
in
that
in
the
hash,
so
this
would
allow
future.
You
know
it
would
it
would
make
it
much
more
streamlined
for
future
commentary.
G
E
G
E
E
A
If
anyone
wants
to
add
other
languages,
you're
free
to
do
so,
but
just
so
we're
not
duplicating
efforts
here,
we'll
take
on
the
translation
efforts
for
our
chain
and
full
for
everyone.
Really
it's
the
same
document.
D
Okay,
so
also
looking
on
chat,
we
got
a
comment
from
ramy
asking
to
keep
it
simple.
So
we
we
basically
got
two
people
that
that
oppose
or
one
obst
abstain,
one
one
opposition.
D
So
I'd
I'd
rather
say:
let's,
let's
put
it
on
ifps
for
now
and
then
we
can
obviously
start
creating
the
the
github
and
once
that's
ready
we
can.
We
can
store
it
there
in
addition,
but
I
think
let's
my
my
position
would
also
keep
it
simple
for
now
and
and
just
push
it
out
and
and
have
it
start
somewhere
securely.
B
For
the
code
itself,
so
the
github
itself
right
now
enf
has
the
ownership
of
the
repo
that
mandel
is
being
worked
in.
My
intention
is
the
ownership
of
that
that
particular
repo
would
go
to
whatever
entity
is
being
created
here.
B
B
To
have
a
repo,
then
I
guess
we
have
one
and
the
idea
is
to
give
it
up.
But
if
we
want
to
create
another
repo,
that's
okay
as
well.
I
I
just
don't
see
the
need
for
today.
Necessarily.
E
Not
to
just
create
a
a
documents
repo
within
within
the
you
know
the
organization
and
or
folder
and
add
this
to
it.
E
A
H
H
B
A
E
B
F
F
B
Remy
says
using
a
repo
under
the
enf
seems
reasonable.
I
mean
this
is
recorded.
The
idea
is
the
enf
repo,
which
contains
the
code
right
now
would
be
given
to
whoever,
whichever
organization
stems
out
of
this,
so
who
eventually,
I
guess
the
sub
repos
would
also
fall
to
that
organization.
Essentially,
there's.
H
I
B
B
E
E
You
know
if
we,
if
we
make,
if
we
just
make
this
document
repository,
I
mean
I'm
hopeful
that
we're
going
to
have
a
number
of
documents
coming
out
of
these,
and
you
know
it's
nice
to
be
able
to
look
back
at
these
at
these
things
and
when
they
happen
and
have
some
have
something,
that's
definitive,
a
definitive
record.
So.
H
Basically,
any
public
resources
can
all
be
organized
one
place
easily
defined
with
version
history.
It
will
it'll
serve
the
purpose
of
the
ipfs
better
than
the
ipfi
like
you.
Don't
you
wouldn't
need
to
post
this
to
ipfs,
because
we
we
can
trust
github's
version
history,
I
think
sufficiently
for
these
purposes.
G
I
Correct
and-
and
so
the
point
is,
the
enf
organization
today
could
have
a
whole
bunch
of
working
groups
underneath
it,
and
this
is
just
one
of
them,
so
we
should
make
the
repo
called
eosio
plus
and
then
under
there,
make
a
docs
directory
or
or
just
put
the
documents
right
in
there.
You
know
right
in
that
repo.
D
Yeah,
okay,
it
makes
sense,
and
then
we
have,
we
have
everything
rami
says:
100
percent
agreed
with
it
with
this
direction.
So
if
you
take
the
task
I
put
it
to
zach.
Is
that
correct?
You
administrating
this.
I
Zachariah
can
do
it
both
texas
ted
k,
hall,
zach
zach,
and
I
both
have
right
authority
to
the
repo.
So
we
can
do
that
agreed
on
the
point
of
it
would
look
better
in
markdown
if
we
wanted
it
to
be
in
markdown.
So
it's
not
that
hard
of
a
document.
One
of
us
could
probably
do
that
versus
just
putting
a
word
document
in
there
and
then
having
versions
of
that.
You
know
just
over
a
text
document.
D
Okay,
excellent,
then,
then
I'll
leave
it
like
this
and
is
there?
Is
there
now
anybody
disagreeing
with
this?
If
you're
fine
with
this
now.
B
I'm
okay
with
that,
if
others
are,
I
guess
the
concern
that,
if,
if
other
have,
if
others
have
the
concern
that
the
repo
is
owned
by
the
enf,
that
would
be
the
concern.
B
But
you
have
the
recorded
on
multiple
occasions
saying
that
whatever
this
becomes,
the
enf
will
transfer
ownership.
That
is,
that
has
been
the
intent
from
the
beginning.
We
can.
B
D
Okay,
great
so
so
we
have
that
decided
great
then,
going
back
to
the
comment
about
the
translation.
It
was
chinese
and
what
was
the
other
language,
french
korean
korean
korean.
D
B
Zach
was
just
saying
that
we
will
translate
in
chinese
and
korean
that
way.
If,
if
somebody
else
was
also
thinking
of
doing
the
same,
then
we've
got
that
covered
essentially.
E
Historically,
the
cursing
historically,
those
are
the
languages
that
these
documents
have
been
put
out
in.
So
I
don't
know
that
we,
I
don't
know
that
we
need
to
make
any
changes.
I
think
that
seems
plenty
for
now.
D
Yeah,
that's
fine.
I
mean
we
have
spanish
people
on
the
call.
People
speak
in
french,
so
but
anyway,
that
that's
that's
refined.
So
we
we
have
chinese
korean
and
english,
and
the
enf
has
taken
the
task
to
to
translate
this
and
circulate
it.
And
then
please
also
add
it
to
the
to
the
repo.
D
Okay,
then
we
we
had
the
other
comment
about
obviously
deciding
communica
community
communications,
so
we
we
would
then
therefore
ask
every
everybody
or
the
train
representatives
to
talk
to
their
marketing
teams,
hand
over
the
document
to
them
and
kind
of
work
on
a
communication
kind
of
strategy
of
how
you
want
to
publish
this
to
your
to
your
communities.
D
Correct
good
so
for
for
talos,
I
will
take
this
task
to
communicate
that
to
marketing.
D
Thanks
kirsten
okay
and
for
the
other
chains,
it
would
be
good
if
you
give
kind
of
like
an
update
in
the
next
call
of
of
what
you're
doing
so
so,
just
just
where
we
have
a
feeling
of,
and
also
like
a
feedback
from
your
communities.
That
would
be
great
if
we
have
this
for
the
next
meeting.
If
anybody
has
like
a
feedback
or
like
communication
strategy,
that
would
be
nice
if
we
had
like
some
some
information
of
how
it
went
for
you
guys.
E
And
as
a
courtesy,
I
would
just
suggest
that
whenever
we
tweet
out
our
version,
we
we
make
sure
and-
and
you
know
include
the
names
of
the
other
or
the
other
chains
that
are
involved
just
so
we
sh,
you
know,
signal
unity.
J
A
D
Yeah,
I
will
I
will
it's
a
word
document
now,
so
I
I
will
do
the
final
amendments
and
split
the
document,
because
obviously
we
all
want
to
have
the
purpose,
and
then
I
post
it
in
the
telegram
chat
later.
J
B
But
they're
not
are
we
just
for
clarification?
Are
we
adding
everybody
or
or
the
seven
chains,
essentially
that
that
voted
for
this
or
are
we
adding
even
people
who
aren't
on
this
call
yeah?
Then
the
seven
yeah.
B
And
I
don't
yeah
so
I
I
just
put
in
the
telegram
channel,
I
put
the
official,
I
guess
twitter
for
eos
foundation,
which
I
guess
for
eos.
Maybe
if
others
want
to
do
the
same.
That
way
we
have
the
twitters
and
we
know
what
to
to
tag
that
would
be
useful.
D
D
Okay,
so
I
put
this
on
the
backlog
for
next
time.
Is
there
anything
else
we
need
to
discuss
on
this?
I
I
put
on
the
agenda
like
distribution
of
blue
paper
for
api
plus,
that's
obviously
due
for
for
tomorrow,
just
wanting
to
ask
if
that's
still
in
schedule,
so
can
we
expect
that
by
tomorrow,
tomorrow
or
saturday,.
