►
From YouTube: Filecoin Plus - February 14 Notary Governance Calls
Description
The third set of Notary Governance calls of 2023 February 14 to discuss the Filecoin Plus program.
Slides and Links: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1hQaT-l32dFFAZKhSpFcUUSaPn6TPS8hUYErivVZN59A/edit?usp=sharing
Agenda
--Notary Onboarding Update
First/Last names required in Disclosure forms
--817: FVM Notary Staking
- 821: DataCap removal
- 818: Auto-close
- 824: Community Audit/Review
All LDN application presentations are a-sync will be discussed in #fil-plus-application-review SLACK
If you would like to attend these meetings LIVE, the Fil+ Notary Governance calendar is available at: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/u/0/embed?src=c_k1gkfoom17g0j8c6bam6uf43j0@group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/Los_Angeles
Follow Filecoin!
Website: https://bit.ly/3ndAg44
Twitter: https://bit.ly/3ObND0x
Slack: https://bit.ly/3HKfFy7
Blog: https://bit.ly/3HFZFNv
Reddit: https://bit.ly/39N4Jmv
Telegram: https://bit.ly/3bkP8Ly
Subscribe to our newsletter! https://bit.ly/3Oy8J9j
#filecoin #ipfs #libp2p #web3 #nft
A
High
level
on
the
agenda,
what
we
have
planned
for
today
is
really
briefly
the
team,
the
slas,
and
then
we
are
going
to
give
you
some
updates
on
the
notary
onboarding
how
Slack's
working
what's
going
on
with
the
verifications
and
when
you
can
expect
to
see
your
first
round
of
onboard
training
come
to
you,
the
majority
of
the
call
we've
dedicated
The
Proposal
section.
There
were
three
big
issues
that
are
still
open
that
we're
getting
ready
to
close,
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
you
were
aware
of
those
proposals.
A
Give
you
a
chance
to
kind
of
voice
any
thoughts
you
may
have
and
then
share
the
links.
If
you
want
to
go
back
and
then
sign
any
of
those
issues,
we're
going
to
have
time
at
the
end
of
this
call
for
any
discussions.
So
if
there
was
something
that
came
up,
that
might
be
a
little
bit
off
topic
and
you
wanted
to
save
that
or
flag
it
for.
A
Will
be
time
at
the
end
of
this
call
for
anything
not
on
the
agenda
to
get
into
so
with
that
the
governance
calls
take
place
every
two
weeks,
we're
on
the
February
14th
call,
as
you
can
see
right
now,
and
the
next
call
will
be
on
28
February
you're,
not
tracking.
Already
we
post
this
in
the
slack
channel
on
Phil
plus
with
this
link,
you
can
add
this
to
your
calendar.
All
of
them
will
show
up
automatically
review
notaries
that
are
on
the
line,
as
well
as
any
applicant
storage
providers
interested
Community.
A
We
take
a
SLA
participation
using
this
airtable
form
here,
I'm
dropping
the
link
in
chat
for
you
that
have
been
on
the
call
nothing
new.
If
this
is
your
first
call,
this
is
a
great
way
to
say.
Like
hey
I
was
here,
I
was
taking
part
in
the
program
and
making
my
voice
heard
and
just
being
an
active
Community
member,
so
go
ahead
and
fill
out
this
link.
If
you
are
new,
you
can
just
select
hey
my
organization
I'm
just.
A
However,
you
may
do
it
notaries
we're
going
to
be
providing
an
update
here
coming
up
in
March
for
like
hey,
how
have
you
been
doing
on
the
SLA?
What
do
we
see
and
that
way
when
the
leaderboard
launch
is
coming
up,
there's
no
surprises
and
we
can
kind
of
help
anything
that
might
be
blocked
as
you
go
forward
on
that.
A
If
you
have
anything
that
you
want
to
add
to
these
agendas,
as
always,
we
have
a
GitHub
issue
that
will
be
made.
You
could
log
into
the
notary
governance
repo
for
the
program.
Add
a
comment
on
any
one
of
the
applications
here
for,
like
the
next
governance
call
and
we'll
book
it
into
the
agenda,
as
well
as
follow-up
to
help
you.
If
there's
anything,
you
need
so
again.
If
there's
anything,
you
want
to
add
on
these
agendas
going
forward
just
come
into
the
notary
governance,
repo
and
add
it
right
there.
A
So
with
that,
we
are
your
governance
team,
we're
here
to
help
with
any
questions
or
issues
or
topics
you
may
have
for
address.
Please
feel
free
to
reach
out
to
us
we're
here
to
help.
In
slack,
we
have
several
channels.
We
just
share
this
as
a
reminder
for
those
of
you
that
are
on
the
call
how
these
channels
can
be
used
best
places
for
them
and
I'm
going
to
expand
a
little
bit
on
this
topic
as
we
go
through
here
today,
and
then
just
talk
briefly
about.
A
Not
only
do
we
have
these
slack
channels,
but
what
are
some
of
the
best
ways
to
utilize
these
in
relation
to
like
GitHub
proposals
as
we
go
on
so
slack
versus
GitHub
slack
is
really
effective
at
broadcasting.
The
message,
as
you
know,
like
hey
the
governance,
calls
coming
up
or
hey.
What's
the
status
of
X,
Y
and
Z,
it's
also
really
helpful
for
having
like
a
back
and
forth
conversation
like
hey,
troubleshooting,
Something's,
Happened,
best
practices.
A
A
But
one
of
the
downsides
to
slack
is
that
we
might
have
a
thread
that
kicks
off
with
like
three
or
four
relevant
parties
that
are
discussing
an
issue,
and
then
we
might
see
that
thread
just
really
expand
out
with
slack
names
that
we
may
not
have
had
any
working
relationships
with
in
the
past.
We
don't
know
who
they
are,
who
they
represent.
So
one
of
the
nice
benefits
of
the
GitHub
is
it
doesn't
eliminate
that,
but
it
definitely
cuts
down
on
those
conversations
jumping
in
by
people
that
might
not
have
a
vested
stake.
A
One
of
the
better
ways
to
do
this
is
to
file
a
GitHub
proposal
like
okay
I've
seen
the
following:
Behavior
I'd
like
to
just
kind
of
flag
this
for
discussion
versus
flagging
that
in
slack,
because
in
slack
it's
kind
of
hard
to
like
move
it
forward
to
give
it
a
voice.
