►
From YouTube: EOSIO+ Working group meeting March 3, 2022
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
C
Okay,
so
I
I
basically
put
that
on
the
agenda
for
today's
like
up
update
of
all
working
groups,
then
we
did
have
like
initial
prioritization
prioritization
of
requirements
and
ideal
road
maps.
If
nobody
speaks
against
that,
I
would
move
that
to
the
backlog
for
now,
because
I
think
it's
it,
it
will
be
part
of
what
what
is
happening
in
the
different
work
groups.
So
from
that
perspective,
I
think
it's
better
to
have
like
an
upgrade.
C
What
I
would
like
to
cover
is
because
I
didn't
receive
it
and-
and
I
actually
honestly
don't
know
where
to
find
those
things
these
blue
papers
have
been
distributed.
We've
been
discussing
about
them
like
in
the
last
meeting
too.
Where
are
those
located?
Can
we
kind
of
share
the
link.
A
E
A
C
A
We
have
audit,
plus
api
plus
and
core
plus,
all
delivered
and
published
in
three
languages.
Wallet
plus
has
been
finalized
in
english,
it's
currently
being
formatted
into
the
the
branding,
template
and
being
translated
into
korean
and
chinese.
At
the
same
time.
So.
E
A
I
guess
the
problem
is:
if
we
make
it
available,
everybody
can
share
it
and
then
it
becomes
public,
that's
kind
of
the
issue
and
that's
why
we've
held
off
like
I'll,
have
the
english
pdf
probably
a
week
before
we
actually
release
it
publicly,
because
we
need
the
formatting
from
the
english
version
of
the
pdf
of
the
stylized
paper
that
we
could
pass
off
to
someone
else
to
input
the
already
translated
text
into
the
template,
which
takes
an
additional
three
days.
A
The
eta
is
next
week
for
this
to
be
out
anyways
we're
talking
about
a
week
earlier.
So
I.
E
There
is
a
with
google
docs
that
you
can
say
the
person
can
read
it,
but
they
can't
share
the
link.
You
have
to
click
a
few
more
buttons,
but
we
would
have
to
know
the
email
addresses.
So
let's
say
kirsten
wants
it
and
he
has
a
gmail
account
and
we
say:
okay,
we're
going
to
share
it
to
your
gmail
account,
but
we're
going
to
make
it
where
you
can't
actually
share.
I
mean
he
would
have
to
literally
cut
and
paste
it
into
a
new
document
which
obviously
we
would
ask
you
not
to
do.
E
Them
to
get
as
early
access
as
possible,
knowing
that
we
don't
want
you
to
share
them,
because
we
don't
want
the
people
that
speak
korean
or
chinese
to
feel
like
we
released
it
early.
But
you
guys
are
the
working
group.
You
guys
are
the
heart
and
soul
of
this,
and
that's
why
I
I
tend
to
feel
like
there
is.
I
know
there's
a
way
because
I've
done
it,
but
you'd
have
to
have
a
gmail
account
and
we
would
restrict
it
only
to
your
account
and
we'd.
E
Ask
that
you
not
copy
and
paste
it
right,
because
then
you're
violating
the
rules,
but
it
is
only
a
week
and
and
and
he
is
my
boss,
so
I'll
shut
up
now.
D
Like
like
kirsten,
if
you,
if
you
want
access,
I
I
think
we
can
like
create
a
pdf.
You
know
put
it
into
the
into
the
esi
or
close
working
group
and
like
keep
it
within.
Like
a
small
group,
I
think
that's
okay,
but
like
outside
of
that,
please
don't
release
it.
F
A
H
C
E
So
what
you
would
read
now
is
the
final
blue
paper
in
english.
It's
just
it's
not
fair
to
chinese
or
korean
speakers
because
they
can't
read
it
yet,
but
we
don't
have
any
chinese
or
korean
speakers
that
are
solely
chinese
or
korean
speakers
on
this
call-
and
I
feel
like
this-
this
group-
you
know,
but
enough
said.
C
Yeah,
I
tend
to
read
those
documents
in
korean
first,
because
it's
kind
of
having
the
best
meaning
just
kidding
spoke
some
japanese
some
time
ago.
But
that's
that's
a
long
time
ago
anyway.
No
but
rami,
already
sent
me.
He
he's
got
to
give
me
access,
so
I
kind
of
scan
it
through.
But
apart
from
that,
we
we're
gonna
kind
of
distribute
it
the
moment.
It's
ready,
which
I
totally
agree
with.
C
H
C
H
That
that
we
sometimes
are
overly
deferential
to
people
who
you
know
who
might
not
care
and
that
they
might
actually
want
us
to
just
make
progress
faster,
but
but
again
there's
no
one
answer
to
that,
and
I
don't
want
to
exclude
anybody
from
this.
Although
you
know
there's
no,
it's
not
like.
There's
anybody
engaged
in
this
that
that
is
not
able
to
you
know
or
who's
expressed,
that
they
want
to
be
a
key
part
of
this
who
who
is
excluded
by
language,
so
yeah.
H
C
Okay,
so
then,
going
through
in
progress
brand
development
justin
is
working
on
that
the
work
group,
the
smaller
work
group,
is
designed
at
the
defined.
We
had
some
telegram
discussions
about
the
size
of
the
group
where
there
was
a
clear
recommendation
of
the
brand
agency
to
limit
the
amount
of
people
that
are
on
the
group.
So
I
think
we
have
like
three
people
on
that
group
now,
which
I
think
is
is
fully
sufficient
from
my
personal
perspective.
C
So
but
there's
no
further
update
from
that
group
that
I
know
of
except
somebody
would
like
to
speak
up.
That
is
part
of
the
group
in
in
the
update.
Then
definition.
G
Yes,
as
I
say,
I
can
talk
to
it
real
quick.
