►
Description
The Antelope Coalition updates the community on RFP bidding requirements, Leap system contracts, Marketing strategies and more!
00:00:00 Start
00:00:16 RFP bidding policy
00:05:34 Secure smart contract RFP update
00:07:30 Wallet SDK approvers and champions
00:09:28 Reopen P2P RFP bidding
00:21:07 Faster Finality and IBC update
00:36:10 Create Scalability+ bluepaper update
00:39:22 Leap 3.1 system contracts update
00:40:49 Wallet SDK update
00:51:39 Reprioritization of the top 21 items
01:02:35 Future process and resources for RFP creation
01:03:35 Maintenance costs and Resources for repositories
01:04:23 Bringing in new projects to Antelope coalition
01:15:55 Developer onboarding and development workshops
01:17:44 Marketing strategies, Website V2 and Media output
01:43:12 Antelope github update
01:46:23 End
The EOS Network Foundation coordinates financial and non-financial support to encourage the growth and development of the EOS Network. We’re harnessing the power of decentralization to chart a coordinated future for the EOS Network as a force for positive global change.
// EOS Network Foundation //
https://www.eosnetework.com
https://twitter.com/EosNFoundation
https://www.linkedin.com/company/eos-network-foundation
https://t.me/EOSNetworkFoundation
https://discord.gg/eos-network
info@eosnetwork.com
#EOS #EOSIO #ENF
A
A
We
just
had
initial
discussions
about
one
item
that
we
would
like
to
cover
once
more
in
the
recorded
part,
which
is
basically
the
rfp
bidding
policy
discussion
that
we
just
had.
So
we
just
wanted
to
ensure
that
it's
clear
that,
obviously,
as
as
being
responsive
for
the
funds
of
of
the
chains,
we
we
will
be
clearly
for
any
rfp,
that's
being
raised.
We
will
be
clearing
negotiating
and
assuring
that
there
is
nobody
taking
advantage
of
a
possible
bidding
coalition.
B
B
Whatever
that
may
be,
and
the
word
of
advice
there
is,
if
teams
do
you
know
clearly
band
together,
because
this
is
the
discussion
we
were
having
whereby
people
bid
single-handedly
and
they
decide
to
get
together.
And
you
know
in
the
back
room
channels
drive
the
price
up
so
that
they
each
get
at
a
minimal.
B
Something
then,
if,
if
ever,
that
is
deemed
to
be
the
case,
you're
simply
shooting
yourself
in
the
foot,
because
then
you,
you
may
be
barring
yourselves
from
any
other
bid
win
in
the
future
yeah
and
we
we
will
not
like.
We
will
be
very
strong
on
that.
I
will.
I
have
no
issues
with
being
the
bad
cop
on
that
front.
Yeah.
These
are
relationships
that
we're
forming.
C
Exactly
and
to
a
couple
points
within
that,
without
recapturing
everything
I
also
said
offline,
you
can
see
already
that
we
are
not
just
out
to
say
yes
to
everything.
We've
already
turned
something
down,
because
it
wasn't
a
good
enough
deal
and
we
will
and
we
will
invite
people
to
come
back.
This
doesn't
mean
that
we
never
want
to
see
people
work
together
because
sometimes
there's
actual
synergies
that
that
grow
out
of
that
we
we
want
to
see
those.
We
want
to
see
things
where
it's
better
for
everybody.
C
If
two,
if
you
know
one
plus
one,
makes
three
and
and
somebody's
comes
together,
so
we're
not
precluding
that,
but
we
want
to
understand
that
synergy
that
you're
bringing
we
don't
want
it
to
be
collusion
we
and
and
we're
not
dummies.
You
know
we
are
we
are.
We
are
responsible
for
our
for
our
for
our
the
the
constituents
that
make
up
all
our
individual
chains
and
also
the
entire
fundraising.
C
You
know,
communities
behind
us
right
and
eve,
and
I,
in
in
working
with
teams,
have
already
started
working
on.
I've
already
tried
to
put
together
stan
fairly
standard
rates
that
we
will
be
expecting
people
to
come
with
and
and
if
people
just
come
in
and
say
oh
well,
yeah
sure
I'll
hit
the
standard
rates.
But
I'm
going
to
do
you
know
I'm
going
to
5x
the
hours
that
that
you
would
normally
get
we're,
not
dummies,
we're
all
developers,
we're
not
we're.
C
We
are
going
to
spot
that
and
we
are
going
to
be
perfectly
happy
to
say
no
to
proposals
that
proposes
aren't
good,
but
we're
looking
to
say
yes,
because
that's
what
we're
here
to
do
so,
I
think
quickly.
People
will
come
to
understand
the
our
position
in
terms
of
in
terms
of
fiscal
responsibility
in
terms
of
you
know
really
delivering
for
the
community
and
they
will.
They
will
understand
that
that
that
this
could
be
a
very
lucrative
long-term
client
for
for
any
development
group.
C
But
you
can't
you
can't
treat
us
like
we're
just
going
to
be
rubber,
stamping
stuff
and
don't
know
what
things
cost
you
have
to
be.
It
has
to
be
a
a
two-way
street
of
respect,
and
if
you
do
that,
then
there's
a
lot
to
be
there's
a
lot
to
be
made
and
we
want
to
grow
the
we
want
to
grow
the
ecosystem
of
developers.
Who
can
work
on
this?
That's
a
priority
for
us,
but
but
we're
not
going
to
be
pushovers,
and
I
think
you
know
we
talked
about
that.
A
bit
people
should
understand.
A
D
D
Grey
mass
responded
today
said
they
still
have
some
internal
people
to
review,
but
it
appears,
like
the
final
revision,
looks
good,
so
I
would
expect
that
contract
to
be
assigned
in
the
next
day
or
two,
hopefully
so.
Those
are
the
two
technical
open
ones.
Obviously,
fast
finality
is
no
longer
an
rfp,
we'll
be
discussing
that
as
a
project
and
then
the
other
open
rfpp
was
the
the
p2p,
which
is
was
earlier
mentioned
that
the
coalition
decided
that
the
value
for
the
price
wasn't
quite
there.
A
B
B
Basically
this
this
coalition,
and
so
that
will
be
able
to
upon
milestone
completion.
The
coalition
will
be
able
to
say
yes
or
no
we're
good
with
transferring
the
funds.
However,
if
for
some
reason
the
coalition
chooses
no
longer
to
meet
it,
disbands
whatever
happens,
then
the
enf
is
also
not
stuck
with
the
liability
of
paying
that
out,
because
the
owner
of
that
account
would
still
be
in
our
control
as
per
esi
other
friends,
so
that
that's
done
that's
that's
completed.
E
B
B
A
B
I
guess
you
moved
p
to
p,
but
there
was
something
else
another
team
reached
out
for
p2p.
They
thought
that
the
the
the
bidding
was
closed.
Essentially
we
missed
the
the
bidding
round
and
they
seemed
to
be
perhaps
interested
jeff
has
been
speaking
to
them.
Whether
or
not
we
choose
to
reopen
that
as
I
you
know
right
now,
it's
close
essentially,
but
there
is
another
team
that
is
fudanu
university
in
xiamen
in
china
that
seemed
to
want
to
bid
on
this.
Should
it
be
reopened.
B
There's
a
blockchain
group
that
recently
released,
I
think,
an
eos
io
prior
to
antelope
report
and
such
and
it's
a
you,
know,
professors
and
students
and
whatnot,
and
they
seem
to
be
wanting
to
start
developing
on
eos,
again
slash
antelope
again
and
they
reached
out
through
francis
at
pizza,
finance,
saying
that
they,
you
know,
would
like
to
bid
on
this.
But
now
it's
close.
So
it's
up
to
us
to
determine
whether
or
not
we
want
to
allow
reopening
that
and
restart
this
process
or
we
remain.
A
A
F
E
F
C
C
It's
it's
if
everybody
else
feels
strongly
to
do
it
and
has
voted
that
way.
That's
that's
fine
that
I
I'm
perfectly
happy
to
be
outvoted
and
I
still
need
to
talk
to
you
know
you
and
like
kirsten
you
and
justin
and
jesse,
but
if
I
were
to
vote
today,
I'd
vote.
No,
if
I
had
that
vote,
but
that's,
but
but
also
with
the
comfort
of
knowing
that
it's
it's
it's
not
if
it
doesn't
matter
right
like
I,
I'm
not
going
to
spend
a
lot
of
time.