D
B
There's
one
thing:
I
I'm
not
sure
why
it's
not
on
the
agenda,
but
the
legal
legal
entity
update
was
due
for
today.
Oh
you're,.
B
Yeah,
so
I
just
received
the
prior
to
this
call
just
before
this
call
the
document
so
I'll
need
to
review
it
and
clean
it
out
and
make
it
presentable
for
this
group.
I
should
have
that
by
next
week.
D
A
I
Would
you
zach
do
we
want
that
to
so
that
is
that
going
to
also
go
into
a
markdown
language?
Should
we
first
get
it
in
markdown
and
have
them
translate
the
mark
down
or
will
we
have
the
chinese
in
korean?
Just
as
a
word
doc
sitting
in
the
repository.
A
I've
never
done
it
with
mark
don
before
we
could
talk
offline
and
decide
what
the
best
way
is.
I
don't
know
the
answer.
E
Yeah
markdown
is
super
simple.
It's
just
a
text
file
with
with
you
know
a
few
image
or
a
few
tags
within
it
very
simple.
I'd
suggest
you
put
it
into
markdown
that
way,
anyone
will
be
able
to
at
least
navigate
through
the
headlines
and
whatnot
of
the
of
the
document.
I
I
A
E
I
E
D
D
D
D
We
could
take
some
further
looks
here
and
assign
people
that
are
willing
to
go
into
those
groups
and
make
them
make
them
alive
and
and
start
working
on
that,
because,
obviously
I
I
personally
guess
that
we're
now
coming
to
to
a
time
where
we
we
have
even
more
breakout
groups
that
that
will
not
be,
and
we
will
not
discuss
all
the
topics
in
detail
in
here
and
have
more
like
results
presented
in
here
to
to
approve
them
and
move
forward.
So
that's
what
do
you
like?
Should
we
go
further.
G
Just
yeah,
this
selfish
personal
thing
that
I
think
other
people
might
align
with
is
just
figuring
out
our
path
to
maybe
I
don't
fully
understand
through
the
document
how
it
describes
it.
But
what
is
our
path
as
a
group
to
establishing
the
first
pieces
of
of
a
road
map,
the
first
pieces
of
code
that
we
want
to
focus
on
with
whatever
funding
may
be
arriving
and
whatever
development
teams
may
be?
You
know
receiving
that
funding.
You
know
to
hit
the
elephant
in
the
room.
G
You
know
dan's
out
there
proposing
all
sorts
of
stuff
that
I
don't
feel
aligns
with
the
needs
of
all
the
networks,
and
I
think
that
there's
a
lot
of
people
who
adamantly
agree
with
that,
and
I
feel
like
there's
no
defense
of
this
group
for
the
fact
that
he's
doing
that,
because
we
haven't
made
a
clear
statement
about
what
we
as
a
group
feel
that
networks
need
so
who's
to
say
that
he's
not
focusing
on
what
the
networks
are
saying.
G
Well,
that's
great
that
you
have
all
these
ideas,
but
we've
actually
published
the
things
that
we
need
as
networks,
and
you
know
those
are
the
things
that
we'd
like
to
focus
all
our
resources
on
as
a
group,
so
I
mean
just
generally
that
situation
I
think,
has
been
a
little
and
I
don't
know
if
romney
you
know
you,
you
made
the
comment
and
telegram
about
closed
door
conversations,
but
I
gotta
say
your
twitter
engagement
with
dan,
where
he
basically
said
he's
going
to
work
on
what
he
wants.
G
In
response
to
you
saying
that
I
don't
think
you're
focused
on
the
needs
of
the
networks
and
the
uscio
ecosystem
kind
of
hit
hit
home.
For
me.
He
basically
responded
to
your
your
statement
by
saying
he'll
do
what
he
wants,
but
in
our
defense
we
haven't
really
made
it
clear
what
we
need
in
a
formal
way,
so
yeah.
C
B
That's
what
he
said
he
was
saying:
yeah,
he
dances
yeah,
that's
that's
fine,
the
the
so
actually
there's
many
things
that
you
there's
a
lot
to
unpack
on
what
you
said.
Jesse.
The
first
part,
I
think,
is
somewhat
addressed
in
the
blue
papers
that
were
output
and
that
are
still
coming
out,
which
really
don't
have
a
particular
focus.
The
eos
itself,
it's
the
acio
in
general,
and
I
think,
applies
to
the
majority
of
the
chains.
B
So,
if
you're
looking
at
workload
or
at
where
what
could
be
addressed
or
kind
of
gaps
in
holes,
I
think
a
good
place
to
start
would
be
the
blue
papers,
but
there's
a
lot
of
underlying
there
that
you
mentioned
in
terms
of
funding.
Well,
we
still
haven't
addressed
the
funding
part,
and
that
was
the
presentation
that
we
had
yesterday
from
the
ux
team
is
a
start
of
conversation
of
how
potentially
that
could
be
addressed.
That's
still
left
to
be.
There's
no,
I
mean
a
huge
conversation.
B
I
don't
think
I
think
we
just
started
scratching
the
service
and-
and
the
third
thing
you
mentioned
is:
is
dan
dan
can
do
whatever
he
wants?
I
don't
think.
That's
somewhat
relevant
to
this
group
in
a
sense
and
as
much
as
it
would
be
nice
for
him
to
want
to
work
on
what
this
group
wants
to
work
on.
If
he
doesn't,
I
don't
necessarily
see
that
as
a
negative,
because
well.
G
I
should
have
said
dan
because
he
he
does
employ
some
of
the
you
know
better
engineers,
most
likely
folks,
to
make
big
impacts
towards
the
things
that
we
need.
Right
I
mean
that's,
that's
more,
my
concern.
It's
less
dan,
it's
more
dan,
taking
his
team
off
to
work
on
dan's
ideas
and
leaving
the
rest.
B
E
I
would
say
the
other
part
of
george
just
to
me.
The
other
part
is
that
that
jesse
brought
up
is
that
dan
is
putting
out
a
public
narrative
and
we
are
not
putting
out
a
public
narrative
and
in
the
lack
of
that
dan's
narrative
wins,
even
though
it's
not
the
one
that
we're
looking
at.
So
I
think
that
at
some
point
we
do
have
to
you
know
more
than
in
a
simpler
format
for
people
to
digest
than
the
blue
papers.
E
We
need
to
go
out
and
say:
hey
here's,
here's,
here's
our
vision
for
what
we're
doing
and
here
and
we
have
seven
chains
and
a
number
of
other
players
aligned
and
we
are-
and
we
are
working
through
this
together
in
a
way
that
hopefully
we
can,
we
can
all
contribute.
E
G
And
to
be
to
be
clear,
I
mean
maybe
I'm
missing
something,
but
there
aren't
a
lot
of
teams
that
are
great
candidates
that
we
have
identified
to,
and
let's
assume,
there's
funding
to
receive
some
of
that
funding
to
accomplish
this
prioritized
list
of
things
that,
like
you,
said,
come
out
of
the
blue
papers.
G
You
know
we
look
at
those
things
and
we
figure
out
how
they
kind
of
integrate.
Well,
together,
what
can
what
can
be
done
in
maybe
a
first
release?
You
know
certain
things
can't
be
done
without
others
right
so
kind
of
got
to
figure
out
that
that
road
map
instead
of
priorities
and
publish
it
and
then
say,
hey
teams.
Here's
here
are
the
things
we
want
to
work
on.
You
know
if
you're
interested
rfp
process,
whatever
it
might
be.
G
You
know,
we've
we've
published
our
our
list
of
priorities
and
the
things
that
these
seven
networks
have
identified
should
happen
first
right
and
then
and
then
and
then
those
teams
will
come
forward
right
now.
I
don't
know
of
many
teams
beyond.
You
know
dan's
team
and
that's
kind
of
why
I've
highlighted
it,
because
you
know
a
lot
of
respect
for
some
of
the
engineers
he's
hired,
and
I
would
hope
that
those
would
be
you
know
their
ideas
and
experience
would
be
leveraged
towards
the
success
of
what
these
seven
chains
want
to
have
built.
G
E
Yeah,
well,
what
would
be
nice
is
if
next
week
we
could
come
back
if
each
chain
could
come
back
with
its
own
top
five
or
whatever
type
of
list
that
they
want.