And
so
we
just
ask
if
there
is
something
that
you
wanted
to
see
with
that
filing
a
proposal
is
a
really
effective
way
and
I'll.
A
Be
writing
a
proposal
to
kind
of
address
this
and
see
if
we
can
put
maybe
some
more
helpful
Frameworks
as
we
grow
and
communicate
together
as
a
community.
So
just
as
a
quick
like
introduction,
if
there
was
something
that
you
see
within
the
program
either
to
improve
it
or
that
you've
noticed
with
behavior
filing
that
issue
inside
of
GitHub
is
a
really
positive
way
to
move
the
conversation
forward,
and
then
that
could
be
referenced
and
slack.
A
We
don't
have
to
stop
slack,
but
we're
just
going
to
start
trying
to
get
some
of
these
conversations
in
a
place
where
we
can
capture
them
more
and
we'll
we'll
talk
about
this
more
on
the
call.
As
we
go
so
with
that,
let's
jump
into
notary
stuff,
so
you
notice
on
the
line.
You
would
have
gotten
a
ping
for
me
in
the
last
few
days.
If,
in
your
disclosure
form,
we
do
not
have
a
first
and
last
name.
A
So
this
is
a
little
bit
of
an
update
versus
the
second
and
third
rounds,
and
what
needs
to
be
required
is
every
notary
must
have
a
human
on
the
end
of
that
ledger
that
will
be
responsible
for
maintaining
it
signing
data
in
the
past
we
just
did
checks
on
the
organization
name,
so
Kevin
organization
versus
Kevin,
last
name,
and
the
reason
for
this
new
update
is
just
the
increase
in
transparency
and
sanctions
that
we're
pushing
forward.
So
those
of
you
that
needed
that
information
I
sent
you
a
slack
like
hey.
A
Can
you
please
get
this
to
me?
If
I
don't
hear
back
from
you,
probably
by
tomorrow,
I'm
going
to
pin
your
application
one
more
time
like
hey,
we
need
this
information
to
go
forward.
We
cannot
just
have
the
organization
name.
So
if
you
did
not
hear
from
me,
if
you
didn't
get
it
ping,
you're
good
to
go.
If
you
included
that
first
name
last
name,
if
you
did
not
include
that
first
name,
please
check
your
slack.
What
we're
looking
for
is
just
to
have
again
a.
A
Name
last
name,
that's
responsible
for
that.
We
shared
this
two
weeks
ago.
Essentially
what
this
guide
is-
and
it's
here
in
the
steps-
is
the
guide
for
verifying
your
address
in
the
registry
system.
If
you
haven't
done
this
step,
please
do
so
already.
I
believe
Phil
might
have
sent
you
a
ping.
If
you
were
missing
this
essentially
what
this
does
is.
This
will
link
your
address
and
your
GitHub
to
the
registry
and
that
way
when
we
start
making
the
ratifications
you're
on
board
if
you're
blocked.
A
If
you
have
issues-
and
you
are
a
notary-
the
best
place
to
flag
that
is
in
the
private
notary,
Channel
I
recommend
not
dming
the
Phil
and
I.
We
could
definitely
help
you,
but
we'll
get
much
faster
response
if
you
put
it
in
that
public
channel.
So
again,
if
you're
a
notary-
and
you
haven't
taken
this
step
to
register
your
verification
on
your
Ledger,
please
do
that
either
during
this
call
or
off
this
call.
If
you
have
any
questions,
let
us
know
in
the
notary
governance,
private
Channel,
the
training
is
wrapping
up
now.
A
Phil
has
been
spearheading
this,
so
big
big.
Thank
you.
I
have
a
screenshot
of
the
deck
he's
putting
together
along
with
a
video,
and
what
it's
designed
to
do
is
just
walk
you,
through
the
steps
of
logging
into
the
verification
pulling
up
the
open
applications,
seeing
how
to
look
at
those
and
then
link
your
GitHub
to
sign
it.
A
We
also
have
a
few
open
discussions
in
the
notary
governance
repo
about
what
good
behavior
bad
behavior
looks
like
I
think
coming
forward
in
this
fourth
round,
we're
going
to
be
really
focused
on
diligence
and
open
transparency,
so
making
sure
that
if
you
are
signing
these
applications,
you're
really
transparent
and
like
how
you
did
the
diligence,
what
your
connections
are,
and
so
we
have
a
few
applications.
Excuse
me
issues
that
we'll
talk
about
that,
but
in
high
level
detail
for
you,
notaries
that
just
came
on
board
with
the
fourth
round.
A
Thanks
for
your
patience,
this
has
been
a
big
lift
with
all
the
new
requirements
for
processing
and
legal
simultaneously,
mixing
that
with
like
how
are
we
keeping
this
program
transparent
and
trust
and
transparency
filled.
So
again,
thank
you
for
your
patience.
This
onboarding
guide
will
start
getting
you
once.
We've
completed
that
ratification
so
before
I
get
on
to
the
proposals
which
is
kind
of
the
meat
of
the
conversation,
I
wanted
to
pause,
and
if
anybody
had
any
questions
about
the.
A
E
E
Given
the
traction
we're
getting
we're
going
to
continue
to
experiment
on
this
MVP
and
if
you
want
to
watch
the
video
you'll
get
the
slides
and
you
can
watch
the
video.
It's
also
on
the
GitHub
discussion,
post,
817
and
yeah
next
steps.
We're
probably
gonna,
find
like
more
exact
values
on
like
how
much
to
stake
and
like
how
much
to
slash
and
how
much
to
reward
and
I
think
we're
gonna
start
debating
and,
like
figuring
out
the
exact
implementation
details
of
this
and
yeah.
E
E
One
of
the
big
points
that
was
raised
by
multiple
people
was
the
fact
that
if
we
do
staking
it
would
discourage
notaries
from
signing
anyone
else,
except
whoever,
whichever
clients
they're
acquainted
with,
because
of
the
amount
of
risk.