Arguing
with
you
guys.
C
That's
my
that's
my
rationale.
I
think
that's
probably
a
good
way
to
go,
especially
considering.
What's
what
we
just
have
been
discussing-
and
it
really
sort
of
you
know,
is
like
like
there's
a
risk
of
saying.
Oh
well,
tough
talk,
but
the
first
thing
that
the
first
first
opportunity
you
just
reopened
the
bidding
again,
but
I.
B
G
I
H
H
But,
on
the
other
hand,
it's
also
it
comes
with
a
health
warning
in
case
they
don't
know
what
they're
doing
and
it's
all
a
little
bit
academic.
I
mean
I'm
just
I
don't
know
who
they
are,
but
I'm
just
saying
like
you
know,
so
the
the
quality
of
the
bid
and
and
price
again
different
things,
but
I
I
kind
of.
G
H
I
think
it
sets.
It
does
set
a
little
bit
of
a
bad
precedent
if
you
are
going
to
say
guys,
this
is
the
deadline,
and
then
you
say,
oh
actually,
but
in
this
case
I
can.
I
can
kind
of
see
why
you
know
I
think,
there's
a
balance
we
do
need.
One
of
the
things
we
do
need
to
do
is
is
to
try
and
spread
the
net
a
little
bit.
C
Yeah
and
and
to
one
other
point
that
goes
along
with
that.
The
reason
I
know
is
I'm
defaulting
to
no
as
well,
because
and
again
I
don't
have
our
necessary
of
our
say,
but
this
is
what
I
would
say
inside
our
group.
As
we
decide,
I
would
say
no
just
because
we've
we've
bypassed
the
discussion
phase
and
went
straight
to
a
vote,
and
you
know-
and
I
just
don't-
I
think
I'm
probably
gonna
say
no
anytime.
C
We
do
that
to
the
extent
that
I
have
it
so
we're
having
a
little
discussion
now,
but
you
know
it's
kind
of
ready
fire
aim
to
to
not
talk
about
these
things.
First.
So
that's
why?
If
I,
if
I
hold
the
fellow
saying
it
said
no,
but
I
also
am
from
the
safe
position
of
you
guys
already
having
said
yes
and
it
being
and
not
being
and
then
not
being
consequential.
So,
but
that's
how.
B
I
think
no,
I
have
no
issues
with
changing
my
vote.
If
arguments
are
made
and
then
I'm
okay-
yes,
I
guess
stephen
says
just
in
the
chat
from
opportunity
cost
perspective
hold
on
it's
too
long.
I
need
to
actually
extend
the
chat.
We
have
the
rfp
already
in
existence,
so
no
further
overhead
is
required
versus
different
priorities.
We'd
have
to
generate
our
fees
for
yes,
I
think
priority
of
the
initiative
should
be
a
big
driver
of
whether
we
present
reopen
bids.
Though
I
know
there
was
much
discussion
about
the
prioritization
of
initiatives.
B
So
this
specific
item,
so
it's
bigger
than
this
item,
but
this
specific
item,
whereas
today
or
in
a
month
it's
been
pending
for
four
years.
Ultimately,
it
doesn't
really
matter
that
much
let's,
let's
not
kid
ourselves.
At
the
same
time,
I
do
like
the
argument
that
it
does
set
the
precedent
that
we
just
said.
No,
there
was
a
timeline.
We
opened
it
right
after
somebody
missed
the
timeline
they
might
not
be
aware.
B
Is
there
really
any
harm
in
moving
it
by
a
month
or
two
and
then
reopening
it
in
two
months,
not
really
at
the
same
time?
I
also
agree
that,
but
we
do
have
people
that
are
interested
in
bidding
on
things.
Well,
we'll
have
other
bids
out
we'll
have
other
items
out
so
now
we
know
this
team
exists
and
we
can
ensure
that
they're
communicating
with
in
the
future
so
that
there's
other
items
of
interest
to
them.
Now
we
know
that
we've
got
you
know
somebody
else
out
there.
Let.
C
Yeah,
I
I
think
that
I
think
that
having
I,
I
don't
see
the
benefit
and
going
right
into
into
a
thing
again.
Let's,
let's,
let's
I
would
encourage
everybody
to
say:
hey,
let's,
let's
do
what
we
say
we're
going
to
do:
let's
walk
the
walk,
let's,
let's
in
do
that
reparatorialization
process,
it's
already
on
and
then
we'll
and
then
we'll
accept
new
bids
based
on
that
and
and
then
yeah
as
an
ancillary
thing.
You
know
it
sounds
like
we're
not
going
to
miss
these
guys
as
potential
could
long-term
contributors.
That's
that's
fine!
C
We're
not
interested
in
one-off
contributors
anyway,
really
so
if
they,
if
that
was
going
to,
if
we
were
going
to
lose
them
as
a
one-time
chance,
that's
not
a
loss
and
let's,
let's,
let's
signal
to
people
that
you
know
when
these
things
are
open,
they're
open
and
they
you
know
and
give
us
your
real
best
best
offer,
because
it's
going
to
be
competitive,
including
including
you
know,
there's
almost
nothing
on
that
anymore
on
that
list.
That
must
be
done
like
there's
no
existential
stuff
on
that
list.
B
J
B
Our
higher
priority,
I
would,
I
think,
the
ram
limitations
are
on
lucas's
mind
quite
a
bit
and
they've
gone
like
that
forever.
I
will
change
my
vote
to
know,
but
I
I
do
want
to
very
much
emphasize
that
if
I
left
it
as
a
yes,
I
don't
actually
see
that
proceeding
with
this
was
not
would
not
be
bad
either.
I
think
there
are
good
arguments
on
both
sides.
I
don't
think
one's
bad,
but
I'm
good
with
saying.
No,
there
are
other
items
on
there
that
we
can
re-prioritize.
B
F
C
B
K
A
F
Yeah,
so
everything
is
progressing
very
well,
I'm
very
happy
with
the
progress
there's
still
we're
still
waiting
for
eric
to
finish
his
a
final
review
of
everything,
we're
not
we're
not
blocked
or
waiting
on
him
to
progress
forward.
It's
just
whenever
he's
he's
got
a
little
bit
of
free
time.
He
can
finish
that
review
and
that
will
allow
us
to
basically
check
milestone.
Two
and
three
from
from
the
list.
There's
there's
been
a
like
slight
changes.
F
F
I
also
spoke
this
morning
with
the
auditing
team
that
will
most
likely
be
taking
on
the
external
audit
mandate.
They
confirmed
that
they
should
be
able
to
proceed
by
within
six
weeks.
They
should
have
should
be
able
to
complete
that
audit
so
that
essentially
conforms
to
our
timelines.
So
so
far,
so
good,
just
there's
a
another
thing
that
I
wanted
to
add
to
the
agenda.
That's
kind
of
related
and
apologies.
F
I
forgot
to
mention
it
kirsten
ahead
of
time,
but
there's
gonna
be
some
decisions
that
we'll
have
to
take
in
terms
of
the
governance
of
the
ibc
contract
as
well
contracts,
most
most,
especially
with
the
rap
luck
and
rap
token
contracts.
So,
there's
I
guess,
like
some
yeah
like
like
discussions
to
be
had
first
and
then
some
decisions
to
be
made
in
how
we
how
the
chains
will
essentially
govern
the
the
access
to
these
and
how
we
will
essentially.
E
F
Deploy
it
and
under
which
name
and
what's
gonna,
be
like
who's
gonna,
be
responsible
as
owner
and
active
permissions
for
these
contracts.
So
that's
just
an
agenda
item
to
put
in
there.
I
think
we'll
probably
require
a
few
discussions,
even
though
we're
discussing
this,
I
think
it
was
yesterday
or
two
days
ago
and
there's
there's
yeah
like
when
you
start
opening
that
kind
of
worm,
there's
quite
a
few
questions
that
need
to
be
answered,
and
I
don't
think
we
have
all
the
answers
at
this
point.
F
But
yeah
we'll
discuss
this
with
the
group
and
see
see
what
everyone
thinks
and
you're
gonna
be
gonna
just
make
a
decision
once
everything
has
been
discussed
and
people
understand
what's
at
stake
and
the
consequences
of
like
solution,
a
versus
solution,
b
versus
solutions
so
yeah
whenever
you
can,
you
can
touch
base
on
that
today.
We
can
put
it
on
the
agenda
for
next
week.
Just
so
have
to
do
it
at
some
point.