That's
that
talks
about
what
their
priorities
are
for
this,
and
then
we
could.
We
could
look
at
these
together
right
because
I,
my
you
know,
what's
what's
great
for
telos,
might
not
be
great
for
wax.
It
might
not
be
important
to
to
to
fio
or
or
eos
or
whatever
right
so
and
vice
versa.
E
So
if
we
can
eat
them
in
with
our
own,
then
out
of
at
the
early
at
the
at
the
simplest
level,
we
could
actually
look
for
commonalities
between
them.
I.
G
Think
I
think
the
first
honestly,
the
first
top
priorities
are
probably
going
to
be
pretty
consistent.
I
mean
most
there's
some
serious
problems
and
then
there's
some
nice
to
haves,
and
I
think
the
nice
to
haves
is
where
we
might
have
some
disagreement.
But
the
like
critical
stuff
is
should
be
pretty
easy.
G
G
Question
was:
what
is
our
path
to
get
there,
not
necessarily
what
is
our
list
for
that
or
who's
going
to
do
it,
but
what's
our
path
to
get
there
in
the
context
of
like
what's
been
going
on
right,
like
are
we
months
away?
Are
we
are
we
next
meeting?
Are
we
going
to
be
able
to
decide
what
those
things
are
like?
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we
kind
of
prioritize
getting
to
that
point
of
publishing
the
seven
chains
decided.
These
are
the
front.
The
priorities
in.
G
B
There's
a
proposal
on
the
table
that
was
done
very
informally.
I
think
it's
in
the
faq
of
the
fractally
website,
but
dan
and
his
team
are
offering
to
do
synchronous,
calls
and
sub
second
finality
for
800
000
eos.
So
if
you
want
to
put
a
record
of
that
somewhere
that
we
could
start
the
discussion
there.
I
Right
one
of
the
things
we
were
waiting
for
the
last
two
blue
papers
to
land
the
way
I
thought
we
should
make
it
work,
and
I
could
bring
a
proposal
to
next
week.
If
people
want
it
was
we
wait
for
the
blue
papers
to
land.
We
read
through
the
blue
papers,
each
of
the
chains
kind
of
say
I
like
this
and
this
and
this
of
each
of
the
four
blue
papers.
I
What
who
has
the
right
engineering,
talent
there's
something
more
that
hopefully
will
reveal
next
week
and
then
we'll
have
you
know
at
least
some
teams
identified,
we'll
have
a
path
and
a
road
map
and
I'll
take
the
the
work
of
actually
compiling
what
gets
voted
and
what
gets
prioritized.
I
won't
drive
it
I'll,
just
record
it,
but
that
to
me
sounded
like
the
process.
If
we've
got
these
blue
papers,
what
we
were
doing
was
we're
also
coming
out.
I
I
don't
know
when
this
goes
out,
zach
or
if
it
went
out
today
we're
going
to
come
out
and
explain
that
we
want
people
to
go
in
and
comment
on
the
blue
papers
and
write
a
blog
post
like
I
want
to.
I
want
to
improve
this
one
section
of
the
audit
blue
paper.
I
want
to
improve
this
one
section
of
the
api,
or
I
want
to
initiate
an
additional
section
of
the
api
blue
paper
and
then
once
we
get
that
done,
then
all
the
different
chains
vote
on
that
saying
these
are
my
priorities.
I
These
are
things
I
do
in
the
rank
ordered
priority,
and
then
we
kind
of
merge
that
together
and
then
start
to
form
the
road
map
which
we
can
then
produce
and
publish
and
say
you
know
here,
is
the
enf
road
map
could
come
pulling
together,
all
seven
of
these
chains
and
and
what
we're
going
to
start
knocking
out
and
then
through
the
rfps
we
find
out
which
teams
will
build
them
and
how
long
it's
going
to
take
and
what
it's
going
to
cost
is
that
if
I
document
does
that
sound
like
something
reasonable.
G
Yeah
I
mean
that's,
I
mean
generally
it's
great
to
hear
that's
in
the
faq.
I
did
not
know
that.
I
I
saw
plenty
of
things
that
completely
missed
the
mark
on
what
I
think
the
general
needs
are
it's
great
to
see
those
things
because
you
know
finality's
been
around.
You
know
top
of
the
mind
for
you
know
years
so,
but
at
the
same
time
I
still
think
it's
car
before
the
horse,
like
what
you
said
ted.
G
That's
number,
eight
on
the
list
we'll
talk
to
you
know
maybe
q1
of
2023
like
but
other
people
come
forward
and
say
I
want
to
do
this
and
we
say
yes,
that's
top
three
on
the
list
and
let's
talk
right,
but
until
we
have
that
list
and
we
published
it,
you
know
we're
going
to
get
people
guessing
at
what
we
need
and
missing
the
mark
or
not.
You
know
it's
it's
on
us
to
deliver.
B
The
list
to
add
clarity
to
dan
and
his
team
he's
made
it
very
clear
that
he's
not
interested
in
being
a
contract
for
hire,
and
so,
if
so,
dan
and
his
team
are
working
on
a
product
on
a
project
called
fractally.
B
So
when
I
say
forget,
then
his
team,
I
mean
he's,
been
been
very
direct
where
he
is
not
looking
to
to.
You
know
bid
on
things
that
we
might
see,
as
as,
as
being
you
know,
overlap
between
the
chains
that
that
we
want
to
tackle
or
problems.
So
that's
really
what
I
mean
he's
not
going
to
be
bidding
for
projects
outside
of
that,
though,
if
there's
anything
that
he
needs
for
his
application,
he
may
then
say
hey.
B
E
G
J
G
B
And
that
that's
my
problem,
I
guess
it's
not
yours,
but
yeah,
just
to
put
in
perspective
so
dan
has
made
it
very
clear,
he's
not
interested
in
in
being
a
contract
for
hire
type
of
thing.
His
team
is
not
there
to
be
contracted.
His
team
is
focused
on
building
a
product
that
product
may
or
may
not
overlap
with
things
that
we
are
looking
for.
E
B
F
E
It
would
be
good
to
you
know
if
if
these
blue
papers
are
coming
out
soon,
I
mean
I
I'm
one
who
hates
to
say:
let's
wait
but,
but
I
guess,
if
we're
coming
out.
E
E
So
we
should
we
should
wait
and
and
and
look
at
and
look
at
those
and
bring
our,
but
at
the
same
time
bring
you
know
once
we've
done
that
we're
all
going
to
be
bringing
back
our
are
we're
going
to
bring
in
things
that
are
that
each
chain,
you
know
prioritizes
it's
still
sort
of
the
same
thing
and
then
we'll
we'll,
discuss
those
and
find
again
the
commonalities
and
and
and
hopefully
provide
either.
You
know
a
ranked
list
or
a
you
know,
or
urgent
or
urgent
important.
E
You
know
nice
to
have
type
type
tiering.
Something
like
that.
I
do
want
to
make
I
I
I
think
that
an
audit
of
the
code
is
is
one
of
the
first
priorities
and-
and
I
hope
you
know
so-
look
forward
to
see
what
the
the
plan
is
around
the
audit.
I
actually
think
that's
something
that
we
could
start
figuring
out
how
to
do
soon.
I
actually
had
had
tried
to
contract
or
had
had
was
in
the
process
of
contracting
sentinel
to
do
to
do
a
full
audit.
E
You
know
just
on
my
own,
because
I
thought
it
was
important
and
I
held
off
because
I
knew
that
there
were
there
were
things
happening
here
in
this
group
and
I
didn't
want
to
work
against
it.
But
but.
G
Even
that
speaks
to
the
question
of
you
know
actually
having
a
code
base,
that's
somewhat
owned
by
this
group
and
prioritizing.
You
know
whether
that's
starts
with
mandel.
That
sounds
like
it
probably
will
at
some
point.
You
know,
especially
if
given
what's
going
on
with
dan
and
and
the
code
and
everything
there
like
you
know
the
the
contracts
and
the
no
to
us,
the
base
layer
need
to
be.
B
In
to
make
sure
it's
not
kind
of
stan
is
getting
paid
for
that.
The
stand
is
not
nice
enough
to
do
it.
Let's,
let's.