So
if
you
have
to
stake,
if
you're
a
notary
and
you
have
to
stake
for
a
client,
you
don't
know
you
wouldn't
do
it,
because
it's
just
too
much
risk
the
client
can
just
do
whatever
they
want,
and
so
my
my
kind
of
com
reply
to
this
is
notary.
E
Staking
was
not
meant
to
solve
that
problem
and
I.
Don't
think
it
makes
it
any
worse,
because
I
think
that
that's
already
the
case
now
and
if
we
were
to
do
notaries
taking
the
feature
it
wouldn't,
it
wouldn't
make
the
problem
any
worse,
because
it's
already
the
case,
so
this
problem
has
probably
will
need
to
find
other
solutions
for
the
problem
of
notaries.
E
Not
wanting
aside
applicant
applications
from
other
strangers,
and
one
idea
we're
thinking
about
is
like
randomly
assigning
notaries
to
climb
up
to
different
client
applications
and
getting
them
to
sign
and
then
incentivizing
them
to
do
so
and
yeah.
So
that's
another
topic
of
its
own
and
I
will
probably
write
another
discussion
topic
on
that
yeah
and
yeah
I
think
that's
about
it.
A
A
Why
group
all
right?
Well,
if
you
have
any
thoughts,
the
issue
is
right.
There
817,
as
Phil
mentioned
kind
of
collecting
final
thoughts,
since
it's
been
open
for
two
weeks,
feel
free
to
share
before
we
move
forward.
Any
thoughts
feel
free
to
flag
data
cap
removal.
Simon.
Are
you
on
the
line?
Yeah,
hey?
Okay,
thank
you.
Everyone.
F
F
One
is
that
this
is
like
the
last
kind
of
thing
that
we
want
to
do
for
a
client.
This
is
a
pretty
drastic
measure
and
this
isn't
something
we
want
to
abuse,
and
so
any
notary
or
TNT
working
group
member
can
basically
apply
through
an
application
that
we
will
make
and
either
it
gets
accepted
or
denied
and
so
again
yeah.
If
you
want
to
read
more,
please
take
a
look
at
the
proposal
and
again
we'll
be
starting
to
work
soon.
A
A
All
right,
Simon,
thanks
for
that
I
know
that
this
is
going
to
impact
a
lot
of
the
process.
So
if
anybody
on
the
call
has
any
additional
thoughts
we'll
have
time
at
the
end,
if
something
comes
to
mind,
but
again,
thank
you.
Galen
for
sharing
this
link
821
data
cap
removal-
this
will
be
kind
of
impactful.
As
we
start
looking
at
like
making
this
program
go
forward
from
a
trust
and
transparency
standpoint.
So
again
any
thoughts
or
feedback.
This
issue
will
be
open
for
one
more
week
before
we
kind
of
move
forward
on
it.
G
D
We
we,
the
governance
team,
are
not
currently
drafting
a
fit
to
look
at
how
we,
the
filecoin
plus
program,
would
remove
verified
data
from
a
sealed
deal.
No,
that
is
not
currently
on
our
priority
list
of
things
to
solve
because
of
the
amount
of
technical
investment
that
it
would
take
to
get
that
fit
written
and
passed.
D
D
A
Okay,
all
right
and
anything
else,
we
can
always
come
back
in
a
discussion
if
you
have
it
thanks
again,
a
lot
of
these
easily
come
up
in
this
discussion.
Make
it
more
helpful,
as
you
guys
might,
leave
your
comments
on
the
thread.
Next
is
Auto
close
Simon.
Are
you
okay
to
talk
to
this
one
as
well,
while
you're
here
yeah.
F
But
to
give
a
quick
recap,
the
request
would
be
to
Auto
close
non-data
cap
allocated
applications
that
do
not
have
any
GitHub
engagements
after
14
days.
I
think
that
was
like
one
of
the
biggest
questions
that
people
are
asking
in
The
Proposal
is
like
what
is
having
like
no
engagement,
and
so
we
were
saying
any
GitHub
comments
or
any
engagement
within
the
issue
itself.
F
F
Knowing
there
will
be
a
message
provided
to
the
client
who
created
the
application
after
seven
days
of
no
engagement
to
update
the
issue,
provide
them
some
sort
of
message
and
to
letting
them
know
if
they
don't
have
any
sort
of
Engagement
or
comments.
After
the
14
days,
the
application
will
close
and
again
the
work
for
this
will
start
soon
and
will
be
announced
when
it's
complete.
A
H
Hey
this
is
Greg
with
picnic.
I
have
a
quick
question:
yeah
thanks!
So
just
I'm
trying
to
understand
exactly
what
this
means.
So,
if
I
submit
an
application
and
we're
waiting
for
our
customer
to
send
us
data-
and
it's
been
over
two
weeks
and
there's
been
no
action,
I
guess
I'm
trying
to
understand.
What's
the
trigger
for
non-engagement,
and
you
know
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
exactly
what
this
means.
F
Yeah
sure
so
I
think
first
I
would
say
it's
any
application.
That's
that
that
hasn't
even
received
any
allocation
for
data
cap
allocation
and
two
I
think
the
engagement
part
is,
if
you
see
any
sort
of
comments
or
triggers
that
or
any
like
bot
messages
that
happen.
That
would
be
considered
engagement.
B
F
J
Simon
Just,
to
be
clear,
though
this
thing
that
says,
provide
a
message
out
for
seven
days
to
provide
a
like
an
update
or
something
like
that
could
be
as
simple
as
in
Greg's
scenario,
right
being
like
hey.
We
don't
have
this
yet
or
hey,
we're
still
blocked
on
the
client
or
we're
still
working
with
notaries,
or
some
sort
of
thing
that
basically
lets
us
know
that
as
a
community,
this
particular
client
who's
applying
is
still
interested
in
the
fact
that
they're
applying
right,
even
if
they
haven't
necessarily
made
forward
progress.
F
J
F
J
So
Greg,
hopefully
that
answers
your
question
as
well.
It
sounds
like
keeping
everybody
updated
is
even
by
way
of
a
comment
in
the
GitHub
application,
account
says
activity
and
what
we're
really
looking
for
is
cases
where
we
can't
even
get
that
because
it
sounds
like
you
know,
it
may
not
be
a
priority
for
the
client
right
now.