Yeah.
B
If
we
want
to
get
into
this
discussion,
we
need
to
earmark
quite
a
bit
of
time,
seeing
as
lucas
typically
has
to
leave
in
15
minutes.
I
would
suggest
that
we
actually
either
have
a
standalone
discussion
about
this
and
then
come
back
to
the
group
with
kind
of
some
recommendations,
or
we
earmark
way
more
time
than
than
likely
will
be
afforded
today.
G
G
Ibc
is
now
available,
and
and
now
we
are
making
a
decision
that
there
are
certain
web3
applications
that
are
so
busy
and
they
have
so
many
users
that
they
warrant
to
have
their
own
sidechain,
and
you
know
the
the
the
governance
of
that
is
going
to
be
probably
the
most
difficult
part
aside
of
just
the
technical
one,
because,
like
who's,
you
know
who
are
the
block
producers?
How
are
they
compensated?
C
Yeah,
I
I
think
this
is
as
everyone
is,
is
identifying.
This
is
a
much
more
complex
issue.
I
I
actually
think
that
the
best
use
of
our
time
might
be
to
have
a
separate
work
group
to
sort
of
think
through
some
of
these
things.
So
we
don't
have
to
do
that
with
everybody
and
present
a
unified
approach
that
we
can
then
that
we
could
see
if
it
fits
everybody's
needs.
G
And
I
guess
the
final
part
of
this
is
I'm
going
to
add
to
this
bucket.
How
do
so,
let's
say
so,
let's
say
a
chain
makes
a
decision.
Bps
make
a
decision
that
hey
guys.
We
need
to
have
a
sidechain
for
a
particular
dap.
How
do
you
compel
them
to?
Actually,
you
know,
move
or
redeploy
their
smart
contract
to
a
side
chain,
as
opposed
to
operating
on
a
maintenance
in
in
a
decentralized
world
right.
H
H
I'm
not
saying
our
way
is
the
best
way,
but
as
part
of
the
kind
of
when
we
thought
about
ibc
in
the
kind
of
and
the
the
rationale
for
side
chains
which
which
is
kind
of
you
know
not
not
you
know
I
don't
there
isn't
one
size
fits
all
as
we
know
so
right
you
do
need
the
ability
to
spin
out
sub
chain
side
chains,
whatever
you
want
to
call
them,
but
you
have
to
yeah
you're.
Just
creating
you
know
the
incentive
model
around
it.
Just
kind
of
allows.
G
Yeah,
my
strong
preference
is
that
the
any
sort
of
side
chain
is
is
you
know
the
block
producers
of
that
side
chain
are
actually
compensated
in
the
main
net
token,
but
the
the
you
know
use
case
came
up
if
if
a
site
chain
is
created
for,
let's
say
an
application
like
alien
world
and
they
have
their
own
token
and
they
want
to
you
know,
can
they
compensate
bps
in?
In
that
token,.
H
Well,
they
can,
I
mean
anyone
can
do
anything
they
want.
I
mean
that's
that's
kind
of
the
point,
but
like
I
mean
that
would
be
ancillary
to
a
to
a
normal
block
producer
fee.
So
a
block
producer
can,
you
know,
there's
a
difference
between
the
kind
of
protocol
fee
and
the
and
the
and
the
kind
of
like
revenue.
Token,
if
you
like,
so
you
know,
if
alienworld's
taking,
probably
if
a
if
an
entity
decided
that
they
needed
a
sidechain
to
because
it
needed
to
be
configured
in
a
certain
way
with.
H
Maybe
you
know
different
number
of
bps
or
different
cpu
characteristics,
different
ram
model,
then
there's
a
again.
We,
we
kind
of
put
together
a
model
that
allows
all
of
those
things
to
occur.
It
deals
with
a
kind
of
pro
rata
utility
allocation
of
of
rewards
from
the
main
net,
but
then,
in
addition,
you
know
it
may
be
that
those
block
producers-
maybe
they're,
not
voted.
Maybe
there's
got
their
own
rules
of
being
elected
or
alien
worlds
themselves,
appoint
various
entities
that
mean
something
to
alien
worlds,
to
be
blocked.
H
Producers
on
on
that
particular
chain
and
how
they
pay
them
is
how
they
pay
them.
That's
kind
of
down
to
them.
It's
not
it's,
not
it's,
not
the
business
of
the
protocol,
but
you
can
have
a
very
sort
of
easy
well
fairly
easy
because
otherwise,
you
know
and
and
you
want
that
type
of
incentive
anyway,
because
otherwise
you
end
up
in
a
free-for-all
and
I
think
the
biggest.
H
When
I
look
at
a
lot
of
a
lot,
I
won't
mention
them
by
name
but
other
layer,
ones
that
have
kind
of
attempted
to
do
either
side
chains
or
their
own
versions
of
ibc
they've
all
made
fundamental
errors
in
the
economics,
which
meant
actually
all
of
the
value,
just
no
value
ever.
No
value
accrues
to
the
kind
of
main,
the
mainnet
token
by
utility
expansion
it
actually
just
gets
eroded
away
and
because
they
didn't
give
any
thought
to
this
particular
issue.
C
H
E
H
A
F
These
are
two.
These
are
two
important
discussions.
I
I
consider
them
two
discussions,
but
they're
both
they're,
both
important
for
sure
the
first
one
regarding
the
let's
call
it
like
the
you
know,
inter
chain,
inter
coalition
chain,
ibc,
that's
the
one
I
was
raising,
but
there's
also
the
let's
say,
intra
chain
side
chain
model.
That
is
another
discussion
that
we
should
also
have
the
the
second
one.
The
side
chain
is
a
little
bit
out
of
scope
for
the
coalition.
F
I
think,
because
it's
more
of
a
governance
question
that
pertains
to
a
specific
chains
model
and
how
they
want
to
to
govern
themselves,
how
they
want
to
incentivize
their
dapps
or
bps
or
whatnot,
so
it
doesn't
like
eos,
is
not
necessarily
bound
by
the
decision
that
wax
takes
on
this
side.
However,
when
it
comes
to
the
like
inter-coalition
chains
communication,
then
we
kind
of
have
to
be
a
bit
more
in
agreement
and
how
we're
going
to
proceed
to
ensure
that
everyone
is
on
the
same
page.
F
So
but
yeah
I
mean,
I
think
I
think
the
first
one,
the
like
antelope
coalition
ibc
discussion.
That's
definitely
something
that
we
should
be
putting
on
the
agenda
or,
as
as
douglas
suggested,
have
another
group
that
would
tackle
that
question
and
then
for
the
sidechain
models.
Happy
to
have
a
discussion
with
you
guys
at
wax
about
our
proposal
and
we're
happy
to
also
have
the
same
discussion
with
here
to
change.
If
they,
if
they're
interested.
F
J
F
Model,
but
I
think
I
think
ultimately,
the
sidechain
model
might
end
up
being
slightly
different
from
one
chain
to
the
next,
depending
on
their
own
governance,
philosophy
and
priorities,
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
I
I
would
see
some
potential
differences
here
and
there
between
how
different
chains
would
want
to
tackle
that
one.
A
A
C
A
G
G
G
J
J
The
the
one
it's
not
really
an
issue
because
we're
not
gonna
go
through
the
branding
kit
we
had
from
the
blue
papers,
like
my
plan,
was
for
the
cover
to
use
antelope
branding.
This
will
be
the
first
antelope
paper,
but
all
of
the
styling
and
branding
within
our
adobe
indesign
is
using
a
different
typeface.
So
just
wanted
to.
J
L
J
G
K
K
We
are
discussing
it
on
a
more
frequently
than
weekly
basis,
though
I
think
that,
where
we're
sitting
right
now
we're
about
to
go
out
final
with
the
eos
system
contracts
and
once
that's
been
secured,
we're
going
to
feel
really
good
about
moving
over
this
vanilla
version,
as
we've
asserted
here,
just
because
it
should
be
pretty
much
copy
paste
from
there
feeling
really
good
about
that.
Finalized
release.
A
B
B
Yeah,
essentially
managing
the
the
the
priorities
that
then
we've
assigned
and
attributed
a
contract
to
typically
that
would
be
if
we
had
staff
inside
of
the
envelope.
That
would
be
antelope
doing
that
right.
That
would
be
the
staff
that
worked
for
the
foundation.
That
would
be
doing
that
it
wouldn't
be
the
enf.