K
G
He's
getting
paid
for
it
right
so
he's
making
sure
that
the
the
code
that
goes
into
that
isn't
gonna
like
neglect
the
needs
of
any
networks
right
so
correct,
and
I
think
that
it's
important
for
us
as
quickly
as
possible
to-
and
this
is
something
I
didn't
mention
earlier-
get
to
a
point
where
we
have
those
repositories.
First
of
all,
brand
name
would
be
great,
so
we
can
rename
the
org
and
really
move
forward
without
having
you
know
an
inevitable
refactor
in
the
future,
but
have
a
have
a
set
of
code.
G
That
is
the
path
forward
that
we're
all
working
on
and
also
a
roadmap
that
describes
the
things
that
we
want
to
go
into
that
code
and
then
somewhat
like
a
sheriff
that
stan
would
be,
or
some
group
would
be,
that
make
sure
that
what
goes
in
is
not
neglecting.
You
know
a
particular
chain
and
incompatible
with
them,
although
that
chain
should
have
their
own
representation
and
have
their
own
eyes
on
that.
But
still
you
know-
and
this.
L
G
Very
least:
there's
a
there's
already
code
written
right
like
are
we
going
to
start
with
mandel
and
and
what
it
has
and
then
take
some
control
over
it,
so
that
that
road
map
that
we
come
up
with
is
what
goes
into
it
and
then
is
that
what
we
go
have
audited
right
just
because
we
don't
want
to
throw
an
auditor
at
you
know
the
wrong
code
base.
That
sounds
right
to
me.
Well,.
B
Mandel
has
been
paid
for
and
mandel
will
be
released
to
3.1
and
so
there's
no
more
of
the
idea
of
2.3
and
3.0,
so
it's
just
completely
merged
into
3.1,
so
there's
only
one
release
and
that
that
has
been
paid
by
essentially
by
eos.
B
M
I
just
a
great
question
to
jeff's
point
like
when
we
were
discussing
the
the
different
chains
requirements
and
I
think
I
think,
like
four
or
five
weeks
ago,
we
were
kind
of
compiling
all
the
different
features
that
all
of
our
respective
chains
had.
I
don't
know
if
that
was
made
public
somewhere
or
if
there's
a
list
of
all
of
these,
that
we
can
take
a
look
at.
D
No,
as
far
as
I
know
that
there
was
some
initiatives
to
kind
of
identify
the
delta
that
some
of
the
trains
have
developed
as
opposed
to
the
core
code,
but
I
have
no
final
update
on
those
those
documents.
Okay,.
G
To
start
organizing,
if
we're
going
to
have
that
repo,
you
know
the
directory
structure,
that
was
in
chat,
made
sense
and
we
could
have
whether
it's
one
file,
probably
one
file
per
chain
and
like
just
create
the
right
description
for
that
directory
and
you
know,
tell
us
we
can
go
in
there.
G
We've
we're
vanilla,
node
os
and
you
know,
system
contract
changes,
but
other
networks
have
changed.
Node,
os
and.
M
M
Of
coming
like
full
circle,
with
the
discussion
about
the
funding,
it
also
seems
to
me
that
the
degree
of
divergence
from
the
vanilla
code
base
should
factor
into
these.
I
guess
like
expectations
for
a
given
chain
to
contribute.
I
mean,
if
we're
for
all
about
fairness,
I
mean
it
feels
to
me
that
the
more
complicated
your
code
base
is
like
in
terms
of
deltas
with
regards
to
the
vanilla
version.
N
The
more
burden
you
can
impose
on
the
group
if
they
were
to
maintain
everything
compatibility
across
a
much
wider
set
of
features
so
anyway,
just
just
a
thought,
but
it's
quite
important.
Also.
Maybe
each
of
those
chains
needs
to.
G
Take
a
position
of
like:
are
they
going?
Are
they
hoping
to
converge
with
vanilla,
meaning
that
this
is
going
to
accommodate
their
features
in
a
non-breaking
way
in
this
new
code
base,
or
is
their
intention
to
keep
their?
You
know
ear
to
the
ground
and
understand
what
this
group's
doing
participate
in
everything,
but
still
maintain
their
own
dev
team
and
their
own
fork
of
this
code?
You
know
like,
for
instance,
ultra,
although
now
rammy's
gone,
it's
a
great
opportunity
to
talk
about
them,
but
they
you
know.
G
I
would
assume
that
they're
going
to
continue
to
maintain
a
fork
right.
They
they're
here
because
they
want
to
be
here.
They
want
to
have
a
voice,
but
ultimately
they're
still
going
to
run
a
fork
of
whatever
this
group
is
putting
out.
So
then
there's
less
burden
because
we
don't
really
have
to
support
their
things.
But
you
know,
if
we're
about
to
do
something
that
really
makes
it
hard
for
them,
and
we
can
do
something
slightly
different
that
won't
make
it
as
hard
for
them
to
maintain
their
fork.
E
Can
I
suggest
my
observation
is
that
we
are
drilling
down
into
a
few
different
areas
of
funding
and
just
finding
the
code
and
things
like
that
where
we
just
agreed.
You
know
we
just
adopted
the
the
document,
which
has
a
number
of
sections,
and
each
of
those
sections
is
supposed
to
be
a
working
group
that
could
be
that
could
be
working
on
these
things,
but
we
haven't
assigned
them
all.
So
I
think
these
are
the
kinds
of
things
that
would
be
most
productive.
E
If
we
broke,
you
know
broke
off
into
into
those
work
groups
and
had
them,
you
know,
had
people
who
are
really
passionate
and
knowledgeable
about
these
about
each
individual
part
share
their
thoughts
and
then
and
and
come
to
some
initial
decisions
that
they
could
then
share
back
to
the
group.
I
think
it'd
just
be
so
much
more
efficient
for
the
for
the
this
group
overall.
E
So
if
you
agree,
if
you
agree,
maybe
we
can
find
a
good
point
to
put
a
pin
in
some
of
these
conversations
and
and
go
back
to
trying
to
find
people
who
will
take
the
breakout
groups
that
haven't
already
been
assigned
for
different
sections
of
the
of
the
adopted
document.
I
D
Yeah,
that's
what
I
tried
to
do
when
jesse
pointed
out
the
these
parts
that
we've
just
been
been
discussing,
which
which
are,
of
course
there.
There
are
important,
because
it's
the
kind
of
the
political
surroundings
and
funding
surroundings
that
that
influence
all
of
us
and
all
of
our
chains.
So
from
that
perspective,
it's
great
and
good
to
have
those
discussions
and
have
the
clarity
and-
and
I
did
take
as
much
note
as
I
could
extract
from
from
this
communication.
D
If
we
don't
know
how
the
funding
is
going
to
be
organized
and
which
legal
entity
we're
talking
about
so
from
that
perspective,
some
of
the
groups
are
supposed
to
be
empty
still,
but
we
do
have
some
that
that
have
been
funded
already.
So
if
we
look
at
the
jurisdiction
part,
that's
that's
fully
fully
assigned
from
from
the
team
perspective
was
with
ease,
zach
and
then
justin
that
that
we
had
that
discussions
for
the
branding.
D
D
B
Well,
I
guess
I
technically
signed
the
contract,
so
if
you
want
to
put
my
name
in
there,
I
would
imagine
that
and
I
believe
that
aaron
and
ramy
maybe
raised
their
hands
to
say
they
would
be
interested
in
bouncing
off
ideas
of
where,
whenever
justin
had
any
ideas
to
bounce
off
of
people.
If
I,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,.
O
E
Okay,
I
I
would
be
willing
to
join
that.
I
mean
assuming
this:
is
the
group
that's
going
to
be
looking
at
the
first
and
giving
feedback
on
the
first
rounds?
You
know
to
save
this
group
from
seeing
everything.
I'd
suggest
that
that
I
joined
that
I
have
professional
experience
at
a
pretty
high
level
of
that
in
the
past,
so
I
could
think
I
could
contribute.
E
B
O
B
I
think
I
recall
rami
said
he
didn't
have
the
capacity
and
and
was
comfortable
not
being
in
so
maybe
it's
just
aaron
and
and
douglas,
and
then
we
can
make
a
note
of
asking
romney
whatever
whenever
if
if
he
would
like
to
join,
I
mean
I
would
like
to
be
added
to
the
group
if
possible,
but
I
more
so
for
for
knowledge
than
anything
else.