G
H
D
So
that
wasn't
to
know
the
end
and
I,
don't
know
that
we've
specified
on
this
Auto
close,
whether
this
would
apply
to
both
direct
client
allocation
requests
or
aldians.
So
that's
a
question
for
Simon.
If
this,
if
the
intent
here
was
that
it
would
apply
to
both,
and
similarly
that
was
like
the
request
was
made,
there
was
no
like
there
was
back
and
forth
conversation.
D
If
it
then
sat
with
no
additional
back
and
forth
conversation,
then
it
would
close
and
again
the
the
cost.
Here
is
just
just
exactly
what
you
did,
which
is
open
another
one
like
to
another
notary,
and
so
it's
not
like
your
getting
in
in
this
case
like
as
as
it
stands,
right
now,
there's
no
like
penalty
or
anything.
If,
if
your
issue
gets
closed
and
you
open
another
one,
yeah.
D
G
H
D
D
I
D
I
would
be
happy
for
you
to
propose,
like
think
about
it
and
propose
an
alternative
that
you
do
think
scales,
because
I
think
what
you're
talking
about
is
just
a
problem,
but
I
think
this
is
safe
enough
to
try
where,
if
an
application
is
not
getting
any
conversation
back
and
forth,
it's
safe
enough
to
assume,
let's
just
close
it.
For
now
we
give
people
a
warning,
we
say:
hey
notaries
haven't
signed.
This
are
you
still
here?
D
Are
you
still
engaged
the
client
or
a
person
working
with
them
can
say:
yeah
I'm
still
here,
I'm
still
waiting
on
notaries.
Sorry,
here's
the
situation,
notaries
have
seen
it
because
blah
blah
blah
or
whatever,
and
if
that
feels
like
spam
to
me,
I
think
that's
exactly
what
we
want
those
comments
to
be.
We
want
those
comments
to
be
the
client
or
representative
of
the
client
jumping
in
in
their
own
GitHub
issue
and
saying
this
is
where
this
is.
D
This
is
why
I'm
still
waiting
I'm
still
interested,
that
shows
a
pulse
that
shows
a
warm
lead.
I,
don't
think
that's
spam.
If
they
reply
and
just
say
yes,
then
maybe
we
need
to
change
the
parameters
of
our
Auto
close,
but
this
feels
like
a
safe
enough
thing
to
try
and
learn
from
rather
than
shutting
it
down,
because
yes.
I
I'm
just
raising,
like
maybe
a
question
for
for
the
theme,
I'm
not
saying
to
shut
it
down
and
I'll,
not
experiment,
I'm
I'm,
absolutely
not
saying
that.
So
you
you
you're
free
to
try
whatever
you
want
I'm,
just
raising
something
that
there
may
be
a
an
issue
and
maybe
something
that
is
good
to
think
about
I'm,
not
saying
it's
a
yeah.
D
D
If
we
try
this-
and
we
see
that
the
types
of
comments
that
we
get
from
clients
or
that
we
see
people
just
doing
something
to
trigger
a
bot,
then
like
maybe
we
need
to
change
it,
but
I
think
that
the
first
path
is
just.
How
do
we
manage
the
number
of
open
issues
that
we
think
may
have
been
opened
as
not
necessarily
duplicates,
but
just
like
somebody
doing
kind
of
a
shotgun
approach
to
open
a
whole
bunch
of
issues
and
see
what
sticks
and
they're
not
getting
traction?
Let's
see
which
ones
are
interested.
D
B
J
Also
in
by
way
of
like
interest,
signaling
and
notary
attraction,
I
just
do
want
to
call
out
Alex
the
other
reason
we've
gone
on
like
can't
really
track.
This
is
because
allocations
that
don't
get
data
caps
like
it's
very
hard
to
reliably
bother
with
tracking,
just
because
there's
like
spam
applications
like
things
like
close
out
instantly
because
they
were
made
by
accident
and
stuff
so
for
data
quality.
We
pretty
much
just
dropped
everything
that
doesn't
get
it.
J
So,
in
my
opinion,
the
best
proxy
of
this
is
looking
at
time
to
data
Gap
actually
and
just
seeing
the
magnitude
that
falls
in
and
right
now
at
the
95th
percentile.
So
almost
every
case,
DDD
for
LDN
is
like
five-ish
days
for
e-fill
plot,
specifically
six
fish
days
and
for
direct.
No
reallocation
is
about
eight
days
and
so
I
think
14
is
probably
safe
enough
to
expect
some
kind
of
Engagement.
J
What
I'm
really
hoping,
though,
is
that,
like
this,
actually
makes
the
job
of
a
client
representative,
whether
that's
the
FB
doing
the
onboarding
or
somebody
selling
file
Clan
or
an
agent
or
something
a
little
bit
easier,
because
what's
unstead
in
this
proposal
is
also
the
expectation
that
hey
that's
the
notary.
That
also
means
you
know
you're
engaging
in
a
certain
amount
of
time
and
you're
paying
attention
to
when
those
comments
come
in
and
stuff,
and
so,
as
those
things
continue
to
get
tracked
in
the
notary,
leaderboard
as
well.
A
Good,
for
example,
Chandra
I
appreciate
you
voicing
those
looking
forward
to
seeing
this
unfold,
and
thanks
for
the
comments
on
chat,
I
see
that
the
14
days
is
coming
up
a
few
times
for
those
of
you
watching
all
right.
We
had
an
issue
that
was
flagged
here.
A
2-4,
and
this
was
kind
of
tying
back
to
what
I
talked
about
earlier,
with,
like
using
slack,
is
like
a
good
discussion,
but
it's
not
really
relevant
for
like
kind
of
flushing
this
out.
So
essentially,
this
came
down
to
Phil,
Swann
and
fog
meta.
L
M
B
N
So
to
make
it
short.
So
first
one
basically
is
focus
only
on
software
protocol
side,
head
office
in
Toronto,
working
on
building
platform
and
other
software
products
where
figmenter
is
located
in
Shanghai
and
and
I'm
boarding
partner
in
Asia
and
the
naval
block
head
office.
Is
the
moon
Trail.
It's
a
currently
working
as
a
hosting
company
for
blockchains.
It
has
support
Five,
Points
storage
provider,
business
and
also
insurance
program,
and
it's
it's
not
on
RPC
services
and
other
blockchain
services
like
Farah
Etc.