It
would
be
telos
wax
or
ux
right
now
we're
picking
that
up,
but
it's
it's
significant
time
and
an
effort
to
do
so.
I
don't
know
how
we
want
to
distribute
that.
B
C
I
I
I
would
say
kirsten:
let's
try
to
find
some
resource
inside
the
telescore
devs
that
can
assist
with
that
it
might,
it
might
not
be
any
of
the
four
of
us,
but
it's
again
it's
not
fair
that
enf
for
us
to
expect
enough
to
do
everything.
That's
not
what
this
is
about,
so
I
would
say:
let's
try
to
have
the
the
tcd
find
some
resource
to
at
least
contribute
to
that.
If,
if
you
can
help
with
that,
what
do
you
think
about
that.
A
A
We
could
also
try
to
extend
that
to
kind
of
be
part
of
some
of
those
projects
and
and
be
like
a
service,
that's
offered
to
to
those
units
that
don't
have
own
project
management
resources
so
but
like
for
telus,
it's
we
had
a
little
bit
of
a
break
back
draw
in
regard
of
resources
that
we
hired
so
so
I
was
hoping
to
have
more
resource
myself
to
do
other
things
which
it
turns
out.
I
won't
have
at
the
moment
so,
but
we
can
definitely
discuss
how
we
can
move
forward
with
this.
A
A
B
Part
of
it
is
so
it's
not
so
much
that
the
team
that
won
the
bid
doesn't
have
the
project
management
resources.
They
need
to
have
that
as
well,
but
it's
the
antelope
now
essentially
has
a
branded
product
that
it
is
managing
or
a
project
that
it
is
managing
right
and
jeff.
Maybe
you
want
to
comment,
I'm
guessing
that
it's
not
just
one
person
on
our
side.
D
B
D
Things
that
we're
doing
like
anyway
for
our
own
enf
projects
is
we're
creating
more
of
a
boilerplate
template
so
that
when
a
project
comes
along,
here's
how
statuses
are
reported,
here's
how
issues
and
risks
are
evaluated.
You
know
here's
the
typical
things
right,
you
and
I
have
had
these
conversations
well,
but
what
we
would
like
to
do
is
when
these
projects
come
in.
We
go
over
that
with
the
winner
of
the
project.
Their
project
management
team
just
needs
to
supply
this,
but
what
our
team
needs
to
do
is
validate
that.
D
It's
not
just
words
on
a
paper
that
there's
real
content
behind
it.
That,
and
in
particular
you
know.
This
is
just
something
that's
in
my
style
I
emphasize,
but
highlighting
issues
and
risks
and
potential
problems,
because
nobody
cares
when
everything's
going
well.
But
if
you
surprise,
the
leaders
of
these
chains
with
oops
we're
falling
off
track
and
we've
known
about
this
for
two
months,
but
we
didn't
bother
to
tell
anybody.
That's
that's
when
projects
get
into
trouble,
so
that's.
D
What
we're
trying
to
do
is
is
be
that
conduit
from
the
project
teams
to
be
able
to
escalate.
All
of
these
things
early
so
that
they're,
not
you
know,
nobody
gets
mad
at
them.
Bad
things
happen.
If
you
escalate
early,
then
we
can
have
a
discussion
about
it
when
you
escalate
late.
That's
when
you
get
yourself
into
trouble
as
a
project
team,
because
you
were
trying
to
hide
something
that
you
knew
was
probably
going
to
go
bad
and
then
it
burned.
You.
A
A
We
are
going
to
read
all
the
documents,
do
all
the
vendor
evaluation
and-
and
we
obviously
need
to
follow
up
on
the
on
the
targets
and
milestones,
because
it's
a
lot
of
money
we're
talking
about
so
we
we
need
to
have
this
kind
of
resource,
which
I
totally
agree.
We
we
should
broaden
that
from
enf
to
the
other
chains,
so
I'm
we
will.
We
will
discuss
that
with
tc
on
the
tcd
side.
A
F
I
think
we'll
be
we'll
be
able
to
contribute
at
least
one
or
two
people
to
help
on
the
technical
review
of
that
stuff.
We
do
have
people
that
worked
with.
You
know,
like
the
previous,
I
guess:
standards,
transit
and
ual,
and
that
kind
of
stuff-
and
that
are
also
familiar
with
some
of
the
work
that
grey
mess
has
been
doing
with
esr
and
other
other
things
of
the
sort
so
yeah,
I
think
we're.
We
should
be
able
to
contribute
there
for
the
technical
review.
C
Yeah,
that's
that's
great!
That's
what
I
was
hoping
to
hear.
I
didn't
necessarily
know
what
resources
we
would
actually
have
to
do,
but
I,
but
the
way
I
heard
eve's
question
was
a
very
nice
way
of
phrasing
it.
When
the
reality
is
we're
in
a
coalition.
We
have
to
step
up.
We
have
to
whether
or
not
you
know
whether
or
not
it's
it's.
It's
super
convenient
right
now
or
we're
overloaded
with
free
resources
which
none
of
us
are.
C
We
have
to
do
it
anyway,
because
that's
how
because-
and
we
have
there's
a
number
of
these
things
where
you
know
I
have
great
respect
for
eve
and
the
whole
enf
team
and-
and
you
guys,
don't
you
guys
have
to
get
part
of
the
benefit
of
a
coalition
to
you
guys
is
that
other
people
do
some
work.
So
I
I
think
we
as
each
chain
and
and
eos
is
already
doing
this.
Each
chain
needs
to
figure
out.
C
You
know
first
make
the
commitment
to
step
up
and
and
and
do
our
share
and
then
figure
out
how
to
do
that
within
our
organizations
and,
of
course
it's
it
just
to
just
to
state
what
I
think
most
people
know
they're
it.
You
need
your.
You
know.
The
client
needs
their
own
project
management
team
right.
It's
not
it's
a
different
form
of
like
project
management,
but
both
the
client
and
the
and
the
vendor
need
their
own
teams.
So
we
have
to
do
this
and
and
yeah
so.
A
Okay,
so
we
will
discuss
further
steps
in
in
our
next
meeting.
Jeff
I
will
kind
of
kind
of
set
up
again
would
be
great
if
you
could
kind
of
dm
me
who
you
got
in
mind
for
this,
so
we
could
probably
bring
them
into
the
regular
project
management
meetings
and
and
then
discuss
on
the
topics
to
cover
and
and
tasks
to
be
done.
A
Well
excellent,
and
I
I'll
take
that
for
the
tcd
to
discuss
what
we
can
do
to
to
offer
additional
extended
support
for
this,
and
then
I
will.
I
will
also
contact
lucas
because
obviously,
wax
is
one
of
the
changes.
Probably
they
have
second
most
resources
next
to
enf
in
in
this
coalition.
So
would
really
be
good
if,
if
not
only
the
small
chains
try
to
try
to
issue
these
topics,
but
I
will
I
will
approach
lucasfiles.
E
A
We
discussed
the
secure
smart
contract
library
rfp
documentation,
angela
workgroup.
We
tried
to
organize
a
meeting
for
the
fifth
of
this
of
september,
which
turned
out
was
a
public
holiday
in
in
the
u.s
and
canada.
So
it
wasn't.
It
wasn't
very
easy
to
kind
of
get
people
to
to
attend
to
that
meeting.
So
we
need
to
kind
of
reschedule
and
find
a
slot
to
to
have
the
first
meeting
for
the
documentation
part
as
to
the
reprioritization
of
top
21
items.
A
D
Let's
just
try
to
you
know,
ten
items
from
each
chain
should
be
able
to
give
us
a
decent
enough
list
where
the
reality
is
the
top
three
to
five
we'd
have
good
alignment
and
the
bottom
ones.
There
might
be
a
lot
more
variance,
but
that's
okay,
because
we're
not
going
to
be
able
to
work
on
items
six
through
eight
eve.
I
think
you
have
an
idea.
B
B
It
it's
not
that
it's
a
wasted
work
if
we
do
more,
but
we
are
quite
limited
in
resources.
I
would
rather
focus
on
a
smaller
amount.
It'll
be
somewhat
easier
to
prioritize
in
that
sense,
and
then
we
can
have
a
stronger,
let's
say,
output
or
stronger.
That's
it's
yeah
basically
hit
the
targets
a
little
bit
higher
if
we
have
a
lower
amount
and
it
might
be
harder
to
want
to
lit
down.
But
then,
when
we
do
do
a
lit
down,
the
overlap
of
prioritization
is
probably
higher.