So
if
not,
then
I'm
okay
with
not
being
in
the
group
as
well
yeah,
but
then
then.
E
E
So
I
don't
think
you
should
apologize
or
you
know
feel
like
you're
in
too
many
groups,
or
you
know
unless
it's
crap
in
your
style,
but
but
you
know
it's
appropriate
for
you
to
be
there
if
you
choose
to
be
there,
so
you
know
you
are
writing
the
checks
right
now,
and
you
know
we
shouldn't
we
shouldn't.
You
know
overlook
that,
so
you
should
just
go
wherever
you
need,
wherever
you
feel
that
you
can
contribute
or
want
to
keep
an
eye
on
what's
going
on.
In
my
view,.
B
D
Yeah,
let
me
ask
the
question
to
the
group:
is
any:
does
anybody
have
any
objections
here
in
regard
of
the
assignment,
obviously
douglas
you're,
an
expert
on
that
I
I
would
like
to
raise
the
voice,
though,
to
the
to
the
group
and
ask
if
that's
fine,
because
it's
going
to
be
two
people
from
tellers
in
that
group,
so
I
just
wanna
have
the
the
agreement
of
all
here
that
that
this
is
fine
for
everybody.
L
E
Yeah,
just
to
give
everybody
a
background
so
that
I'm
not
just
going
I'm
an
expert.
I
I
was
somebody
who
worked
professionally
in
that
I've
worked
designing
and,
and
you
know
getting
projects
approved
by
many
by
the
disney
consumer
products.
E
I
worked
also
closely
with
brand
on
microsoft,
at
microsoft
not
deciding
but
but
and
worked
a
number
of
a
number
of
other
large
companies
where
I
was
more
than
anything
implement.
You
know
implementing
branding
decisions
around
what
they
did,
but
you
learn
a
lot
there
and
then
occasionally
coming
up
with
with
new
branding
within
guidelines.
So
so
I
wouldn't
call
myself
an
expert.
I
would
say
that
I've,
you
know
worked
for.
E
B
D
Yeah,
that's
fine,
so
so
yeah,
just
I'm
just
trying
to
to
kind
of
have
this
kind
of
agreement,
because
that
it's
great
how
we
work
together
in
this
group
with
all
the
different
trains.
So
I
I
just
want
to
be
sure
that
that
nobody
speaks
up
for
any
of
those
work
groups
at
some
point
of
time
telling
well
yeah.
That
was
a
good
work
group,
but
it
were
too
many
people
of
chain
x
in
there,
and
I
I
feel
that
wasn't
good.
D
E
E
Go
for
it
douglas
I'll,
say
quickly
when
people
have
specific
expertise
in
any
particular
area,
for
example,
some,
if
we're
talking
about
jurisdiction
and
someone
here,
has
an
attorney
or
anything
like
that.
I
think
that,
should
you
know
you
know,
I
think
that
we
should.
We
should
take
advantage
of
that
and
not
worry
too
much
about
any
one
chain,
most
likely.
What
we're
going
to
find
out
is
that
there's
a
shortage
of
people
who
will
volunteer
to
be
parts
of
these
groups
and
that,
therefore
there
will
be
a
fair
amount
of
replication.
B
I
I
agree
with
that.
I
was
going
to
say
that
right
now
we
have,
I
believe
it's
like
may
12th,
or
so
is
the
tentative
date
to
be
able
to
to
get
the
wrap
up
from
the
branding
side
of
things.
B
I'm
really
looking
forward
to
that
day,
where
oh,
I
I
won't
be
thinking
a
horse
in
the
back
of
my
mind
that
will
be
able
to
leverage
the
new
brand
that
the
new
name,
it
will
be
instead
of
saying
we're
from
x
y
z,
we'll
be
able
to
say
we're
from
this
new
brand
type
of
thing,
and
I'm
really
looking
forward
yes,
three
years,
I
think
I'm
at
like
20
years
by
now,
I'm
looking
forward
to
that
day,
I'm
that
to
me
is
really
really
exciting
to
be
able
to
to
be
able
to
instead
of
saying
we're
from
whatever
whatever
chain.
B
We
are,
this
group
having
a
brand
having
an
identity.
I
think
that's
really
exciting.
B
D
Yes,
so
looking
at
the
at
the
next
step,
here,
obviously
that's
postponed,
and
so
we
have
like
a
budgetary
discussion
and-
and
we
also
didn't
discuss
all
of
the
job
descriptions
or
the
jobs
that
that
were
posted
here
in
detail,
so
that
I
would
put
that
on
the
agenda
for
the
meeting
after
we've
agreed
on
a
budget
generally.
Is
there
anybody
that
specifically
feels
like
very
happy
in
going
into
this
hiring
and
creation
of
job
descriptions
for
the
things
that
or
for
the
roles
that
we
are
going
to
define
in
the
future?
E
E
It
presupposes,
you
know
a
lot
of
specific
skills
and
and
background
that
is
that
are
not
going
to
be
common,
and
I
think
that
I
think
that
by
simply
doing
things
like
writing
up
job
descriptions,
doing
you
know,
figuring
out,
you
know
key
key
traits
that
we're
looking
for
that
can
get
that
start.
I
think
it's
going
to
be
a
long
process
and
I
I'd
hate
to
leave
it
till
the
end.
You
know,
and
the
budget
budget
might
take
a
long.
E
The
the
fact
that
we
have
to
hire
somebody
doesn't
really
rely
on
the
budget
right.
We
know
we
still
have
we
any
budget's
going
to
include
something
for
an
executive
director,
you
know
and
and
whatnot.
So
I
would
say
sooner
rather
than
later,
because
it's
going
to
be
more
time
consuming
than
anyone
expects.
D
So
I
changed
this
to
hiring
postponed
until
budget
decision
generally
again,
question
who
would
volunteer
to
set
up
those
job
descriptions
and
and
kind
of
lead.
This
hiring
process.
E
So
separately,
a
separate
note
is,
I
also
have
a
fantastic,
a
fantastic
hr
and
and
an
executive
search
executive
compensation
specialist.
E
Who
is
the
next,
who
I
don't
think
he
does
head
hunting,
but
he
kind
of
but
he's,
but
he
kind
of
does
that
you
know
because
he's
his
his
expertises
and
compensation
and
and
things
like
that
anyway,
that's
somebody
that
I
have
had
you
know
teed
up
to
work
for
for
good
block
and
or
telus
foundation
as
soon
as
we
as
soon
as
we
were
in
that
position.
E
If
we're
look,
if
we're
looking
to
bring
in
an
actual
professional,
I
would
be
happy
to
introduce
him
to
this
group
and-
and
you
know
he
and
and
share
what
his
background
is,
which
is
quite
impressive,
but
that
would
be
a
decision
for
that
would
also
be
a
decision,
for
you
know
that
work
group
to
to
discuss
and
and
decide.
G
E
No
that'll
be
part
of
what's
determined
by
this
group.
The
initial
thinking
you
know
going
in
is
probably
just
the
executive
director
would
be
hired
full
time
first
and
fill
these
various
roles
until
until
the
the
group,
you
know
the
organization
matured,
but
we
would
still
like
to
know
what
all
these
roles
are
start.
You
know
know
what
our
options
are
know
like.
I
don't
know
what
an
executive
director
is
going
to
cost
for
this.
I
don't
know
what
what
a
head
of
core
software
development's
going
to
cost.
E
We
can't
we
don't
even
have
any.
We
have
no
information
there,
so
so
doing
the
budget
first
and
then
doing
this
stuff
would
be.
You
know
fast
accord
right,
so
we,
I
think
these
things
need.
You
know,
there's
a
lot
of
questions
that
need
to
be
handled
that
need
to
ping-pong
back
and
forth
between
budgeting
and
and
this
leadership
group.
In
my
view,.
G
E
B
P
E
Anybody
else,
some
of
these
things
that
we
discuss
every
one
of
these
breakout,
great
things
that
we
discuss
at
length
as
an
entire
group
is,
is
a
waste
of
our
efficiency
and
it's
going
to
hold
us
back,
and
so
I
just
want
us,
you
know,
that's
my
that's
my
goal.
I
don't
want
to
keep
going
hey,
let's
get
into
the
groups,
let's
get
in
the
groups,
there's
a
reason
for
that.