We
did
a
questionnaire
essentially
over
the
weekend
that,
had,
I
don't
know,
20
30
40
questions
on
it
to
give
a
sense
of
the
brand,
and
there
is
a
meeting
being
scheduled
now
for
next
week.
I
think
to
initially
go
over
that
right
now.
G
My
understanding
is,
there
are
still
just
justin
and
I
actively
participating
and
eve
is
now
in
the
group
kind
of
as
a
passive
observer,
so
there
may
be
room
for
one
other
person
to
join
in
and
actively
contribute
and
potentially
too
if
somebody
wants
to
actively
contribute
more
than
I
am
because,
admittedly
I
have
not
been
as
active.
G
So
that's
from
my
understanding
where
things
are
at
it's
moving
along.
E
G
Answering
the
questionnaire,
but
there
hasn't
been
any
specific
design
like
hey.
Do
you
like
this
color?
Yet
I.
H
Don't
know
what's
coming,
I
was
unclear
about
whether
I
am
participating
in
that
or
not
I
originally
I
was
I
was
part
of
it,
but
then
the
idea
that
we
don't
have
more
than
three
people
came
up
and
and
obviously
with
justin
being
from
telos.
I
you
know
and
leading
the
group
I
didn't
want
to
have
you
know
I
I
understood
that
people
didn't
have
two
telos
guys.
You
know
two.
You
know
in
two
out
of
three
of
that
in
that
group.
So
whoever
is
in
that
group.
H
B
Conversation
yeah,
I
mean
personally,
I
don't
mind
but
yeah.
They
did
put
this
suggestion
to
only
have
like
around.
You
know
two
or
three
people.
I
think
we
can
add.
You
know
one
more.
Obviously
we
could
do
more
and
just
tell
them
we're
gonna.
You
know
we
want
to
add
more
so
yeah.
It's
open,
I'm
also
open
to
giving
up
my
seat
at
the
table
on
that
to
someone
else,
I
don't
really
mind
either
way
but
yeah,
I
guess
generally,
it
is
good
to
kind
of
keep
it
to
a
couple.
B
I
just
I'll
try
and
filter
I've
been
trying
to
filter
through
a
lot
of
the
viewpoints
from
the
conversation
here
into
my
responses.
Obviously,
at
this
stage
we're
still
early
days,
we've
been
answering
questionnaires
and
stuff
like
that
for
them
to
review,
so
we
haven't
really
gotten
into
the
meat
of
it.
Yet
I
I'd
say
I
mean
I'll
keep
developing
the
conversation
with
them
see
if
we
can
like
yeah,
throw
in
a
few
more
people
but
yeah
they
generally
have
just
suggested.
B
F
G
F
The
group
yes,
so
originally
what
what
I
said-
and
I
also
have
no
objection
doug
if
you
wanted
to
participate
actually,
not
only
would
I
not
have
any
objections.
The
awesome
thing
is
you
mentioned
that
you
have
experience
in
the
industry
and
your
viewpoint
would
probably
be
very
useful.
F
If
people
wanted
to,
but
what
I
last
week
when
we
talked
about
yeah,
was
the
idea
that
too
many
people
would
be
good.
So
that's
why
I
said
I'd
be
a
silent
participant.
F
G
B
F
It
could
also
be
that
it's
certain
times
and
and
not
others
like
maybe
for
the
questionnaire,
because
it
kind
of
defines
the
brand
at
the
onset,
maybe
having
four
viewpoints
more
valuable
and
then
later
on.
When
it
gets
to
more
minutiae,
then
yeah,
you
don't
have
too
many
cooks
in
the
kitchen,
so
it
can
also
be
dynamic.
I'm
okay
with
that.
H
My
guess,
having
been
on
these
before
on
both
sides,
is
they
just
don't
want
to
get
they
they
just
don't
want
to
get.
You
know
key
feedback
from
a
ton
of
people.
Typically,
that's
that's
doesn't
go
well
and
they
and
they
agencies
like
this,
usually
ask
that
feedback
go
through.
Just
you
know
one
or
two
people,
that's
a
great
overall
best
case.
You
know
our
best
best
practice,
but
I
don't
think
it
applies
to
ours
and
it's
and
they
work
for
us
and
we
don't
have.
We
aren't.
C
Okay,
so,
but
may
I
may
have
proposed,
though,
because
we
we
have
already
spent
pretty
much
time
on
this-
it's
I
think
the
groups
are
kind
of
defined
and
if
there
is
kind
of
adjustment,
it's
clear
that
that
is
open
and
there
is
general
possibility.
C
C
Thank
you.
Okay,
then
next
thing
in
progress,
aaron,
that's
the
core
code.
In
fact,
definition
of
code.
We
have
the
software
groups
that
have
been
working.
So
my
thought
is
that
this
probably
this
ticket
here
or
this
issue-
is
probably
being
part
of
the
work
groups
already
right.
So
can
you
give
a
short
update
on
this.
G
Yeah
my
understanding
as
that's
been
kind
of
outstanding,
was
that
I
was
going
to
write
something
based
on
that
diagram,
but
that
does
seem
like
it
would
filter
through
this
new
group
that
started
tuesday
and
wednesday
this
week.
I
admittedly
I
don't
have
anything
to
share
today.
Despite
saying
today
was
the
day
I
would
for
various
reasons,
so
we
can
funnel
this
through
that
group,
maybe
the
next
one
of
the
next
times
we
meet.
G
I
can
have
something
that
is
just
a
text,
description
of
that
diagram
and
we
just
need
to
come
to
consensus
on
if
those
things
are
included.
I
do
think
that
the
papers
themselves
will
probably
shed
some
light
on.