N
So
they
do
have
some
connections
with
each
other
in
business
side
and
also
I.
Personally,
I
have
some
interactions
with
different
entities
so
and
when
way
like
during
the
application
of
format
and
Nibbler
block,
they
have
revealed
that
they
have
been
working
with
the
first
one
in
the
demonstration.
So
a
simple
statement
about
the
notary
work,
I'm
coming
like
doesn't:
does
there
won't
be
any
applications
signed
from
each
other
and
there
won't
be
any
applications
signed
back
any
of
the
two
notaries
in
the
same
round.
N
For
example,
if
the
application
is
in
it
by
first
one,
we
may
have
an
enable
block,
won't
participate
in
any
approval
process
for
any
application
we
see
from
the
community.
There
won't
be
any
two
of
them
pretty
soon,
particularly
in
the
same
round
yeah.
So
this
is
like
basically,
the
information
for
the
community
and
everything
yeah.
M
D
D
M
N
Yeah
and
we
do
reserve
some
time
for
the
I'm,
not
sure
it's
just
a
good
time
to
talk,
because
I
think
we
reserve
some
time
to
talk
about
what
the
president
do
does,
because
there
are
also
questions
about
what
is
first
one
and
what
it
is
doing
during
the
LDN
or
ecosystem
yeah,
because
there
was
a
some
projects
was
sending
deals
to
the
first
one
engine.
So
basically
like
first
one
is
the
cross
chain
protocol
for
web
screen.
N
So
the
wrong
investors
are
balanced,
Labs,
snz,
holding
and
also
autograph
unicorn
Ventures
Trend
Capital
fvg
Airy
Capital.
So
that
was
a
very
a
lot
of
investors
participant
in
the
several
rounds
recently
raised
about
three
million
dollars
so
very
complicated
and
investor
short
side.
And
these
are
the
questions
major
product
line.
We
have
three
major
product
lines.
The
first
one
is
the
motion:
storage,
which
is
provide
bucket
storage
and
trans
storage
and
to
enable
people
make
a
payment
from
different
blockchains
to
fight
one
network.
N
Another
three
is
the
S3
interpreter
or
firecoin
Network,
and
the
major
one
has
the
relationship
with
earlier
or
verified.
Your
storage
is
the
first
one
building
engine
which
was
invented
in
early
2021.
I
think
this
is
the
first
Meetup
three
months
after
the
minute.
On
online
we
decided
to
do
a
bidding
engine,
so
everybody
can
send
out
DLS
and
receive
DLS
in
the
platform.
So
it
has
been
running
over
two
years
now
generate
a
transferable
2005
storage
over
the
platform.
This
has
a
reputation
system
attaching
to
it
and
the
terminal
side.
N
There
was
a
two
terminal:
one
is
the
code
Swan
client,
to
enable
people
to
send
in
our
deals.
Another
one
is
one
provider.
This
one
probably
is
the
story
provider
who
can
connect
to
the
swan
platform
and
getting
input
in
the
deals
and
recently
like
from
last
year
about
one
year
ago,
like
someone
decided
like
not
maintain
it
anymore.
So
those
maintenance
Parts
as
a
client
is
belonged
to
the
4G
meter
in
Shanghai,
and
this
is
how
the
building
engine
works.
N
So,
first
of
all,
like
SPS
need
to
sign
up
on
the
platform
to
get
API
keys
so
and
keep
you.
You
need
to
keep
yourself
online,
so
you
can
receive
deals
and
there
were
two
mode.
One
is
the
many
mode,
one
is
automated
mode.
The
main
video
mode
is
like
you,
you
know
those
providers
and
you
want
to
do
business
with
them.
You
can
send
India
direct
to
the
SPO,
want,
if
you
don't
know,
negotiate
with
them
about
terms
before
you
probably
get
rejections
from
them.
The
other
bit
is
interesting
part.
N
Is
anybody
can
using
your
own
Data
Care
to
send
out
deals
to
the
engine
they
will
automatically
matching
to
the
different
space?
Who
is
interesting
to
taking
deals
under
specific
criteria?
For
example,
you
want
at
least
what
you
can
buy
it
or
as
a
80
gigabyte,
and
then
the
distribution
will
related
to
your
reputation.
So
if
you
have
really
high
repetition
in
the
past,
you
are
getting
more
deals
and
then
usually
you
really
have
a
lower
combination.
Read
you
have
a
bad
reputation
and
then
you
probably
won't
get
new
deals
for
a
while.
N
So
there
are
10
to
30
Active
Space
connected
to
the
network
every
day
and
the
distribution
is
follow
the
normal
distribution
yeah.
So
we
also
see,
like
some
questions
from
the
community
part
about
why
they
are.
Duplications
of
SP
is
always
in
different
case.
So
that's
reasonable
because
with
this
SPS,
they
connect
to
the
network
from
every
day.
So
they
will
received
here
are
signs
like
they
have
more
chance
to
receive.
N
So
it's
not
surprised
that
we
see
like
a
duplicate,
not
really
duplicating
the
same
SPS
get
the
deals
from
different
data
cap,
because
that
is
by
Design,
then
also
we
have
a
new
release
in
the
coming
days
to
support
our
business
services.
People
can
connect
with
different
wallage
and,
as
RPC,
probably
I,
always
call
the
febm
as
well
in
coming
months,
and
also
we
did
our
upgrade
recently
with
Boost,
because
there
was
a
lot
of
people
at
space
aware
that
they,
the
market
2,
is
not
compatible
with
Market
one.
N
So
we
did
an
upgrade
recently
and
the
release
will
be
this
week
and
then
we
have
talked
with
the
Boost
team
to
provide
a
support.
Yeah
and
those
are
also
some
questions
from
select
they'll
ask
her.
Why
is
there
to
click
cids
in
some
data
sets
sent
out
from
first
one
and
LDN
application?
There
are
lots
of
reasons.
One
major
reason
is
transform
has
been
running
for
two
years.
It
started
very
early
days
from
the
minor
X
then
become
SPX,
then
slingshot,
but
this
isn't
in
all
the
testing
of
the
data
cap
testing.
N
N
Another
single
node
has
more
data
than
other
nodes,
so
wow.