I
I'd
also
like
to
be
on
the
functional
governance
team.
This
is
ted.
D
That's
great
thanks
for
that,
so
for
the
the
I
I've
put
ted
and
ease
for
for
the
for
this
hiring
process
here.
Anybody
else
that
volunteers
to
get
it
to
that
work
group
to
have
like
more
reference,
more
representation
of
chains
here.
E
B
D
Q
Yeah
I
mean
this
is
eric
from
theo:
I'm
not
volunteering
for
a
lot,
we're
on
our
own
trying
to
staff
up
model.
So
there's
limited
time,
but
I
did
the
volunteer
david
once,
but
let
me
try
and
fit
in
there
as
well
hr
and
staffing,
probably
not
my
favorite
thing
to
be
joined
with
so,
but.
A
G
Opinion
there
you
know
like
that,
we
should
try
to
be
efficient
with
our
funding,
at
least
until
we
have
enough
that
we
know
we
can
get
work
done
and
put
people
in
charge
of
it,
but.
D
Okay,
then
I
I
no
I
I'd
leave
here.
That's
gonna,
be
and
then
add
eric
here.
If
that's
fine
and
then.
Q
D
I'm
german,
you
know
very
hard
for
me
to
to
follow
sometimes
yeah
good
anyway
great
thanks
for
that.
Then
we
have
the
the
governance
group.
We
have
myself
rami
and
ted
anybody
else
that
want
to
join
the
the
governance
discussions.
Obviously
that's
closely
tied
to
the
to
the
discussions
that
we
had
yesterday.
So
from
my
perspective,
it
would
be
great
to
have
somebody
from
that
group
inside
the
governance
system
too.
B
The
governance
piece
of
yesterday's
presentation
wasn't
really
and,
and
guillaume
is
here,
so
he
can
chime
in
as
well.
That
was
less
so
the
purpose
it
was
more.
So
the
financial
aspect.
B
B
A
few
of
you
have
been
reaching
out
to
eos,
let's
say
me
or
eos
to
look
at
what
it
would
what
it
would
look
like
if,
for
example,
we
created
shared
liquidity,
pools
and
so
part
of
the
discussion
yesterday
or
the
discussion
that
led
to
me,
discussion
discussing
with
the
ux
network
was
that,
instead
of
having,
for
example,
eos
put,
you
know,
do
a
liquidity
pair
with
with
telos
and
then
with
proton
and
then
with
ultra
and
then
with
a
theo
and
then
theo
doing
the
same
thing
with
everybody
in
ultra
doing
the
same
with
everybody.
M
Yeah,
that's
well,
that's
that's
our
approach.
B
B
M
And
very
happy
by
the
way,
just
as
apparent
this
is
here
very
happy
to
essentially
take
into
account
everyone's
suggestion.
Well,
mostly
douglas.
I
think
I
think
your
main
concern
was
more
about
the
nature.
The
front
loading
nature
of
the
of
the
model
we
proposed,
but
we
can
also
scale
it
over
time.
I
guess,
and
with
a
more
more
of
a
like,
I
guess,
like
opex
type
of
structure
in
mind,
but
I
don't
see
why
it
wouldn't
work.
E
Yeah,
I'm
gonna
kind
of
keep
my
mouth
shut
because
I
I
said
a
lot
in
the
last
meeting
and
I
don't
want
to,
and
I
realize
that
I
have
a
habit
of
sometimes
dominating
conversations,
so
I
shared
what
I
thought,
but
I'd
like
to
hear
everybody
else
share
what
they
think
and
and
try
to
try
to
step
back.
I
you
understand
my
position.
E
I
think
I
made
that
clear
and
and
the
reasons
for
it
I'm
happy
to
answer
your
questions
about
it,
but
I
do
think
that
I
do
think
that
trying
to
do
front
load
all
this
as
a
capex
is
just
is,
I
think,
there's
some
real
problems
with
that
approach,
as
opposed
to
doing
it
as
a
sort
of
annual
or
quarterly
or
whatever
operational
expenditure.
P
D
Might
we
might
touch
some
topics
that
that
we
were
kind
of
having
as
confidential
for
the
other
meeting,
so
I
would
propose
we
we
take
that
offline
and
and
give
you
home.
It
would
be
great
if
you
kind
of
schedule
the
next
meeting
to
to
follow
up
with
this.
So
so
we
don't
kind
of
disclose
things
that
we
don't
want
to
discuss.
D
E
E
B
E
B
Same
answer
as
douglas
same
exact
answer
as
douglas
at
some
point
yeah
I
can,
but
it
would
be
preferable
if
other
people
yeah.
D
B
K
D
K
B
The
number
six,
the
funding,
because
I
think
that's
that's
highly
relevant
and
whatever
model
we
come
up
with,
as
you
saw
yesterday,
then
you
know.
B
So
for
the
record
as
well,
I
do
not
approve
of
what
was
given
yesterday
right,
I'm
not
in
the
the
the
what
is
presented
yesterday.
I
I
I
see
plenty
of
issues
with,
but
it's
a
starting
point
for
the
discussion.
I
F
Yeah,
perhaps
I
mean
it
would
fit
in
with
the
with
the
discussions
that
we
were
having
together.
D
Okay,
so
should
I
put
a
question
mark
say
it
or
is
that
can?
Can
we
take
this
as
given.
D
I
Think
of
other
organizations
that
might
want
to
jam
code
in
no
names
being
named
that
were
recently
talked
about
on
the
call
that
maybe
we
don't
want
in
the
code
base.
There
needs
to
be
a
governance
to
make
sure
that
we're
agreeing
what
gets
merged
and
what
doesn't
get
merged.
B
B
Oh,
it's
so
there's
one
person
that
I
and
pardon
me
I
I
apologize
joshua
anderson.
I
don't
recognize
that
name.
Unfortunately,
joshua
which
chain
are
you
with
or
which
project
are
you
with.
B
So,
as
far
as
I
know,
voice
bullish
and
eva
are
not
on
the
call
right
now.
How
did
you
get
the
answer
from
what
joshua
said?
I
didn't
hear
anything
I
was.
I
was
being
sarcastic,
there
was
no
answer,
so
that
was
maybe
a
little
bit
of
french
humor.
Yes,
thank
you
for
that
answer.
You
didn't
say
anything,
sorry
that
probably
wasn't
funny
yeah,
hey.
E
E
If,
if
you,
if
you
care
about
you,
know
things,
for
example,
how
outside
code's
going
to
get
brought
in,
you
know
you
need
to
be
here
and
you
need
to
participate,
and
every
single
person
here
is
incredibly
busy.
It's.
My
guess.
I
know
I
am
I
know.
Jesse
is,
I
know,
kristin
is,
I
assume,
aaron
is
and
eves
and
everybody,
but
we're
still
pushing
things
forward,
because
this
has
to
work,
and
it's
important-
and
you
know
like
this-
is
this.
This
is
my
concern.
E
This
is
why
I
was
late
to
join
this
group,
because
I
was
fearing
this
outcome
or
this
this
mode
of
operation
right
here,
where
there
are
this,
the
few
people
who
do
things
and
then
and
then
there's
a
lot
of
people
inside
who
you
know
who
aren't
stepping
in
and
not.
You
know,
and
I
don't
think
that's
going
to
succeed,
and
I
would
like
this
to
succeed
since
we're
spending
our
time
on
it.
So
plea
over.
D
Yeah
I
thanks
for
that
douglas
we
got
in
the
chat
we
got
aaron.
You
mentioned
that
we
can
put
you
on
the
development
stuff
which
part
of
this
kind
of
five
next
ones.
You
want
to
be
primarily
on.
B
H
M
M
You
can
also
add
me
to
number
eight.
D
Too,
no,
that's
that's
awesome,
so
we
have
four
may
it
may
for
the
kind
of
standards
for
organization
process
to
integrate
call
from
outside
developers?
Does
it
make
sense?
Joslin
is
one
wants
to
come
in?
Does
it
make
sense
if
we
have
daniel?
Does
it
make
sense
to
have
you
on
this
too?
On
the
number
seven.
H
Perhaps
that's
less
less
relevant
to
the
work
I'm
doing
on
the
mandel
upgrade.