C
Right,
you
know
our
challenge.
Moving
forward
is
different
than
our
challenge
was
when
we
set
this
up,
we
had
to
we
had
there
were
a
wide
number
of
things
we
had
to
see
where
we
stood
now
we're
a
working
coalition,
we're
accomplishing
things,
we're
we're
looking
to
street.
You
know
we
know
who's
who's,
contributing
and
everyone
who's
contributing,
and
we
can.
We
can
better
manage
a
shorter
list.
I
think
and.
D
Each
change
should
take
responsibility
to
make
sure
that
what
they
think
are
their
top
five
or
six
has
at
least
the
executive
brief
written
up
in
that
folder,
so
that
when
we
start
voting
and
putting
them
on
the
list,
the
ones
you
think
are
important.
Everybody
else
will
have
enough
detail
to
read
through
and
it'll.
It
might
make
it
better.
So
we
might
end
up
writing
briefs
for
like
eight
or
nine
of
them,
but
at
least
we'll
have
enough
information
on
that.
That's
just
a
suggestion.
C
Yeah
no,
we
talked
about
that
briefly
in
the
last
meeting
and
I
think
what
we
came
up
with,
which
was
good,
is
that
as
so
there
are,
there
are
exit.
There
are
descriptions
for
most
of
the
things
that
are
probably
gonna,
be
our
top
10
right
now.
I
think
almost
everything.
If
anyone
wants
to
bring
something
new
in
as
a
then
there
should
be
a
process
they
should
come
in
with
a
with
a
that
executive
description
of
what
it
is,
they're
they're,
it
doesn't
mean
we'll
all
agree
to
that.
C
C
A
So
the
the
proposal
would
be
that
we
set
a
time
frame
for
like
two
to
three
weeks
for
all
chains
to
bring
up
and
and
those
that
are
not
belonging
to
the
chains,
but
are
our
external
partners
like
aaron
and
graemers,
and
bring
up
those
proposals
within
the
coming
two
to
three
weeks
and
and
have
those
executive
summaries
drafted?
So
we
have
a
point
for
a
discussion
if
that
makes
sense.
D
So
I
would
say
make
it
two
weeks
instead
of
three
and
here's.
Just
my
thought
is
I,
in
the
back
of
my
mind,
I
know
we
have
a
couple
companies.
Why
not
was
an
example?
We've
got
the
university
coalition
like
these,
people
are
hungry
for
work,
and
I
would
hate
to
delay
them
and
have
them
lose
interest
because
we're
doing
internal
discussions
in
bureaucracy.
A
Yeah
I
I
would
assume
that
that
this
out
of
the
six
to
ten
many
within
the
21
that
that
already
were
on
the
priority
list
anyway.
So
it's
probably
some
that
will
be
added
like
we
had
that,
like
ibc
infrastructure
and
usability,
we
had
a
general
usability
blue
paper
that
aaron
also
mentioned
web
wallet.
A
Web
authenticator
downloadable,
authenticators
block
explorer
all
those
things
that
were
not
on
the
list
that
we
wanted
to
add
to
so
probably
each
train
will
have
like
one
or
two
items
that
were
not
on
the
list
as
of
today.
So
I
think
two
weeks
is
more
than
reasonable.
From
my
personal
perspective,.
C
Eve,
you
know
if
we're
coming
up
with,
I
I
think
we're
talking
about
way
too
many
new
things
we're
thinking
about
coming
up
with
anyway
like
if,
if
we're
really,
if
we
really
like
saying
hey,
we're
gonna
pick
our
six,
you
know
six
or
eight
priorities
and
seven.
You
know
five
or
seven
of
those
aren't
already
in
our
in
our
top
in
our
top
21.
F
A
This
is
getting
into
the
wrong
direction,
so
so,
let's
maybe
let's
keep
this
my
proposal.
Let's
keep
six
to
ten
and
let's
come
up
with
like
how
how
how
the
priorities
really
are
and
if,
if
we
end
up
with
nine,
which
might
be
a
lucky
number
in
some
countries
of
this
world
or
somewhere
in
the
universe,
then
then
it
might
be
nine.
But
I
think
it's
it's
not
really
necessary
at
this
moment.
My
personal
opinion
to
define
the
number
for
this
exercise.
A
A
C
C
C
Right,
that's
what
I
tried.
I
tried.
You
know
it's
the
same
thing
by
the
way,
because
you
say:
okay,
it's
eight
or
it's
seven,
because
we
like
primes
whatever
and
you
say
it,
and
then
you
still
down
the
road.
If
there's
some
really
strong
reason
that
we
either
don't
need
that
many
or
we
or
we
need
one
one
more
and
there's
no
split
in
that
atom.
Then
we'll
do
that.
So
we've
we're
spending
way
too
much
time.
Yeah.
A
Something
isn't
that
a
great
coalition
that
we
can
also
have
fun
together.
So
I
think,
let's,
let's
move
forward
future
process
resources
for
rfp
creation,
I'm
not
sure.
Was
there
any
progress
last
week
on
that
item
I
mean
we
put
it
on
august
18th
anyway,
so
which
is
one
month
ago.
Nearly
so
is
there
any
did
we
move
forward
with
this
in
any
way.
D
No,
but
I
think
this
the
voting
process
will
actually
start
that
in
practice,
because
the
the
description
that
starts
the
idea
of
an
rfp,
then
when
we
vote-
and
we
actually
get
to
the
point
of
saying-
hey-
let's
write
one
up:
that's
when
this
becomes
a
tactical
need
and
then
we
can
discuss
who's
going
to
execute
it.
At
that
point,.
A
B
C
C
You
know
mind
your
cro,
you
know
you've
seen
you've
seen
some
link
of
it.
Maybe
if
not
much,
I
I
have
been
engaged
with
some
of
those
guys
and
talk
with
some
of
those
guys,
and
I
wonder
if
we
do
do
we
want
when
new
things
come
up
and
it
looks
like
they
might,
you
know,
ben
simon
is
is
behind
it.
Do
we
want
to
engage
with
those?
Do
we
in
like
I've
been
reaching
out
to
them?
C
And
my
and
my
thing
is
you
guys
should
look
into
you
know
joining
officially
and
contributing
and
and
being
part
of
it?
It's
not
going
to
be
a
tech
heavy
chain,
although
they
do
have.
You
know
some
kind
of
connection
to
to
to
the
lightning
network.
But
what,
as
new
things,
come
up
and
look
like
they're
going
to
be
real?
Do
we
want
to
do
we
want
to
engage
with
them?
C
Do
we
want
to
just
you
know,
tell
them
that
we're
here
to
engage
with
what
they
want
or
or
do
we
feel
like
organizations
are
probably
going
to
have
to
get
a
couple
years
under
their
belt
before
it's
really
worth
engaging
with
them
anyway,
I
just
kind
of
wanted
to
get
a
straw
poll
of
people's
people's
thoughts
on
that.
Just
before
I
put
it.
C
I
think
yeah,
I
think
that's
that
is,
that
is
what
they
are.
That
is
what
they
are
seeking
right
now,
it's
my
understanding,
and
I
don't
know
if
it's
real,
I
don't
know
if
it's
a
gimmick,
I
don't
know
like
I,
I
got
I
put
a
toe
in
the
water
just
to
find
that
out
right
to
see
to
give
them
some
to
give
them
some
point
out
some
things
that
I
thought
could
be
helpful
and
see
if
they're,
responsive
and
so
far
they
have
been
responsive.
H
I
mean
I
don't
have
a
view
on
like
an
engagement
or
kind
of
technology
discussions
or
anything
like
that.
I
mean,
I
think
it's
absolutely
fine,
but
I
I
always
my
only
kind
of
I
think
from
a
kind
of,
and
I'm
not
sure
if,
even
if
this
is
the
question,
but
from
a
kind
of
coalition
perspective,
I
think
these
kind
of
single
service.
H
H
C
Yeah
the
thing-
and
that's
that's,
that
makes
a
lot
of
sense,
I'm
asking
because
I
really
want
to
know
you
know
I
not
because
I
have
any
acts
to
grind.
I
don't
want
to
spend
time
on
it
if
it's
not
good,
but
but
you
know
to
me
it
seems
like
everybody
else
in
the
inco
system,
we
really
bent
over
backwards
and
I
feel
reached
out
and
really
tried
to
get
people
on
to
at
least
one
or
two
meetings,
including
even
block
one.