G
Why
that's
important
and
as
we
just
talked
about
it's
probably
going
to
be
another
10
days
before
the
wallet
one
comes
out,
which
is
the
one
that
covers
sdks.
I
I
C
Cool
okay,
that
awesome.
Thank
you,
so
I
I
moved
this
to.
You
said
it's
gonna
be
two
weeks
until
you
have
all
the
bases,
so
I
probably
move
this
to
seventeenths
of
march
sounds
good
excellent.
Then
we
had
a
funding
proposal.
We
we
had
this
big
meeting,
but
I
had
I
didn't.
I
didn't
see
any
kind
of
update
invitation
to
continue
discussion
about
this.
F
Yeah,
I
can
speak
to
that
so
in
the
so
we
did
have
a
subgroup
that
was
already
created
essentially
beforehand
and
I
believe
it
is
reflected
in
last
week's
document
did
mention
that
marshall
would
no
longer
be
able
to
participate
that
so
essentially
it's
just
the
ux
guys.
G
F
So
if
somebody
else
wanted
to
join,
there
would
be
space
in
there.
I
believe
right
now.
It's
I
believe
in
the
last
yeah
in
the
document
it
does
mention
marshall,
but
we
should
remove
that.
It
is
essentially
what
they
proposed
last
last
week,
the
absorbing
the
feedback
that
was
given
on
the
call
and
the
feedback
that
was
received
afterwards,
I
guess
from
the
from
darren
and
or
from
from
gnome.
F
I'm
not
sure
some
of
you
sent
them
to
them,
but
there
was
a
couple
of
key
takeaways,
one
of
them
being
opex
versus
capex
and
just
some
overall
concerns
with
the
way
that
it
was
being
presented.
F
And
so
we
decided
that
we
would
be
working
on
a
powerpoint
presentation
which
would
break
it
down
and
it
would
be
more
of
a
proposed
or
stepped
approach
to
what
what
they
were
presenting,
because
what
they're
presenting
is
kind
of
all-encompassing,
and
quite
it's
not
realistic
at
this
stage,
anyways
a
few
of
the
of
the
components
to
it.
So
we
should
be
able
to
have
a
presentation
that
will
be
kind
of
dumbed
down
or
much
more
high
level.
F
Much
simpler
stepped
approach
to
how
potentially
we
could
leverage
what
they
had
worked
to,
adapt
it
to
our
immediate
needs
of
realistically
just
figuring
out
if
we
had
a
breakdown
of
cost
and
there
was
a
pie
well
who
contributes
what
as
simple
as
that,
essentially
so,
not
necessarily
needing
a
new
token,
not
having
the
the
foundation
to
that
not
having
a
ten
percent.
You
know
requirement,
like
none
of
that.
Just
we
looked
at
the
pie
chart
and
this
group
needed
to
figure
out
how
that
pie
chart
would
be
split.
F
Then
what
would
be
the
justification
of
the
the
metrics
behind
what
would
be
proposed
for
essentially
the
group
which
would
be-
I
guess,
the
governance
group.
That's
currently
a
subgroup
voting
on
whether
or
not
they
agree
with
that
pipe
short
pie,
chart
distribution
essentially
and
perhaps
in
the
future.
F
E
E
Anyone
else
want
to
join,
I've
got
the
file
open,
and
we
can,
you
know,
put
whoever
would
like
to
be
in
there.
It'd
probably
be
good
to
have
someone
from
one
of
the
other
chains
in
there.
F
It'd
be
good
to
have
somebody
who's
good
with
numbers
and
good
somebody
who
could
challenge,
for
example,
the
variables
that
were
used,
the
weights
that
were
used,
the
metrics,
perhaps
some
metrics
were,
are
far
or
way
too
much.
Perhaps
some
metrics
were
missed.
Perhaps
some
metrics
should
be
removed
when
making
the
calculations
so
because
somebody
has
a
good
understanding
of
not
just
finances
but
just
based
economics
as
well
as
base
just
mathematics.
C
If
I
may
raise
a
proposal
here,
because
lucas
I've
I've
been
trying
to
contact
you
via
telegram,
I
hope
this
was
this.
The
right
lucas
I
contacted
at
least
I
wasn't
blocked.
I
I
don't
know
so.
The
the
question
was
that
that
we
wanted
to
have
or
would
love
to
have
more
participation
of
wax
within
work
groups.
I
haven't
seen
any
kind
of
update
on
the
work
group
setup,
including
more
people
or
resource
from
wax.
Would
this
be
something
that
that
your
group
could
be
helping
with.
F
C
Okay,
but
but
I
I
was
lucas
from
from
wax,
I
hope
you
you're
there
would
this
be
something
that
you,
your
group,
could
step
into
and
and
assist.
E
F
C
E
F
And
really
to
give
the
the
background
right,
the
idea
is:
if
we
were
to
have
a
common
pool
of
funds,
a
treasury,
we
essentially
need
to
figure
out
who
pays
what
right?
What
does
that
distribution?
Look
like?
Let's
assume
that
it's
a
million
dollars
in
the
treasury
that
we
deem
that
we
need,
then
what
is
the
percentage?
How
is
that
broken
down
by
chain?
So
it's
quite
important
this
this
aspect
is
really
fundamental
to
everything
else.
We're
going
to
do.
E
H
We
may
we
may
be
seeing
the
effect
of
something
I
mentioned
recently,
which
is
you
know.
Now
we
have
12
14
participants
where
we
used
to
have
more
people,
may
just
drop
people
dropping
out
of
this.
Out
of
this,
I
wouldn't
be
surprised
so
at
some
point,
we're
going
to
have
to
we're
going
to
have
to
just
decide
that
it
is
going
to
be
the
same
people
who
are
willing
to
work.