So
I'm
not
sure
if
I
can
add
a
lot
there
but
yeah.
I
don't
know.
H
D
Sure
yeah,
that's
great
okay,
so
then,
for
for
eight
we
have
rami
ted
and
guillerm.
That's
that's
fine!
I
mean
that
that's
obviously
gonna
be
like
a
key
part
on
for
the
like
determining
how
to
prioritize
and
implement
this.
Is
there
anybody
else
that
wants
to
be
on
this.
B
In
kirsten,
you
can
put
me
down
for
these
all
these
technical
ones.
D
G
B
D
D
Yeah
so
so
we
we
can
kind
of
take
that
to
telegram
and
and
asked
the
question
to
which
group
they
would
like
to
participate
or
which
groups,
and
then
we
we
kind
of
look
at
this
list
from
the
other
perspective
and
then
add
wax
to
those
groups.
I
think
that
that's
gonna
be
good.
D
B
I
mean
so
the
other
elephant
in
the
room
is
we're
missing
a
lot
of
people
that
that
either
left
and
or
joined
once
and
left
at
some
point,
it
seems
like
the
default
people
are
here
right
now.
E
Would
you
be
able
to
do
that
you,
you
have
a
great
overview
of
the
whole
space
and
I
think
you
have
really
great
organizational
mind.
Do
you
have
time
to
join
this
one.
F
I
think
I'd
like
to
stay
focused
on
the
development
ones
rather
than
on
membership.
Necessarily
here
I
think
I
think
membership
levels
involvement
here
ties
more
back
into
the
funding.
Then
I'm
not
even
sure
if
membership
would
be
able
to
do
like
separate
to
the
funding.
It
almost
even
seems
like
a
repeat
of
the
funding
discussions.
B
I
would
be
okay
with
bridging
in
I
guess,
11
into
the
funding
aspect,
in
terms
of
what
that,
what's
comprised
of
yeah.
E
E
Well,
let's
just
add
that,
let's
just
note,
then
that
that's
the
deliverable
of
that
other
group
without
necessarily
removing
it,
because
we
we've
approved
we've
approved
the
document
now.
E
D
Okay,
yeah
makes
sense,
that's
great,
okay,
good,
so
we
we
have
this
way
through
that
we've
done
with
this.
So
that's
great.
I
again
I
take
the
task
to
to
follow
up
with
wax
to
which
groups
they
in
which
goods
they
want
to
participate,
and
then
obviously,
it
would
be
required
to
have
like
elite
for
each
of
those
groups
that
is
driving
them.
B
D
E
Why
don't
we
just
encourage
each
of
these
groups
to
make
to
get
you
know
to
to
figure
it
out
team
up
on
to
put
their
big
boy
pants
on
and
and
team
up
in
in
telegram
and
just
get
it
done
and
and
with
the
goal
that
every
one
of
these
has
a
a
meeting
of
some
sort,
even
if
it's
just
initial
and
a
half
hour
kickoff
before
our
next
before
our
next
meeting
here,
I
think
that's
very
reasonable.
H
D
B
E
Right
contributions
to
doing
this,
so
I
would
say,
as
one
of
those
chains
that
you
know
that
they're
doing
you
know
more
above
average
that
that
I
believe
that
by
taking
part
at
this
time
and
shaping
it,
we
we
get
the
benefit
and
anyone
else
gets
the
benefit
if
they
choose
to
get
engaged
of,
helping
to
ensure
that
that
the
group
that
comes
out
is
successful
and
represents
their
their
own
needs,
and
so
there's
a
selfish
component
that
I
would
like
to
you
know,
and-
and
I
don't
think
that
I
think
that
if
people
don't
participate,
choose
not
to
participate
and
then
and
then
discover
that
you
know
wow,
this
is
really.
E
This
is
really
you
know
more
generous
than
I
thought
to
the
ones
that
you
know
that
engaged
you
know
or
or
or
why.
Why
is
everybody?
Why
does?
Why
does
all
this
going
this
chain's
way
and
not
our
way?
You
know
it's
it's
an
inevitable
outcome
of
of
you
know
this
sort
of
pareto
of
of
participation
and
then
and
then
to
eve's
point.
E
I
also
expect
that,
as
these
things
go
forward-
and
we
start
thinking
about
compensation
and
whatnot-
you
know
I
mean
telos-
is
probably
the
smallest
market
cap
here,
but
we're
you
know,
I'm
hopeful
that
our
you
know
our
our
our
participation
and
you
know
an
ongoing
participation
will
be.
You
know
will
be
considered
as,
as
you
know,
as
these
these
go
forward.
I
don't
you
know,
I
don't
think
anyone
here
I
mean.
None
of
us
are
asking
for
pay
to
be
here,
but
you
know
we
all
want
to.
M
Yeah-
and
I
mean
it's
up
to
us-
also
to
demonstrate
because
people
are
participating,
demonstrate
the
value
in
the
process
and
then,
of
course
I
mean
that
situation
may
change
like
once.
People
see
what
what
comes
out
of
it.
They
might
think
a
second
look
at
this
and
think
yeah.
I
want
to
participate
well.
B
We
start
addressing
ideas,
for
example
in
the
blue
papers
and
once
we
start
doing
changes
to
the
code
and
implementations
to
the
code
and
people
are
starting
to
contribute
not
just
financially
but
from
a
developer
point
of
view
and
from
human
resource
point
of
view.
B
It
will
become
very
obvious
that
people
will
be
left
behind
if
they're,
not
contributing.
E
Yeah
we
won't,
we
won't,
I
don't
think,
anyone's
going
to
try
to
leave
others
behind
because
they're
not
there.
It's
simply
that
just
yeah
you,
your
your
concerns,
won't
be
voiced,
so
you
won't
have
a
voice
at
the
table
right
as
much,
and
you
know
the
I
I
the
continued
you
know
the
the
next
step
in
this,
of
course,
is
that
people
who
don't
engage
and
participate
are
more
likely
to
drop
out
altogether.
E
You
know
this,
the
the
lack
of
participation
to
me
presages,
the
the
you
know
the
just
no
longer
even
showing
up
right,
because,
if
you're
not
doing
anything,
it's
not
giving
you
anything,
then
eventually
you're
going
to
have
better
use
of
your
time,
and
so
by
trying
to
get
people
to
engage.
My
hope
is
that
you
stick
around
for
the
whole
process,
but
you
know
in
four
more
weeks
we
might
be
talking,
we
might
be
looking
at.
E
You
know
at
a
much
shorter
list
of
people
showing
up
even
that
doesn't
that
doesn't
bode
well
for
the
overall
success
of
this,
even
though
we
are
planning
for
this
to
be
something
that
will
represent
everybody,
whether
they're
members
or
not,
and
in
the
hope
that
they
will
later
find
the
value
of
it
and
come
in.
But
the
the.
F
E
Bigger
the
group
at
the
beginning,
the
better
I
mean,
there's,
there's,
there's
a
possibility
here
that
this
you
know
that
in
the
this
could
largely
be
a
eos
telos
type
thing,
and
I
don't
think
that
is
really
anyone's
goal
going
in.
But
it's,
but
you
know
it's
a
it.
E
If
participation
and
work
guides
the
outcome,
then
that
is,
that
is
the
track
that
we
are
on
with
exceptions,
of
course,
but
but
you
know
I
just
think
in
another
in
a
parallel
universe.
Everyone
here
would
be
fighting
to
be
on
these
chains
on
these
on
these
groups.
You
know
and
I'd
to
ensure
that
their
needs
are
met
so
I'll
get
off
my
soapbox,
sorry
guys.
I
I
just
feel
I
would
really
like
you
know.
Q
Yeah,
I
mean
full
disclosure
from
feel
like
I
am
trying
to
figure
out
like
the
value
and
the
level
of
participation
right,
so
we've
been
in
fairly
arm's
length.
Honestly,
we
were
early
four,
you
know
several
years
ago,
but
don't
have
a
ton
of
demands
that
we
have
on
eosio
right
and
thus
have
not
been
really
involved.
In
the
political
side.
Luke
obviously
has
been
from
his
early
involvement
from
wax
and
other
chains,
but
from
the
field
side
it
is
it's
a
tougher
one
to
trying
to
figure
out
like
I'm
not
coming
in.