C
You
know,
like
that
extent,
which
I
don't
I
wasn't
excited
about,
what
I
thought
we
had
to
do
at
least
get
a
minute,
so
everyone
else
had
the
chance
to
say
yay
or
nay
on
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish,
but
as
new
ones
come
in,
they
haven't
done
that
they
may
not
really
know
about
that.
They
may
not.
You
know,
I'm
just
trying
to
see
like
do
we
do
we
do
we
have
a
welcome
wagon
forum.
Do
we
say
hey
just
so
you
know
this
is
what
we're
doing
in
case.
C
B
I
guess
my
question
is:
if
we,
if
we
extend
this,
so
you
mentioned,
you
start
off
by
saying
that
you
know
we
want
them
or
whether
or
not
we
want
them
to
join
as
a
formal
partner.
So
if,
if
we
do
that,
are
we
reopening
the
like?
Are
we
just
saying
for
them,
or
are
we
just
saying
as
a
whole
by
the
way
the
coalition
is
open
for
people
to
reapply,
I
guess,
and
to
join
the
coalition
potentially
as
partners?
B
C
I
I
don't
know
that
we
aren't,
I
mean
my
understanding
is
that
one
of
our
pillars
is
openness
and
inclusion
and
that
we
are
open
to
others,
but
they've
already
made
the
chain
the
choice
not
to
so.
If
anything
and
and
everything
we
do
is
very
transparent,
so
people
who
have
already
been
in
the
space
and
have
and
have
been
involved
and
have
made
the
choice
not
to.
I
don't
think
that
they're
cl,
I
don't
see
them
as
closed
off
from
joining,
but
they
know
what
they
have
to
do
and
they
know
you
know.
B
C
Yeah,
but
but
it's
not
worth
our
time
to
do
that
now,
because
it's
been
a
very
recent
coal,
it's
been
a
very
recent
decision
that
they
made
nothing
tangibly,
has
really
changed
and
they
know,
and
they
all
know
how
to
reach
us
right.
So
if
somebody
goes
oh,
you
know
we
thought
about,
and
now
this
we
love
what
you're
doing,
and
we
really
want
to
be
part
of
it.
That's
fine!
It's
a
small
community.
They
know
how
to
get
in
touch
with
one
of
us.
I
think
that
they,
you
know
they.
C
C
I
don't
think
we
are,
but
you
know
everybody
else
knows
what
it
is
new
people
I
like
like
they
just
don't
they
just
don't
know
like
and
and
libra
it
seems
like
it
is
a
smaller
single
use
thing,
but
single
purpose
chain,
but
it
it's
the
first
time.
It
really
raises
the
question:
hey
here's
another
chain
coming
out,
you
know
in
the
eos
io
space,
god
damn
it
in
the
antelope
space
and-
and
you
know
we
like
how
they
haven't
had
a
chance
to
be
involved.
C
They
may
they
may
not
know
you
know
like
how
how
do
we
reach
out
to
them?
If
at
all,
I
think-
and
I
think
we
should
in
some
way,
even
just
saying,
hey
here's
kind
of
what
it
is
and-
and
you
know,
if
you're,
if
you're
interested,
I
think
there
should
be
some
kind
of
welcome
wagon
and
I
think
there
and
I
don't
think
that
we
need
to
until
somebody's
actually
expresses
interest.
B
C
But
they're
not
going
to
they
made
their,
they
made
their
choice
right.
The
other
guys
aren't
on
the
invite
with
do
we
do
we
like
that's
the
thing
it's
not
supposed
to
be,
it
didn't
mean
this
would
be
a
huge
thing.
It's
like
do
we
reach
out
to
them
at
all.
Do
we
have
any
kind
of
light?
You
know
engagement
or
do
we
just
have
a
do?
We
just
have
a
blurb
at
the
bottom
of
the
website
that
says
hey.
If
you
guys
want
to
join
us
contact
us
and
we'll
talk
about
it.
B
Going
to
come
up
a
lot,
but
I'm
okay
with
that.
There
are
a
few
that
we
added
as
time
went
by.
I
forget
the
name.
There
was
another
and
then
we
could
add
them
in
the
public
channel,
the
the
larger
channel
and-
and
the
name
is
escaping
me,
but
there's
another
chain
that
you
know
reached
out
very
similar
to
that
and
they
oh.
C
B
No,
the
name
is
escaping
me,
but
we
add
them
in
channel
they're
in
the
the
the
call
invite
they
just
didn't
show
up.
So
we
can
do
the
same
thing
should
at
some
point,
they'd
be
interested
in
formally
joining
then.
Yes,
we
would
have
to
have
that
discussion
at
the
time
of
what
does
that
mean:
cost
wise
membership,
wise
governance,
wise
we'd,
have
to
be
engaged
in
that,
and
so
at
that
point
then
we
should
also
be
cognizant
in
my
opinion,
that
if
we
do
that,
it
should
be
also
something
for
others.
B
A
A
If
I
may
interrupt
here,
because
we've
we've,
we
know
everybody
knows
the-
we
are
open
to
this
discussion.
We
we
had
this
discussion
several
times
in
our
calls:
everybody's
it's
open
to
public.
So
everybody
knows
that
we're
open
for
discussions.
Nobody
approached
us
so
far.
Also
the
new
chain
didn't
approach
us
so
far.
A
So
so
I
think
we
should
should
go
back
to
to
our
topics
that
we
would
like
to
discuss
here
on
the
call
and
if
that
case
comes
up
and
and
we
really
need
to
discuss
it,
we
should
bring
it
up
again.
So
I
think
we're
open.
Everybody
knows
that
and
nobody
has
been
raising
interest
so
far,
so
I
don't
think
there's
a
much
requirement
to
discuss
this
further.
B
B
Shintai
is
on
the
invite
and
they
just
never
joined.
I
am
meeting
david
in
singapore
in
two
weeks,
but
just
to
set
the
record
straight.
They
literally
are
on
the
invite
and
looking
at
it
right
now.
Now,
if
you
as
the
cto,
didn't
tell
your
ceo,
that
is
not
on
me,
that
is
on
you.
I
apologize,
but
qintai
was
very
much
invited.
It
was
brought
up
in
the
channels.
A
few
weeks
back
they've
been
invited.
They
were
one
of
the
first
people
that
were
invited,
they've
been
there
from
the
beginning.
C
We
we
made,
we
made
this
group
and
everybody
involved
made
a
real
effort
to
bring
in
every
possible
part.
We
went
out
to
apps
like
ava,
we
went
out,
we
went
out
to
block
bullish,
we
went
like
no
one
should
be
of
the
mind
that
we
didn't.
We
didn't,
have
an
exhaustive
invitation
to
people
and
outreach
like
active
outreach
to
to
to
people.
So
that's
just
not
factual.
A
F
Yeah,
I'm
aware
I
didn't
contact
nathan
yet,
but
we
do
have
a
bit
of
a.
I
guess:
okay,
an
initial
discussion
that
took
place-
I
think
like
was
it
10
days
ago
with
ted
and
stefan
regarding
this
topic.
So
there's
still
there's
still
a
few.
I
guess,
like
considerations,
to
be
taken
into
account,
mostly
mostly
around
the
availability
of
resources.
A
Yeah,
especially
in
the
discussions
that
we
have
with
our
nathan,
we
agreed
that
he
is
the
real
nathan.
So,
but
apart
from
that,
that's
great,
so
we
we
started
that
discussion.
That's
good,
then,
to
the
to
the
priority
items
here.
Has
there
been
any
update
on
the
marketing
side
here,
especially
on
discussions
about
website
development
and
so
on?
Justin
is
not
here,
so
I'm
not
sure
who
was
part
of
that
discussion.
Lately.
C
C
C
Along
this
similar
theme,
there
was
a
request
from
enf
that
other
participants
join
in
a
little
bit
more
in
in
actually
pushing
stuff
out.
I
I
don't
know
any.
I
don't
think
there
have
been
any
meetings
around
that.
I
thought
that
I
don't
think
that's
like.
I
don't
think.
That's
like
a
work
group
thing.
I
think
that's
more
of
a
just
hey
we'd,
be
more
aware
of
that.
So
I
don't
think
there's
been
any
actions
that
I'm
aware
of
that
have
happened
on
that.
A
Okay,
yeah,
because
that's
great
that
you
just
returned,
thank
you
douglas.