H
A
F
F
If
we
want
to
leverage
the
blue
papers
right,
so
we
do
have
a
live
case
where
we
could
potentially
leverage
the
interim
or
the
you
know:
mvp
one
of
governance
mechanism,
mvp
one,
a
funding
mechanism
on
things
that
are
that
impact
all
the
sio
chains.
Otherwise
I
mean
at
some
point
it's
going
to
need
to
move
forward
with
with
making
selections
and
then
funding
those
things,
but
it
does
impact
everybody
and
we
do
have
like
a
real
live
cases.
F
It's
not
just
fluff,
there's
something
that
we'd
be
able
to
to
test
it
with.
Let's
say.
C
Yes,
so
I've
written
it
into
chat
and
and
also
here
on
the
on
the
board.
I
will
raise
the
question
later
on
in
on
telegram
and
and
hope
he
responds.
I
think
I
personally.
D
D
Sorry,
I
just
wanted
to
maybe
bring
up
a
kind
of
a
topic
that
was
discussed
in
the
governance
subgroup
a
couple
of
hours
ago
about
whether
the
governance
group
and
the
funding
group
like
whether
there's
enough
overlap
over
there,
because
we,
what
we
were
actually
discussing,
was
like
how
we
decide,
but
that's
very
closely
aligned
with
like
what
we're
actually
deciding
about.
D
It's
like
I'll
tell
you,
like
my
concern
about
joining
an
extra
group,
is
simply
the
time
dedication.
You
know
finding
another
slot
that
overlaps
with
multiple
other
people,
so
that
we
can
all
like
you
know,
arrange
our
schedules
so
that
we
can
sit
and
discuss
this
stuff.
And
if
it's
done
in
one
larger
meeting,
then
perhaps
there's
the
opportunity
there
to
have
some
extra
efficiency.
F
So
I
I
understand
romney
the
I
guess
I
do
see
I
I
do
clearly
see
the
overlap,
but
I
would
see
the
governance
as
the.
How
do
we
decide
and
then
the
finance
is,
is
really
doesn't
bear
an
impact
on
on
what
is
decided
so
they're
two
completely
separate
things.
In
that
sense,
I
would
imagine-
and
I've
mentioned
this
early
at
the
onset,
the
financial
distribution
or
contributions
will
be
different
than
in
my,
in
my
opinion,
ratio
wise
than
the
governance
component.
F
So
the
financial
distribution,
for
example,
that
that
darren
presented
last
week,
you
had
you
know
some
chains,
contributing
70,
15,
5
4
type
of
thing.
Whereas
if
we
took
those
ratios
for
governance,
then
that
means
if
there
was
ten
votes,
you'd
have
eos
with
seven
votes,
which
means
eos
would
arbitrarily
or
would
would
be
able
to
have
the
veto
over
everything
in
anything,
which
makes
no
sense.
So
I
do
see
them
as
as
it
being
advantages
to
be
separate
things.
F
And
again,
we
we
do
have
like
darren
and
and
young
did
have
a
lot
of
work
already
done
in
this.
I
think
the
key
part
was
kind
of
the
presentation
and
the
the
the
way
the
information
was
delivered
was
too
much
and
I
don't
think
it
was
effectively
presented,
but
it's
also
the
content
itself.
I
think,
is
way
too
much
way
too
fast.
F
So
it's
really
bringing
that
down
to
a
smaller
approach
which
we
can
do
and
what
we've
been
starting
to
do
now,
with
a
like
more
of
a
presentation,
powerpoint
high-level
bullet
like
what
would
be
the
first
step,
just
the
one
part,
it
would
just
be
interesting
to
have
another
chain,
especially
if
I
guess
the
only
change
we
have
right
now
is
a
chain
that
doesn't
have
a
token
or
that
doesn't
have
a
market
cap
and
an
eos
that
has
the
largest
market
cap,
so
it'd
be
great
to
have
another
chain.
F
Another
input
with
either
a
different
viewpoint
of
what
those
financial
contributions
could
look
like
yeah
from
a
different
point
of
view
like
something
like
a
smaller
chain
or
like
wax,
would
be
really
interesting
because
wax,
arguably,
is
based
on
the
formulas
that
are
there
right
now
or
is
the
second
largest
contributor
to
this
pool
and
wax
also
has
is
facing
a
lot
of
challenges
with
eos
io
right
now,
with
the
scaling
of
the
sao,
so
it
would
seem
like
that
would
be
a
right
fit
for
wax
to
want
to
participate.
F
Alternatively,
if
we
all
go
our
separate
ways,
we're
absorbing
a
hundred
percent
of
the
costs.
So
actually
I
see
this
as
an
exercise
to
subsidize
the
costs.
H
H
If
we
want
to
get
it
done,
and
you
know
if,
if
that
becomes
the
case,
you
know
if,
instead
next
week,
instead
of
14
people,
we
have
nine
people
or
something,
then
I
think
we
have
to
just
adopt
it
as
as
much
as
everyone's
trying
to
bend
over
backwards
to
to
think
of
everyone.
You
know
if,
if
you
know,
if
we
have
to
be
a
coalition
of
the
willing
we
we
have
to,
we
have
to,
we
have
to
keep
moving
forward.
The
slow
progress
is
probably
you
know.
H
One
of
the
reasons
why
people
are
are
dropping
out
and
we
need
to
show
progress
to
hopefully
entice
them
back
in,
but
let's,
let's
just,
I
think,
like
you're,
saying
pencil
and
wax
for
somebody
give
them
the
right
of
first
refusal.
If
not,
then
you
know
find
somebody
else,
and
we
can
start.