Q
We
talk
about
what
are
the
you
know,
top
five
things
we
want
from
the
us
chain.
I
don't
we
don't
really
have
those
because
we're
an
application,
basically
we're
not
an
open
platform,
open
contract
platform,
so
just
different
view
of
the
world.
So
I
do
feel
that
it's
value
to
be
on
this,
but
may
maybe
not
from
a
governance
point
of
view,
then,
for
that
level
of
you
know
we're
a
small
smallish,
very
smallish
team,
and
but
I
I'd
like
to
participate
but
you're
right,
like
it's
tough
to
kind
of
have
that
same
fire.
Q
B
You
mean,
like
the
whole
proposal
we
talked
about
yesterday.
Well,
not
necessarily
that
proposal,
but,
for
example,
would
you
benefit
from
liquidity?
Q
That'd,
probably
be
a
general
yes,
but
like
there's
also
like
there's
a
lot
of
disappointment
honestly
within
our
team
of
the
lack
of
community
within
eosio
and
talk
has
been
made
of,
you
know,
porting
our
contracts,
you
know
going
to
a
pure
contract,
evm
contract
and
porting
that
somewhere
else.
So
I
don't
think
that
can
happen
we're
neck
deep
in
eosio.
Q
Oh,
this
is
a
great
idea
that
this
is
happening
and
I
do
want
to
get
more
participation,
but
I
also
think
too,
when
it's
a
heavy
lift
when
everyone's
busy
like
there,
I
got
to
figure
out
a
way
to
bring
in
other
team
members
and
trying
to
and
tap
into
them
as
well
right
like
maybe
it
is
too
much
for
everyone
to
be
doing
if
we're
just
on
the
definition
level.
Q
That's
one
thing,
but
if
we're
going
to
be
digging
into
the
actual
execution
as
well,
it's
going
to
be
a
big
lift
over
the
next
several
months.
So,
if
that,
if
that's
going
to
happen
from
theo,
I've
got
to
figure
out
either
how
to
get
people
on
my
team,
where
I
can
dedicate
time
to
that
or
I
just
will
be
falling
short
on
that
right.
It's
probably
true
for
all
of
us,
so
yeah!
Q
M
Of
the
things,
though,
that
was
addressed,
I
think
a
little
bit
before
douglas
started
joining
these
calls.
We
we
had.
We
had
kind
of
the
discussion
where
I
guess
we
understand
that
a
lot
of
people
are
like
they
launched
their
chains
and
they
essentially
like
they.
They
did
so
like
knowing
full
like
very
well
what
they
were
getting
into
and
they
had
already.
M
You
know
like
provisioned,
for
a
budget
for
whatever
changes
they
needed
and
they
they
they
hired
their
own
internal
staff,
with
pretty
much
like
the
assumption
that
they
would
be
alone
in
maintaining.
That
could
be
like
a
base
moving
forward.
That's
that's
literally
what
we
did,
and
I
mean
it's
a
it's
it's
I
guess
I
guess
like
here.
I
think
I
think
we
should
focus
more
on.
I
guess,
like
the
benefits
that
we
can
derive
from
that
collaborative
approach.
It's
not
the
necessity
for
most
of
these
chains.
M
I
I
don't
think
any
any
of
these
chains
requires
the
help
of
the
others
to
do
their
own
thing.
The
default
as
eve
was
saying,
the
default
kind
of
stands
for
from
everyone
is
everyone,
goes
their
own
merry
way
and
they,
like
the
this
initiative,
just
just
just
dies
off.
So
it's
it's
up
to
us.
M
I
guess
the
people
that
are
on
these
calls
and
are
participating
to
create
that
that
value
that
the
additional
little
hoof
that
people
will
benefit
from,
and
I
think
I
think
I
think
we're
actually
not
doing
like
we're
doing
pretty
well
pretty
good.
So
far,
it
will
materialize
itself
as
he
was
saying,
it's
going
to
become
very
real.
Once
these
papers
come
out
once
we
we
have
a
liquidity
solution
or
an
alignment
of
the
financial
incentives,
but
I
think
I
think
it's
definitely
looking
good.
In
my
opinion,
like
it's
going
pretty
well,.
Q
E
E
Q
Working
for
me,
it
has
to
be
committed
to
right,
and
then
I
need
to
figure
out.
What
does
that
mean
and
let's,
let's
really
go
all
in
and
that's
going
to
become
real,
like
you
said,
with
the
funding
as
well.
So
that's
the
kind
of
a
socialization
I
need
to
do
on
my
end.
B
Q
L
B
So
I
think
that's
where
as
well,
maybe
theo
isn't
in
the
particular
position
is
you're
so
far
off
that
yeah,
you
have
to
do
your
own
anyways
from
a
code
point
point
of
view
and
you've
had
to
do
your
own
for
for
a
while.
Now,
whereas
maybe
for
other
chains
at
least
there
is
underlying
code
that
is
quite
similar
where
there's
value
in
pooling
resources,
because
it's
essentially
a
cost
saving
the
exercise,
whereas
that
may
not
be
as
relevant
for
you.
B
So
I
understand
where
there's
the
challenge
to
see
what
they're,
where
the
passion
or
where
the
fire
is.
Definitely
that's
why
I
was
trying
to
approach
the
more
financial
side
of
things
where
I
would
imagine
this
kind
of
speaks
to
every
chain.
Is
that
additional
benefit
for
having
liquidity
to
your
project?
Q
No
no,
but
I
also
think
the
the
like
there
is
the
case
to
be
made,
and
we
are
right
in
the
middle
of
that
now
looking
at
architecture
and
saying
how
do
we
and
should
we
get
closer
to
eos
io,
so
we
can
benefit
from
that.
So
again,
I
think
if
I
can
make
that
case-
and
that
is
the
case
that
we
do
want
to
do-
that
there
could
be
huge
benefit
to
more
aligning
with
it,
so
we
could
benefit
from
whatever
this
group
does
and
builds
going
forward.
M
Q
Think,
like
a.
M
Few
weeks
ago,
I
I
was
kind
of
touching
on
that
earlier
in
the
call,
but
a
few
weeks
ago
we
started
putting
together
a
list
of
kind
of
all
the
like
deltas
out
divergences
from
main
chain,
and
I
think
it
would
be
a
very
good
exercise
to
do
it
like,
like
more
or
less
like
formally
like
in
a
very
organized
way
and
have
that
information
in
the
github
repo,
so
that
we
can
start
looking
at
that.
M
You
know
like
earlier
rather
than
later,
because
it
ties
into
everything
else,
I'm
not
very
familiar
with
fio,
but
from
the
little
that
I
understand,
you
guys
made
quite
a
few
changes
to
the
way
that
resources
are
handled
on
field
right.
Is
that
correct?
I
think
you
merged
cpu
and
ram
and
net
or
something.
Q
M
That's
something
that's
quite
interesting
to
us
as
well,
because
we
most
changes
that
we've
made
on
our
end
also
have
to
do
with
resources,
and
we
feel
like
there's,
there's
a
need
to
kind
of
abstract
the
way
that
resources
are
handled,
and
this
is
something
where,
like
we
would
like
to
to
be
working
on
on
the
the
future
iterations
of
yes,
I
o
moving
forward.
So
I
think
that's
that's
something
that
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
M
You
know
like
for
for
a
chain
like
yours
and
like
ours
to
kind
of
start
like
brainstorming
on
these
questions
together
as
part
of
that
unified
group,
because
I
I
I
think
I
think
everyone
benefits
from
having
a
little
bit
more
abstraction
level
like
at
that
at
that
level,
and
even
even
even
between,
say,
yes
and
tell
us,
because
yes
now
uses
a
power
up
model
and
tell
us,
I
think,
he's
still
using
the
old
staking
model,
so
it
will
become,
it
will
become.
M
I
think
one
of
the
key
areas
where
there's
gonna
be
some
sort
of
like-
I
guess,
like
abstraction,
that's
gonna,
be
that's
gonna
need
to
be
embedded
in
the
code
base
if
we're
gonna
support
everyone's
model,
but
yeah
anyway.
That's
that's.
I
I
think
I
think
this
kind
of
highlights
the
value
of
this
approach.
I
agree,
I
agree
and
I
think
that's
kind
of
where
we're
heading.
It's
a
good
point.