This
is
also
normal
because
of
it
data
set.
It
becomes
really
huge.
It
really
takes
time
to
setting.
We
have
a
note
recently.
I
have
assigned
some
applications.
They
have
similar
things
as
talking
to
some
of
them.
They
confirm
they
all
have
the
similar
issues.
When
data
set
is
too
large,
it
takes
much
time
to
synchronize
because
the
difference
to
the
provider
had
different
setting
speed.
Another
one
is
about
someone
who
knows
are
not
retrievable
in
Swan
engine.
N
Yes,
so
this
is
the
issue
where
currently
they
have
not
sure
how
to
deal
with
that,
because
retrieval
is
not
a
really
part
of
the
consensus
of
the
private
Network.
At
the
moment
we
can
give
some
data
cap
we
can,
but
we
cannot
really
force
them
to
provide
the
visual
services
and
the
waste
support
retrieval
as
part
of
reputation
model.
So
the
less
retrieval
success
rate
story
providers
will
get
low
data
cap
I'm,
not
sure,
like
I,
think
there's
something
new
to
discussion.
A
C
N
C
The
part
that
I
don't
get
here
is
neither
of
you
disclose
the
religion
fully
in
notary
application.
I
I,
to
be
honest,
I,
don't
understand.
Why
would
anyone
need
to
notary
accounts,
especially
since
I
mean
you
are
such
a
big
person
in
fight
calling
this
community,
but
I
I
don't
want
to
make
assumptions?
Why
did
you
do
so?
But
for
me
at
least
it's
clear
not
in
line
with
transparency,
at
least
from
my
side
and
I
would
like
to
get
more
Community
inputs
on
that,
like
how
I'll.
N
N
Very
care
of
that
and
the
first
one
already
mentioned
that.
So
that's
why
France
one
doesn't
say
much
about
that,
and
another
reason
is
that
the
application
was
copied
from
the
V1
V2,
the
filament
and
not
their
people.
So
that's
why
there's
no
mistake:
don't
really
care
about
that,
but
on
fundamental
information,
very
clear
that
they
have
a
relationships
with
first
one.
So
I
don't
think
it's
something
like
the
Latina
Ruby.
C
N
Investigate
there's
another
Britain,
they
don't
know
each
other.
It's
independent
working,
even
though
it's
two
companies,
we
talked,
but
it's
still
individual
entities,
it's
very
clear
in
the
shareholder
agreement.
It's
not
under
the
same
management
structure
in
different
groups.
You
you,
maybe
because
you
needed
to
talk
a
professional,
so
you
don't
really
see
like
hey
I
know
you.
You
know
no
like
that,
but
still
those
things
in
proper
way.
B
C
My
understanding
the
application
is
under
the
name
of
ipf's
news
right,
yeah,
so
from
the
founder
of
ips
news
perspective,
so
he
was
behave.
I
don't
know
is,
is
she
or
he
like
people,
saying
you
say
Hey
so
like
let's
say
they
got
reached
out
by
Leo
who
is
supposedly
working
for
post
one
but
I
know
I
know
that's
from
me
outside.
It
might
be
a
bit
different,
but
after
the
application
was
pointed
out
as
being
fake
by
distance.
N
C
N
Great,
first
of
all,
because
you
guys
keep
on
seeing
that
Neo
works
for
first
one,
so
I'm
making
it
clear
news
is
not
working
for
first
one
and
there's
a
huge
difference.
You
know
like
in
in
legal
and
law
and
operation
different
perspective
working
for
first
one
or
not
working
for
us.
That's
a
huge
difference.
If
you
see
like
a
employee
in
China,
is
working
for
employee
as
an
employee
in
Canada,
that's
100
uncorrect!
N
This
is
a
number
one
thing
secondary
I
make
it
clear
here
you
can
see
like
earlier
was
notified
on
boarding
work,
and
we
confirmed
like
our
partnership
with
ipfs
news.
First
of
all
like
that
is
not
a
fake
application.
We
do
found
that
the
data
has
some
issue.
I
have
to
admit
that
the
data
was
a
funny
Arbiter
in
the
beginning.
Nobody
really
knows
that
it
has
the
issue
so,
which
means
that
he
is
a
process
of
data
preparation
and
there's.
N
It
should
be
more
check
on
the
original
data,
and
also
the
data
cap
is
not
like.
Somebody
says
that
first
of
all,
I
want
to
get
a
data,
get
a
cap
and
use
it
by
themselves.
It's
not
the
case
so
from
the
data
distribution.
You
can
sense
that
the
data
cap
has
been
developed,
delivered
to
14
communities
at
space,
and
each
of
them
is
below
five
terabytes.
So
this
is
not
really
like
people
thinking
that
it
first
of
all
want
to
use
how
to
make
a
revenue.
That's
a
100,
false
claim
and
yeah.
A
Kind
of
shifting
into
the
final
segments
of
this,
thank
you
Charles.
Thank
you,
Carol,
for,
like
your
inputs,
your
thoughts
and
your
professional
discussion
on
this
one
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
I'd
like
to
highlight
for
like
Community
takeaway
is
one
thank
you
to
Cairo
for
like
flagging
this
in
a
very
analytical
and
professional
way
in
the
GitHub,
so
that
we
could
have
this.
You
know
professional
discussion.
A
Thank
you
for
Charles,
for
kind
of
spelling
out
like
how
these
multiple
organizations
kind
of
interact
with
each
other
Galen
had
a
pretty
prescient
comment
there
in
the
chat,
which
is
this
isn't
the
first
time
that
we've
seen
an
organization
or
connections
to
it.
I
think
one
of
the
big
things
that
we're
kind
of
addressing
here
is
like:
how
do
we
highlight
that?
Does
it
come
up
in
the
disclosure
dock?
Does
it
come
up
in
the
application?
So
this
is
a
really
good
learning.
A
D
So
I
think,
as
Kara
is
saying
they're
the
thing
that
we
push
for
is
transparency.
There
is
a
big
difference
between
like
notaries,
applying
as
an
individual
versus
organization
and
then
notaries
like
interacting
with
one
another
and
I
think
like
not
going
into
the
direction
of
any
specific
LDN,
but
there
are
also
additional
disclosure
forms
that
we
collect
that
have
additional
content
and
those
things
are
not.