H
You
know
we
can
start
putting
aside
the
fact
that
this
is
likely
going
to
be
really
primarily
an
eos
and
telos
group
with
you
know
some
other
participants
and
just
end
up
saying
look
whoever's
here
is,
is
here
and
whoever's
doing
it
is
doing
it
and
somebody
has
to-
and
you
know
I
think,
we'll
all
try
to
be
as
as
big
tent
as
possible,
even
though
it's
only
going
to
be
a
few
people
working
on
it
in
the
re
in
the
real
world.
H
C
Well,
it's
not
so
negative,
we're
now
14
people
on
the
call,
so
some
people
joined
a
little
bit
later.
But
in
fact
I
put
this
on
onto
onto
the
agenda
and
again,
maybe
if
you,
if
you
could
also
try
to
approach
wax
from
from
the
other
sides,
then
this
would
be
great
to
kind
of
have
some
some
buy-in,
especially
for
that
group,
because
I
do
follow
your
your
arguments
on
on
having
wax
as
as
a
part
of
especially
of
the
funding
group,
which
would
make
a
lot
of
sense.
From
my
personal
view,.
F
D
I
was
actually
just
thinking
david
might
really
want
in
on
that.
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna
loop
him
in
and
see
see
how
it
goes,
because
his
schedule
is
kind
of
packed.
What
who
who's
in
the
group
right
now.
F
No
darren
is
in
london
and
then
yom-
and
I
are
eastern
time
zone
he's
in
costa
rica
and
I'm
in
on
the
east
coast.
Okay,
but
yeah.
F
F
Ultimately,
this
group
is
talking
about
money,
so
it's
it
needs
to
be
somebody
as
well.
That
could
be
comfortable
in
not
necessarily
making
the
decisions
but
being
comfortable
and
saying
yes,
we
would
agree
to
this
instead
of
having
to
go
back
to
their
own
subgroup
and
wax,
because
it
is
a
business,
then
it's
easier
to
do.
Let's
say
they
don't
necessarily
have
to
go
back
to
the
the
community.
In
the
same
sense,
they
have
a
large
treasury.
They
have
a
foundation.
H
C
Okay,
I
I
put
this
in
I'll.
Add
it
to
the
telegram
chat
later
and
then
we
we
hope
we
can
can
extend
the
group
because
that's
one
of
the
most
important
ones
then
moving
on
the
we
had
the
documents
are
put
on
the
repositories
on
on
github.
So
this
is
done.
A
They're
prioritizing
the
blue
papers,
but
I'm
guessing
I'll
follow
up,
but
probably
tomorrow,
I'll
share
them
in
the
group.
As
soon
as
I
get
excellent.
Okay
thanks.
C
Then
everybody
was
taxed
to
get
back
to
their
community
marketing
and
and
communicate
that
so
I
did
did
push
this
to
the
telos
marketing
group,
which,
which
kind
of
gave
a
discussion
about
if
we
should
actually
tell
that
we
we're
working
on
eosio
or
not.
So
that
was
quite
an
interesting
discussion
discussion
to
be
very
honest,
but
but
we're
we're
we're
gonna,
do
this
and
communicate
it
in
in
a
nice
and
decent
way.
C
So
so
is
there
anybody
else
that
has
an
update
on
on
what
you
exactly
got
to
do
as
an
inspiration
for
the
others.
C
Take
this
as
no
good,
then
all
work
groups
to
start
action.
Self-Guided
I've
seen
this.
I
think
that
is
there
any
work
group
that
didn't
meet
in
in
the
last
week.
H
Yeah,
the
the
eve
and
I
and
the
rest
of
the
people
on
the
on
the
initial
hiring
the
executive
hiring
and
were
not
able
to
find
a
time.
Yet
it
was
largely
the
same
group
that
was
on
the
governance
meeting
and
we
opted
to
use
that
time
instead.
So
we're
still
looking
for
a
time
that
works
for
everybody,
but
we
are,
but
we
are
sending
documents
back
and
forth
and
eve
did
a
great
write-up.
So
there's
some
rough
progress
happening,
but
we
weren't
able
to
you
know.
G
H
E
C
Okay,
okay,
then,
I
change
this
to
next
week.
Awesome,
okay,
okay,
I
try
to
do
this
and
we
we
have
a
different
task.
So
I
move
this
over
here
so
then
I
think
it
would
be
great
if
we
I,
as
I
said,
I
have
to
drop
in
in
15
minutes.
So
there
was
a
comment
in
on
telegrams
stating
that
we
should
probably
then
shorten
the
meeting
to
one
hour.
Is
there
any
objections.
F
A
group
that
did
not
meet
the
legal
entity
group
did
not
meet.
I
guess
at
this
point
by
default,
I'm
the
only
one
in
it
david
and
arena
are
in
there,
but
they
have
not
yeah.
If
you
look
at
the
group,
it's
basically
just
me
talking
and
nobody
replying,
but
I
can
see
that
they
read
so
I
I
took
that
as
they
don't
have
any
comments
on
the
document
that
I
shared.
F
I
I
shared
it
a
week
ago,
so
I
did
share
in
the
eosioplus
working
group
about
at
the
beginning
of
this
call
the
a
google
document.
If
you
want
to
go
copy
it
and
post
it
in
there.
That
is
a
like
an
analysis
of
different
legal
entity,
types
that
we
could
potentially
use
keep
in
mind.
This
was
written
by
a
an
alberta,
legal
firm,
and
so
a
lot
of
it
will
talk
about
alberta
and
such.
F
But
if
you
disregard
that
the
base
content
should
still
apply,
regardless
of
where
we
decide
to
to
incorporate
so
there's
four
different
corporation
types
that
are
essentially
broken
down
in
membership
and
formation
requirements,
obligations
and
maintenance.
Then
this
part
is
the
canadian
tax
issues
if
it's
obviously
incorporated
in
canada.
That
would
be
different
if
it's
incorporated
elsewhere
and
then
capabilities
and
limits.