I
think
that's
it's
it's
more
related
to
like
a
website
v2,
where
there
was
some
discussion
about
like
wordpress
budgets
and
and
working
on
the
next
structure,
or
the
improved
and
evolved
structure
of
the
website
and
also
like
the
branding.
B
B
L
So
yeah
sorry,
I
can
give
you
guys
a
quick
update
on
that.
We
did
move
forward
with
it.
We
met
with
the
double
double
up
team
and
we'll
have
transitioned
over
to
wordpress
for
probably
early
next
week
in
the
pages,
so
the
state
first
stage
will
be
done
early
next
week.
I
think
there's
a
longer
term.
A
Awesome
and
then
ted
you
wanted,
we
discussed
wordpress
a
while
ago,
and
you
wanted
to
discuss
with
sebastian
if
we
kind
of
add
this
to
the
what
proof,
environment
and
have
everything
kind
of
locked
on
the
blockchain.
That's
very
good.
Zac
zach
did
that,
while
we
were
on
a
call
one
time
in
like
35
seconds,
so
it's
really
easy.
Okay,
once
we
get
the
word
press
up,
I
should
say.
B
B
D
I
A
M
M
L
Yeah,
sorry
about
that,
like
my
phone,
I
just
died,
or
my
computer
just
died
right
when
we
were
talking
about
this
topic,
yeah
so
outside
of
the
wordpress
one
of
the
things
that
switching
over
the
site
we
talked
about
is
just
making
sure
that
we
had
some
refreshed
content.
So
there's
you
know
at
least
some
engagement
or
level
of
engagement
that
we're
showing
on
the
site
and
one
of
the
ideas
or
proposals
that
we
wanted
to
bring
back.
L
Is
you
know
a
shared
responsibility
to
create
content
across
the
coalition,
so
with
selecting
a
few
topics
and
having
a
cadence
of
every
other
week
or
something
like
that?
We
can
talk
through
the
cadence,
but
where
each
of
the
coalition
members
could
contribute
some
blog
or
some
kind
of
article
that
could
be
posted
on
the
site.
So
it
could
maintain
some
level
of
freshness
and
a
level
of
thought
leadership
that
we'd
want
to
demonstrate
so
again.
L
L
So
that
that
was
the
proposal
and
we
can
give
more
details
around
that,
I
think
justin
got
on,
but
we
did
also
identify
a
few
topics
to
suggest
to
the
coalition
and
that
would
also
help
to
to
bring
to
life.
You
know
the
reason
why
you're
part
of
the
coalition
and
what
you
think
is
important
as
we
move
forward.
L
C
So
I
personally-
and
you
know
and
as
extension
on
behalf
of
of
telos
and
just
I
anticipate
being
a
big
contributor
of
that,
but
right
now
I've
got
a
lot
of
other
things
ahead
of
me.
So
I
think
you
can
count
on
you
know
some
writings
and
videos
and
stuff
like
me
that
you've
already
seen,
but
but
just
this
isn't
the
time
I
can
take
that
on
as
a
big
role.
You
know
for
the
next
couple
weeks
at
least
but
long
term.
Yes,
for
me.
L
Yeah
and
it
would
likely
be
like
once
a
month
right,
there's
four
of
us
as
part
of
this,
so
you
know
once
a
month
having
so
you
know
the
the
twitter
space
that
douglas
that
you
were
part
of.
I
think
that
was
a
really
great
sign
of
that
work
that
we
can
do
together.
So
I
think
here
again
a
really
light.
Lift
is
what
we're
proposing
to
keep
at
the
moment.
L
C
Yeah
I
can,
I
can
commit
to
that
for
sure,
and
I
I
want
to
by
the
way
I
want.
I
think
that
those
that
those
twitter
spaces,
I
think
well,
I
I've-
invited
everybody
to
be
on
a
twitter
space
that
on
good
blocks,
weekly
twitter
space
for
next
week
and
everybody
said
yeah,
you
know
one
person
for
each
change
said
yeah
that'll
be
great.
I
think
we
should
really
try
to
do
like
you
said
light
lifts
more
of
those
things.
The
there
were
some
technical
issues
with
the
one
with
the
twitter
space.
C
J
Yeah,
I
mean
part
of
it's
the
evm,
where
they're
currently
at
and
focused
on
kind
of
getting
to
the
finish
line,
the
other
one's
just
we're
focused
on
our
conferences
and
keynotes.
We
just
got
a
lot
going
on,
so
I
mean
to
participate
in.
It
would
be
one
thing
but
to
organize
it
is
another
animal.
That's
just
something.
That's
kind
of,
I
guess
falling
down
the
priority
list
at
this
time,
at
least
for
the
month
of
september,.
J
C
Just
talk
a
little
bit
more,
I
got
a
couple
messages
into
you
that
I
don't
think
I've
heard
back
on.
So
if
we
can,
then
we
don't
have
to
take
up
any
more
time
on
this
on
this
call.
But
if
it's
not
going
to
happen,
that's
fine
then
we
can.
Then
I
can
take
that
off
the
list
and
I
can
put
up
and
I
can
propose
other
things
in
instead.
L
So
before
we
move
on
because
I
think
there
are
other
professional
ideas
that
we
have
kind
of
on
the
list,
could
I
propose
that
the
coalition
commit
to
having
this?
You
know
we
could
provide
some
guidance
on
what
we're
looking
at
in
terms
you
know
of
the
250
500
words,
we
can
talk
about
topics.
We
can
provide
some
guidance
on
this
already,
but
would
like
to
just
get
the
commitment
that
you
know
we
set
a
cadence
of
of
getting
that
information
on
the
site.
C
Yeah
I
mean,
if
we're
gonna,
do
that,
then
we
need
to
have
some
kind
of
calendar,
some
kind
of
content
calendar
where
we,
even
if
it's
just
one
one
thing
every
two
weeks.
Somebody
has
to
sign
up
for
that
and-
and
you
know,
and
because
otherwise
it's
just
going
to
not
happen.
If
we
keep
it
nebulous,
hey
we're
looking
for
these
things,
no
action
will
act
will
be
taken
at
least
not
in
a
consistent
way.
So
you
need
to
have
a
calendar.
Somebody's
got
to
run
it
somebody's.
You
know,
and
some
yeah.
B
B
Somebody
needs
to
coordinate
that
somebody
needs
to
proofread
it.
Somebody
needs
to
okay,
it
needs
to
be
brought
to
the
rest
of
the
people.
I
mean
every
two
weeks
is
still
quite
a
long
and
then
who's
doing
that
are.
We
is
that
the
suggestion
that
we're
gonna
take
this
on,
I'm
not
convinced
that
that's
necessarily
a
priority.
L
No,
I
would
so
it
wouldn't
be.
It
would
be
coming
out
of
the
the
go
to
market
team,
so
we
have
meetings
that,
hopefully
will
be
every
two
weeks.
So
we
can
look
at
the
content,
calendar
kind
of
review
and
then
propose
you
know
whoever
slotted
it.
I
don't
think
it
would
be
a
lot
of
work
for
the
editing
and
publishing.
L
I
think
it's
really
just
the
commitment
of
someone
in
each
of
the
organizations
to
provide
something
that
can
be
put
into
that
process,
and
you
know
that
that's
we
can
assign
it
or
you
know,
and
if
it's
too
much
I
you
know,
I
think
it's
it
really.
Just
then
becomes
you
know.
Is
everyone
okay
with
not
having
that
level
of
you
know
of
of
updates
to
this
to
the
site
I
mean
it.
Just
is
sitting
kind
of
static.
C
If
I
was
gonna
nostradramus
this,
I
would
say
it's
not.
This
is
not
something
that's
going
to
exist
and
thrive
on
a
sort
of
like
every
chain
takes
its
turn
sort
of
way.
You
know,
even
if,
even
if
we
start
that
it's
not
going
to
go
long,
I
think,
what's
really
more
likely
to
happen.
Is
a
few
individuals
are
going
to
say
hey.
This
is
worth
doing
and
fits.
C
You
know
my
needs
of
wanting
to
you
know
either
be
seen
as
a
you
know,
strong
player
here
or
whatever
right,
it's
gonna,
it's
gonna,
be
it's
gonna
come
down
to
a
few
people,
I'm
I
will
do
it
because
I
do
that
stuff
anyway,
and
I
think
you
know
patty
or
somebody
you
know
I
don't
know
if
we're
gonna
we're,
really,
I
think
more
likely
we're
gonna
get
a
few
contributors
who
do
it
and
others
are
gonna,
not
see
the
value
of
putting
that
time.