D
The
notaries
are
not
required
to
put
all
of
those
things
in
public.
They
put
that
information
where
the
governance
team
can
review
it,
but
it
doesn't
necessarily
all
need
to
be
captured
publicly,
because
it's
much
more
sensitive
information
and
some
of
the
stuff
that
we
use
to
do
are
kyc
on
the
notaries.
So
I
think
that
we,
it
makes
sense
for
there
to
be
notaries
that
have
interactions
with
one
another.
It
makes
sense
for
there
to
be
organizations
that
have
interactions.
D
Do
we
have
said
this
before
the
foundation
and
pl
have
strong
connections
and
ties?
The
foundation
has
a
notary.
Pl
has
projects
that
have
become
clients.
You
know
they
there's
a
lot
of
interplay
and
I.
Think
that,
as
long
as
we
are
all
trying
to
continue
to
be
transparent
and
push
like
our
goal
is
to
onboard
Humanities
with
important
data
onto
the
file
code
Network
and
they
transparent
distributed
way.
That's
that's
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish.
A
Well
said
this
touched
on
a
few
other
issues:
I
think
one
of
them
was
811
if
I'm
getting
my
issues
mixed
up,
which
was
like
the
removal
of
data
cap
and
like
how
we're
looking
at
some
of
those
other
ones.
Rg
is
not
on
the
call
this
week
to
kind
of
speak
to
that,
but
I
know
next
week,
he'll
in
two
weeks,
he'll
have
a
lot
of
updates
on
the
February
28th
call
deep.
Are
you
still
on
the
line?
Is
there
anything
that
you'd
like
to
share
on
that
topic
with
our
last?
J
No
honestly
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
good
conversations
still
happening
in
slack.
A
lot
of
people
are
still
pushing
on
high
quality
stuff
on
trust
and
transparency
standpoint.
We
had
this
proposal
where
we
were
thinking
of
removing
a
bunch
of
notaries
and
then
that
effectively
got
closed
down
just
because
it
went
in
a
very
classic
Direction
and
it
wasn't
really
productive.
I
just
wanted
a
flag
that
I
don't
think
that
just
removing
that
issue
means
that
those
notaries
are
back
to,
as
if
like
nothing
had
happened.
J
J
L
C
J
I
think
the
main
thing
that
we're
looking
for
actually
is
that
they're
meeting
the
bar
that
they
set
for
themselves
in
their
application
right,
which
is,
if
they
take
any
action
it
should
be
at
the
Quality
that
we
expect
that
they
claim
that
they
would
be
at
I'm,
not
actually
sure
if
the
final
word
was
like
permanently
hold
off
or
not.
But
I
do
think
that
the
incoming
proposal
had
a
suggested
next
step
for
them.
I,
don't
want
to
speak
on
behalf
of
RG,
but
I
do
know
that
he's
coming
back
online
later
today.
J
D
So
if
a
notary
has
made
an
allocation
or
a
signature
on
an
LDN
that
is
in
violation
of
their
own
diligence
plan
and
bookkeeping
plan,
then
they
just
aren't
doing
their
job
that
they
said
they
were
going
to
do
so
we
have
pushed
them
to
do
is
like
all
of
these
notaries
are
under
scrutiny.
We
would
like
to
see
evidence
that
they
are,
following
their
own
stated,
diligence
and
bookkeeping
plans.
D
So
there's
like
he's
like
we're,
saying,
there's
going
to
be
a
more
specific
place
where
we
want
to
like
track
that
and
capture
that
we
have
not
said
that
everybody
should
stop
or
that
anybody
should
stop
signing
or
or
anything
like
that.
We
have
said
you
agreed
to
be
a
notary
and
to
do
a
job
in
this
way.
That
is
like
how
you
said
you
were
going
to
perform
your
duties
prove
to
us
that
that
is
how
you
were
performing
your
duties.
D
J
It
was
technically
okay
for
them
to
be
signing
things
as
long
as
they're
met.
Their
bar
I
think
that
the
proposal
that
he's
going
to
push
will
hold
them
to
exactly
that
with
some
more
significant
constraints,
because
I
think
they
do
need
to
work
on
earning
back
the
trust
that
they
have
lost
through
this
process.
J
C
D
D
We
could
remove
them
from
a
notary
entirely
by
removing
them
from
the
multi-6
and
removing
their
personal
application.
It
leaves
them
on
the
multi-sig,
but
give
them
amount
of
scoped
signing
power
to
regain
trust.
There's
a
number
of
things
that
we
could
propose
to
do
to
say
you
were
not
doing
your
job,
so
we
need
to
bring
you
back
into
doing
your
job.
D
You
can
look
at
it
the
same
way
that
you
look
at
an
employee
if
an
employee
is
not
doing
their
job.
Well,
how
do
you
handle
that?
Do
you
try
and
manage
them
back
into
success?
Do
you
put
them
on
a
performance,
Improvement
plan,
or
do
you
fire
them
on
the
spot,
and
so
I
think
that
if
we
are
seeing
notaries
said
they
were
going
to
do
diligence
in
a
certain
way
and
they're?
D
A
Well,
hello,
everybody
and
welcome
to
the
second
iteration
of
the
February
14th
governance
call
and
PS
Happy
Valentine's
Day
all
right.
Let's
take
a
quick
look
high
level.
This
agenda
is
kind
of
truncated
and
for
that
we
spend
a
lot
more
time
on
the
discussion
phase,
so
I'm
going
to
give
an
update
on
the
notary
status.
What's
going
on
with
the
disclosures?
A
A
If
you
have
any
questions
and
we'll
get
right
to
it,
so
if
you
are
on
this
call-
and
you
wish
that
there
was
a
topic
that
we
were
going
to
address
or
bring
up
the
best
way
to
do-
that
is
go
to
GitHub,
we'll
have
an
issue
right
there,
and
then
you
can
actually
in
GitHub
leave
a
comment
like
Hey
Kevin
I'd
really
like
to
talk
about
this
proposal
can
I
have
time
and
we
will
add
that
to
the
calendar.
So
all
the
links
are
here
in
the
invite.