So
there's
the
four
types
which
is
one
is
just
straight-up
corporation.
Second,
one
is
a
not-for-profit
corporation.
The
third
one
is
a
partnership
and
the
fourth
one
is
a
trust.
F
So
it
would
be
great
if
everybody
could
go
and
and
read
and
provide
any
comments
that
they
may
have
in
there.
I
doubt
you
will
have
any
there's
two
essentially
items
to
to
or
two
things
to
decide
after
this
is
done,
one
would
be
the
type
and
then
the
other
would
be
the
location.
F
The
recommended
approach
right
now
would
be
to
go
for
a
non-for-profit
which
seems
to
fit
more
of
the
purpose
of
this
group.
The
trust
and
the
partnership
really
don't
feel
the
purpose
of
the
group.
As
far
as
I
can
tell
so
that
would
not
be
my
recommendation.
I'm
not
saying
no
go.
It
doesn't
seem
like
it's
the
right
fit,
so
it
would
either
be
not
for
profit
or
a
straight
up
for
profit.
F
The
non-for-profit
has
advantages,
except
it
makes
certain
things
easier,
especially
if
we're
going
to
have
a
pool
or
a
treasury
that
doesn't
belong
to
anybody.
That
way,
you
don't
need
to
account
for
it.
That's
the
big
advantage.
So
I
invite
you
to
read
that
once
we
figure
out
whether
or
not
we
want
the
type
of
entity
that
we
would
like
and
again,
if
there
are
other
types
please
feel
free
to
provide.
F
This
is
what
I
was
able
to
come
up
with
and
did
an
analysis
on
once
we
figure
out
which
entity
type
then
it
would
be
the
location.
So
we
could
take
that
type
and
go
incorporate
wherever
we
want.
Realistically,
then
we
would
have
to
do
research
on
in
that
location.
Are
there
particular
requirements,
whether
or
not
they'd
be
like
live-in
requirements
and
or
whether
or
not
they'd
be
tax
requirements?
That
type
of
thing
that
would
come
next?
Alternatively,
one
of
the
options.
F
F
So,
I'm
looking
forward
to
people
commenting
on
this
again,
as
I
said,
I
would
imagine
very
few
people
will
and
then
we
need
to
vote.
If
that's
the
case,
I
would.
I
would
ask
that
by
next
week
we
have
comments.
If
there's
no
comments
next
week,
essentially
we
bring
it
to
a
vote
to
decide
whether
or
not
we
want
to
proceed
with
a
non-for-profit
in
canada.
F
H
Hey
eves,
if
you're,
if
you
find
yourself
monologuing
in
that
group
all
day
I'll,
you
feel
free
to
add
me
if
you'd
like
I.
H
Yes,
yeah,
I
I'm
just
I'm
just
volunteering,
I
I
I
I
had
stood
back
from
from
groups
before
and
now
I
think
there's
no
need
to
stand
back
from
them.
So
if
you'd
like,
for
example,
I
would
say
partnership,
there's
reasons-
that's
an
absolute
no-go
like.
I
would
just
strike
that
off
the
list.
For
one
thing.
H
By
everybody
liable
for
anyone's
actions,
so
that's
correct
mix
and
then
we
could
consider
and
then
there's
some
jurisdictions.
We
can
consider
if
you
want
me
in
the
group
I'll
join
the
group.
If
you
want
me
to
just
provide
that
those
as
comments
on
the
document
I'll,
do
that,
whatever
whatever
you
want.
F
D
C
Yeah
so
but
but
if
there
are
representatives
of
those
chains
in
in
the
meeting
today,
we
would
encourage
you
to
take
your
role
and
and
please
participate
so
so
we
we
can
fulfill
the
the
sense
of
that
work.
Group.
C
Good,
so
then
we
did
have
some
updates
from
from
the
work
groups.
I
would
propose
to
to
have
very
short
updates
of
what
like
one
two
three
sentence
for
each
of
the
remaining
work
groups,
maybe
may
a
hand
over
to
you
ted,
because
you're
you're
part
of
many.
So
maybe
you
could
start
at
least
with
the
governance.
One.
E
We
met
today
and
we
spent
an
hour
kind
of
starting
to
sort
through
the
key
things
that
the
governance
subgroup
should
meet
on.
We
we
have,
I
set
up
three
more
meetings,
you
know
at
the
same
time,
over
the
next
three
more
weeks,
but
we,
you
know,
started
kind
of
going
through
who
should
vote.
How
does
voting
work
things
like
that
and
we
we've
recorded
it
we've
got.
You
can
see
the
notes
where
they
are
on
the
on
the
github
repository.
H
For
me,
thanks
ted
I'd,
say
for
me
the
key
takeaways
from
that
are
that
we
one
we
recognize
that
there
needs
to
be.
We
need
to
figure
out
and
in
two
governance
processes.
First
of
all,
the
interim
governance
process
that'll
be
used
in
this
group
and
then
the
and
then
the
recommended
governance
process
for
the
actual
entity
that
will
be
created
and
that
those
are
dif.
H
Those
are
likely
to
be
different
because
we
need
to
be
able
to
make
start
making
decisions
right
away
and
we're,
and
for
the
interim
one
we're
going
along
the
lines
of
the
process
that
we
discussed
three
or
four
meetings
back
and
tr
and
yeah
and
and
I
think
it's
we're
off
to
a
good
start.
But
it's
a
com,
but
it's
a
big,
complex,
gordian
nod
of
a
project
so.
E
E
So
we
started
on
the
standards
and
organizational
process,
we've
kind
of
everyone.
No
one
objected
to
moving
towards
for
outside
developers
using
a
kind
of
apache
software
foundation,
committer
contributor
model,
and
that
we
would
have
to
you
know
elect
who
the
the
committers
were
in
the
various
sections
of
the
repository,
but
things
that
came
in
that
were
from
contributors
that
were
not
trusted.