If
I'm
honest.
L
C
I
I
think
so
I
don't
think
we
need.
I
don't
like
it's
an
opportunity.
I
see
it
as
an
opportunity.
I
see
it
as
a
chance
to,
as,
as
a
you
know,
technically
smaller
player
here,
to
try
and
have
a
bigger
voice,
because
I
I
both
personally
and
for
telos
that
both
go.
You
know
the
same
thing
I
I
want
us
to.
C
I
want
people
to
know
that
this
is
I
it's
important
to
me
that
people
know
that
this
is
not
really
just
the
enf
and,
and
friends
like
this
is
a
coalition
there's
a
lot
of
reasons
why
I
think
it's
valuable
enough
for
me
to
put
time
in
and
but
if
people
don't
feel
valuable
for
them,
I
don't
want
them
to
have
a
freaking.
You
know
term
paper
due
you
know
every
every
couple
weeks.
You
know
like
it's
just
if
it's
the
value
of
it,
they
should
do
it.
I
don't.
C
L
Yeah,
I
agree,
I
mean
I
think
that
the
site
will
support
it
and
I
guess
you
know
instead
of
the
commitment.
Maybe
it's
you
know
it's
next
week,
there's
an
open
slot
and
then
whoever
would
like
to
set
up
we
can.
We
can
manage
it
from
that
perspective.
There'll
be
multiple
parties,
that'll
share
the
cms,
so
the
publishing
is
not.
You
know
it's
not
restricted
to
one
person
we'll
have
a
process
where
you
know
that
we
can
create
there.
L
And
and
go
through,
you
know,
the
cadence
of
you
know
for
for
publishing
dates,
see
who's
got
an
item
that
they'd
like
to
commit
to
and
if,
if,
if
there
isn't
a
topic
or
or
someone
volunteering
to
set
up
step
up,
then
you
know
we
could
make
a
collective
decision
that
you
know
we'll
forego
that
date
and
continue
on.
We
can
manage
it
that
way
as
well.
C
I
I
will
do
one
I'll
commit
to
doing
one
a
month.
The
thing
is
the
you
know,
and
and
so
I
get
that
on
the
calendar,
I
don't
want
people,
I
don't
want
people
to
say,
though
oh
wow,
you
know
doug's
trying
to
trying
to
you,
know
make
it
look
like
his
role
in
this
is
much
bigger
than
it
actually
is
or
he's
always.
Why
is
he
always
talking
about
telos?
C
Because
you
know
in
the
things
I
do
you
know
the
way
I
interact
with
with
with
antelope
is:
is
you
know
about
antelope,
but
also
about
telos
like
we're
all
gonna
we're
all
gonna
highlight
things
that
we're
aware
of
which
are
our
own
chains,
and
I
don't
want
people
to
go.
Oh
you
know
he's.
You
know
he's
trying
to
capture
this,
even
though
it's
an
opportunity.
So
so
you
know,
I
don't
want
it
to
become
something
where
people
where
people
feel
a
few
people
are
monopolizing
it
and
believe
it
or
not.
C
I've
been
accused
of
of
not
collecting
a
conversation
or
two,
but
I
do
want
to
contribute-
and
I
do
think
it's
important
so
you
know
but
there,
but
I,
but
I
want
to
be
cautious
about
about
like
about
hey.
You
know
why?
Don't
we
ever
talk
about
wax?
Well
because
you
know,
for
example,
well,
because
they
don't
you
know
they
don't
choose
to
participate
right.
C
L
L
B
To
be,
I
guess,
to
put
on
record
I-
and
I
think
we
mentioned
this
two
weeks
or
so
ago.
I
have
no
objection
with
what
douglas
mentioned.
I
don't
I
don't
it's
like
on
the
record.
I
have
no
qualms
with,
for
example,
douglas
publishing
a
lot
of
content,
and
if
people
want
to
see
that
as
doug
does
xyz,
I
personally
don't
care.
I
think
it
just
showcases
that
some
people
care
about
this.
They
see
value
in
this,
and
so
they
show
up
and
that's
important.
B
I
think
that
that's
what
I
would
be
focusing
on
and
if
that
means
that
douglas
picks
this
file
up
and
does
more
than
than
others,
and
this
ends
up
being
a
lot
of
him
and
he
ends
up
being
that
face.
I'm
okay
with
that.
I
think
we
need
more
people
to
actually
show
up
and
do
the
work
and
then,
if
then,
that
bothers
others,
because
they
feel
like
they're
not
being
represented
great,
then
show
up
and
do
the
work
as
well
like.
B
If
this
is
important
to
you,
show
up
if
it's
not
important
to
you
or
if
you're,
if
you've
got
other
priorities,
that's
okay,
too!
That's
fine!
I
don't!
I
don't
particularly
have
that
issue.
I
would
say
a
cadence
of
two
weeks
to
me
personally.
I
think
it's
a
little
too
much,
I'm
not
sure
that
we'd
actually
have
content
every
two
weeks,
and
it's
not
so
much
that
there's
content
every
two
weeks
as
well
to
prepare
that
content.
Every
two
weeks
is
a
couple
of
days
at
work.
B
That
means
that
you're,
I
don't
know
a
for
an
ft.
Maybe
it's
point
three
of
an
ft
point,
four
of
an
ft
and
to
me
that's
a
little
too
much
prioritization
on
this.
I'm
not
saying
it's
not
important,
but
maybe
point
three
point:
four
of
nifty
is
a
little
too
much.
I
would
say
that
something
cadence
of
every
month,
I
think,
is
good.
I
think
that
that's
really
that
that's
plenty
and
like
we
mentioned
as
well,
it's
not
necessarily
articles.
B
We
do
twitter
spaces,
we
do
interviews,
we
we
have
mentions
of
antelope
just
having
the
blog
site
up
right
now,
the
amount
of
times
the
antelope
gets
mentioned.
Currently
we
would
likely
be
able
to
just
put
a
press
section
and
and
fill
it
out
every
you
know
every
week
right
now,
probably
at
this
point
and
if
we
continue
what
we're
doing
you
know
that
section
will
probably
be
filled
up
on
its
own
type
of
thing.
B
C
Okay,
great,
I
mean
a
lot
of
that,
I'm
doing
already
or
me,
and
my
team
are
doing
already
with
the
twitter
spaces
I'll
keep
pushing
I'll
keep
inviting
eve.
I
don't
think
there's
any
shortage
of
of
of
you
appearing
on
these
things.
I
just
you
know,
there's
a
lot
of
things
where
it's
you
and
me,
and
that's
great.
I
think
we've
got
an
amazing
dog
and
pony
show
for
people.
We
it's
it's.
It
really
comes
across
great.
I
I
I
don't
want
anyone
to
have
hard
feelings
if
it's
like.
C
Oh
it's,
the
doug
and
eve
show
because
it's
not
but
it's,
but
if
you
know
the
the
faces,
you
see
the
people
you
talk,
I
see
talking
about
it,
it's
just
it's
just
natural
for
it
to
come
across
that
way,
but
you
know
all
are
welcome.
I'm
trying
to
get
everybody
in,
but
I'll
I'll
commit
to
doing
a
lot
of
that
and
you
guys
will
probably
be
sick
of
me
and
they'll
they'll
people
will
think
that
you
know
it.
It's
all
about
me.
L
L
C
B
A
E
K
So
I
I
actually
was
going
to
chime
in
and
say
I
added
that
to
the
agenda
just
during
this
meeting.
Since
it
came
up
in
the
core
engineering's
channel
yeah,
they
just
said
that
it
would
be
great
to
get
it
set
up
as
verified
we've
got
it
set
up
that
way
for
the
enf.
I
think
there's
just
a
sense
of
pride
and
legitimacy
around
it.
A
A
C
Well,
if
we're
going
to
have
anything
official,
then
we
have
to
have
some
kind
of
like
who
would
we,
who
would
we
say,
is
officially
agreeing
to
that?
I
mean
do
we
we
do
do
it.
Based
on
a
vote
of
the
four
chains.
I
mean,
I
think
it's
great.
I
think
it
would
be
good.
I
don't
know
exactly
how
like
who
we
sit
for
those
organizations
generally
they're
like
they're,
looking
to
a
person
or
something
to
you
know
with
a
organ
with
a
recognized
title
to
to
come
in
and
say
yes,
this
is
official.