They
would
have
to
be
sponsored
by
committees,
etc.
E
It's
all
laid
out
in
the
apache
software
foundation
how
that
works,
and
so
again
these
notes
are
in
the
github
repository
under
eosio
plus
under
the
software
development
subgroup.
So
you
can
click
in
and
you
can
read
where
we
got
a
description
of
the
method
of
to
determine
how
various
demands
for
new
code
development
will
be
prioritized
and
implemented.
E
Keyword
there
is
prioritized
and
we
bumped
up
against
voting,
and
we
realized,
because
this
this
actually
seems
like
it's
more
important
to
the
governance
group
than
a
software
development
group
like
what's
getting
prioritized,
is
probably
more
up
in
more
towards
governance.
So
we
said
we,
you
know
we
outlined
all
the
concerns
we
had
and
then
we
bumped
it
towards
the
governance
group
saying
the
governance
group
has
to
say
how
voting
occurs,
how
you
would
prioritize
things
and
the
last
one
was
a
description
of
the
process
for
performing
ongoing
release
of
new
code
and
code
binaries.
E
We
seem
to
get
to
consensus
pretty
rapidly
on
that
and
we
wrote
down
what
our
thoughts
were
and
again
it's
all
available
in
the
repository
to
read-
and
we
have
three
more
weeks
on
the
calendar
to
continue
to
refine
that
and
I've
added.
As
of
today's
meeting,
the
definition
of
core
code
and
aaron
is
on
that
committee,
so
he
can
help
there.
E
C
Excellent
yeah
that
was
great
and
then
yeah
for
the
code
base
discussions.
Aaron
already
pointed
that
out
and
we
discussed
that
the
like
11.
We
would
merge
with
the
other
hr.
No,
we
would
merge
that
with
funding
which,
which
we
discussed
in
in
chat
okay,
lucas
just
mentioned
in
chad-
that
we
can
add
him
to
the
funding
work
group.
Thank
you
very
much
for
that
lucas.
That's
awesome!
C
So
we
we
have
wax
on
this
and
then,
if
we
can
can
rami,
if
you
can
check
with
with
your
side,
then
we
would
have
wax
in
addition
and
ultra
in
addition,
which
I
think
personally
would
be
a
very
good
combination
for
this
work
group.
So
thanks
for
that
lucas.
E
Kristen,
if
I
can
go
back,
there
was
one
other
subgroup
that
you
could
sort
of
say
met
this
week
and
that
was
the
security
subgroup.
E
I
took
a
vote
in
the
software
development
sub
group
to
see
if
we
wanted
to
bring
that
one
in
so
we
merged
seven,
eight
and
nine-
and
I
wanted
to
see
if
we
wanted
to
merge
ten,
which
was
the
security
subgroup
stan,
was
strongly
against
merging
it
and
he
instead
submitted
what
he
believes
is
the
correct
proposal,
and
that
is
now
sitting
in
the
repository
under
eos
io
plus
as
a
subgroup
and
stan's
proposal.
Is
there
to
be
reviewed.
E
I
I
had
no
comments,
but
I
think
people
that
are
a
lot
more
involved
in
the
chain.
People
like
aaron
et
cetera
that
get
their
hands
dirty,
probably
want
to
read
that,
but
it's
it's
at
least
it's
published
now
and
everyone
can
review
it.
So
you
can
take
it
back
to
your
teams
and
look
at
it.
H
C
H
In
the
in
the
in
the
appropriate
amount
of
time
yeah
by
the
way
ted
it's
been,
you
know
I,
you
are
a
new
person
to
me
and
I
will
I'd
I'd
say
it's.
It's
apparent
that
you're,
you
know
really
good
contributor
to
these
you're.
You
know,
having
being
in
a
group
that
both
you
and
kirsten
are
in
is,
is
you
know,
fantastic?
It's
a
dream.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
C
Thanks
for
the
flowers,
flowers
are
free
kind
of
excellent
good.
So
so
we
we
got
these
things
covered.
Is
there
anything
that
you
anybody
here
would
like
to
add
for
the
last
five
minutes,
any
kind
of
comments
or
things
that
we
should?
We
should
took
take
a
look
at
in
the
next
meeting
and
put
it
on
the
agenda
already
or
anything
that
you'd
like
to
speak
up.
F
Yes,
something
very
simple:
so
last
week
we
created
all
those
subgroups
and
then
very
quickly
after
when
we
started
allocating
those
subgroups
we
started
merging
them.
I
think
we
should
reflect
that
in
the
github,
if
not
already
done,
but
I
would
imagine
in
order
to
do
so.
We
need
to
take
a
vote
again,
so
I
think
it
would
be
worthwhile
doing
that
way.
We
have
the
update.
We
have
the
previous.
We
have
the
current
and
everybody
agrees
if
that
makes
sense,.
E
That
would
be
great,
yes,
okay,
so
we
is
that
why
we
reflect
there
were
two
subgroups
about
staffing.
There
was
the
leadership
subgroup
and
a
developer
stub
group.
They
were
items
three
and
four
they're
still
in
github
listed
as
three
and
four
people
had
requested
that
they
be
merged,
so
I've
shown
them
still
kind
of
separated,
but
under
under
three
they
can
be
merged
back
out.
Obviously
they're
a
little
bit
different.
E
You
know,
one
is
about
developer
staffing,
the
other
one
was
the
more
senior
roles
and
it
would
make
it
where
there
would
again
be
one
less
meaning.
Even
I
were
in
both
of
those
groups,
although
douglas
jesse
and
eric
were
in
different
groups.
Is
everyone
okay,
if
those
merge
or
should
those
remain
separate.
H
I
think
they're
distinct
and
would
be
more
efficient
to
have
them
be
separate,
but
you
know
news
flash.
I
don't
know
everything.
So
that's
my
personal
opinion
but
I'll
go
with
whatever
the
group
decides.
E
F
H
Just
just
just
to
clarify
what
these
groups
are,
the
the
the
subgroup
that
I'm
on
that
is
making
that
it
is
its
goal,
is
to
figure
out
what
how
how
this
is
going
to
be
run
and
then
looking
at
ideas
around
executive
compensation
and
head
hunting
and
things
like
that
for
people.
You
know
whether
we
use
an
outside
firm
or
do
it
internally
or
whatnot.
All
those
questions
around
getting
somebody
to
getting
basically
an
executive
search
of
some
sort.
H
The
other
group
is
looking
at.
How
are
we
going
to?
How
are
we
going
to
bring
you
know,
bring
in
a
number
of
of
developers?
How
are
we
going
to
pay
them?
What's
the
entity
going
to
be
how
we're
going
to
make
it
attractive
to
them?
If
we
were
going
to,
if
we
were
going
to
bring
in
an
hr
professional
and
again,
I
have
somebody
who's
available,
it
would
make.
H
It
would
be
fine,
probably
to
put
bring
those
together,
but
I
just
think
that
they're
they're
they're
very
different
things
at
even
though
they're
both
you
know
related
to
hiring
any
any
large
organization,
would
have
probably
different
subgroups.
E
I'll
agree
with
you
douglas:
let's
leave
him
split
for
now.
I
I
think
it
is
important
to
meet
on
the
executive
one.
We,
the
enf,
just
hired
three
engineers
that'll
start
in
april,
so
we've
got
a
little
bit
of
relief
there,
so
the
the
executive
one
will
leave
them,
split,
I'll,
split
them
back
out
and
and
then
at
a
later
date,
if
it
makes
sense
to
combine
them
as
things
you
know
start
to
streamline.
E
So
the
next
one
was
group,
seven
became
the
software
development
subgroup
and
it
used
to
be
seven,
eight
and
nine,
and
so
seven
was
about
setting
the
standards
and
organizational
processes
to
integrate
code
from
outside
developers.
It's
what
we're
you
know
referring
to
the
apache
software
foundation,
model
of
committers
and
contributors,
the
second
one
which
maybe
maybe
now
it
doesn't
belong,
but
at
least
it
was
about
code,
at
least
in
the
beginning,
a
description
of
method
to
determine
how
various
demands
for
new
code
development
will
be
priorities
and
implemented.
E
But
this
does
seem
like
it's
more
of
the
governance
council
and
less
of
the
software
development
like
prioritizing.
What
work
needs
to
be
done?
Blue
papers,
types
of
stuff
that,
but
it's
it's
in
there
and
it
can
be
broken
back
out.
The
third
one
was
a
description
of
the
process
for
performing
ongoing
releases
of
new
code
and
code
binaries.
So
I
think
one
and
three
clearly
belong
together,
they're
about
building
code
and
stuff,
but
two
is
about
process
for
prioritizing
new
new
features,
new
requests,
new,
you
know
new
products,
etc.
H
My
my
response
would
be
each
of
those
is
a
distinct.
You
know,
they're
separated
because
they
are
different
enough
to
be
a
distinct
area
that
we're
that
we
something
that
we
need
to
decide
and
therefore
a
deliverable
was
assigned
to
each.
I
actually
think
it's
fine
to
fold
those
all
together,
but
we
do
need
to,
but
we
do
need
to.
You
know,
keep
understanding
that
there
is
a
difference
between
one
two
and
three.
H
The
same
people
can
probably
do
it
and
and
to
your
point
about
two,
I
think
what
that
that
group
is
probably
the
one
that's
is
gonna
figure
out
a
process
whereby
the
existing
developers
and
whatnot
can
make
a
technical
recommendation
about
what
about
what
features
may
features.
You
know
how
how
much
time
and
budget
and
things
like
that
that
they
may
take,
so
that
we
can
offer
that
to
the
the
voters.
So
they
don't
all
you
know
as
a
as
as
we
as
we
discuss
different
funding.
H
You
know
priorities,
so
I
think
there
is
a
value
in
having
that.
I
think
we
need
to
have
some
kind
of
brain
trust
that
says:
look
everyone
can
make
their
own
decisions,
but
but
here's
what
we
anticipate
this
is
going
to
cost
and
and
how
long
it's
going
to
take
and
whether
and
whether
or
not
we
have
the
right.
You
know
whether
we
should
do
this
in-house
or
with
outside
contractors
or
whatnot.
H
Somebody
has
to
make
those
recommendations
to
so
that
the
so
that
the
the
people
who
ultimately
have
consensus
votes
can
operate
from
good
information
and
that
and
that
we
don't
cut
out,
because
we
can't
cut
out
the
development
team
feedback
on
that.
E
E
C
I
just
could
ted
may
I
may
have
just
could
interrupt,
because
I
have
to
drop
thanks
all
for
for
participating
and
obviously,
if
you,
if
you
do
some
updates
or
some
further
discussions,
it
would
be
great
ted.
Could
you
or
anybody
ease?
Could
you
send
me
a
dm
with
the
with
the
outcomes
of
the
last
discussion,
so
I
can
update
the
mirror
board
accordingly,
if
required.
E
C
E
E
Done
I
I
think
that
was
it.
We
were
down
to
just
the
fact
that
we
moved
funding
into
group
six
or
whatever
it
was
yeah.
We
grew.
We
moved
11
into
six,
the
membership
stepped
into
the
funding,
so
I
think
we're
done.
J
Shall
we
end
the
meeting
then
that
way
we
can
all
we're
all
good
to
go
great
tight
meeting
kirsten
awesome.