A
Just
as
a
reminder
doing,
this
will
ensure
that
we
talk
about
anything
that
might
be
on
your
heart
all
right.
So,
let's
jump
into
governance.
There
is
a
team
we're
here
to
back
you
up.
If
you
have
any
issues,
this
is
kind
of
our
domain
Specialties
on
where
we
can
support
you.
The
best
feel
free
to
reach
us
out
and
slack
as
well
as
you
can
see.
Our
Handles
in
GitHub
as
we
go.
If
you
are
reaching
out,
is
a
gentle
reminder.
These
are
all
the
slack
channels
that
are
available
for
anything
you
may
need.
A
These
are
the
most
commonly
used
ones
for
the
build
plus
program-
there's
probably
quite
a
few
more,
but
these
are
probably
the
easiest
to
access.
If
you
wanted
to
get
something
really
addressed.
Most
of
the
communications
happens
in
the
field
plus
public
Channel
there's
around
2
000
of
us
there
and
the
notaries
have
their
own
channel
for
onboarding
questions,
applications
and
the
like.
A
If
you
are
looking
at
slack
right
now,
one
of
the
things
we're
noticing
is
a
lot
of
great
issues
that
are
brought
up
about
engagement,
trust
and
transparency
and,
in
slack,
there's
a
easy
way
to
communicate.
But
what
happens
in
slack
is
that
those
topics
usually
get
dropped
off
as
the
message
boards
go
down.
So
slack
is
really
effective
and
helpful
and
we'd
like
to
see
you
continue
to
use
it
for
questions
about
the
program.
A
The
troubleshooting
best
practices,
any
Lessons,
Learned
questions,
it's
a
great
resource
for
that,
where
we're
seeing
slack
kind
of
not
hold
its
weight
as
far
as
our
community
scaling
is
if
there
was
an
issue
specifically.
Let's
take
the
example
of
like
a
trust
and
transparency
flag
as
we
flag
these
in
slack
it's
great,
but
then
we
have
no
idea
who's,
jumping
into
the
conversations
what
organizations
they
represent.
A
So
if
you
do
have
a
flag
that
might
engage
the
community
or
might
have
some
impact
on
a
different
notary
or
member
using
GitHub
is
a
really
effective
way
to
kind
of
communicate
that
and
make
sure
that
it
gets
heard
properly.
So,
if
you
make
an
issue
in
GitHub
and
then
you
just
kind
of
label
it
as
a
proposal
or
a
discussion,
what
we'll
do
is
the
governance
team
myself
included.
Is
that
we'll
make
sure
that
that
is
getting
bubbled
up?
A
We'll
include
it
on
these
governance,
calls
if
necessary
and
will
help
move
that
forward
and
then
make
sure
that
it
has
some
actions
behind
it
versus
slack,
which
can
be
like
a
forum
where
it's
just
more
conversational.
So
again,
GitHub
is
a
really
effective
way
if
you'd
like
to
bring
something
up
outside
of
slack
and
then
reference
it
back
I'm
going
to
pause
before
we
go
on
to
the
notary
and
onboarding
and
see
if
anybody
has
any
questions
or
any
kind
of
flags
before
we
go
forward.
A
All
right
feel
free
to
stick
a
hand
up
and
we'll
get
right
to
you
all
right,
notaries,
I'm
talking
to
you,
here's
where
we're
looking
right
now,
we
are
still
in
the
process
of
updating
all
of
the
verifications
for
sanctions,
checks
and
disclosure
forms.
So
what
this
meant
was
you
all
filled
these
forms
at
an
air
table
and
what
we've
been
doing
is
going
through
each
item
on
the
form
to
verify
the
names,
the
contact
information,
the
organizations
and
then
this
runs
through
several
teams
at
the
foundation.
Some
of
you
that
filed
as
an
organization.
A
We
need
to
have
your
first
and
last
name
of
the
human
that
will
control
The,
Ledger
and
the
reason
behind
this
is
just
the
trends
in
the
market
for
crypto
I
think
we
can
all
understand.
We
are
taking
extra
actions
to
make
sure
that
we're
linking
these
properly
and
safely
in
full
disclosure
as
we
go
forward.
So
in
the
past
we
had
just
asked
for
organization
name
like
filecoin
Foundation.
Now
we
specifically
need
a
person
within
that
organization.
A
So,
for
example,
we
would
need
Danny
O'brien's
name
at
the
foundation
as
the
representative
human
in
charge,
so
those
notaries
that
need
that
information.
We
send
a
ping
in
the
notary,
Channel
and
I
sent
you
a
DM
I'll,
be
following
up
again
tomorrow,
but
we're
going
to
kind
of
set
a
soft
deadline
on
this
because
we're
starting
to
manually
add
folks.
So
without
this
disclosure
form
we're
going
to
have
to
block
on
you,
which
may
delay
your
onboarding
onto
the
registry.
A
A
All
right
so
notaries,
you
might
have
seen
this
come
through
in
the
slack
Channel
as
well.
This
step
verifies
your
Ledger
address.
Your
GitHub
address
with
our
registry
tooling.
The
registry,
tooling,
is
how
we
actually
allocate
data
cap
once
you've
reviewed
it.
So
if
you
have
not
taken
this
step
on
the
registry,
you'll
be
getting
one
final
ping
from
us
because,
again,
like
the
disclosures
once
we
add
these
on
it's
a
very
painstaking
process,
it
might
cause
delays.
A
As
far
as
training
goes,
what
we're
rolling
out
is
a
series
of
presentations
that
kind
of
walk
you
through
the
workflow
of
doing
this
job,
remember
being
a
notary
is
providing
that
diligence
that
review
that
human
aspect
of
a
large
data
application.
So
what
this
training
is
doing
is
showing
you
how
to
use
the
tooling
as
well
as
how
to
think
and
communicate
like
a
notary
can
be
really
successful.
So
Phil
has
been
spearheading.
A
If
you
are
a
new
notary,
you
can
still
perform
diligence,
so
if
there
was
an
application
that
you
were
looking
at
and
you're
just
waiting
for
your
data
cap
allowance
before
you
can
start
signing,
I
would
leave
comments
in
that
issue
or
application
of
your
diligence
plans
of
your
questions
and
that
way,
when
the
data
cap
is
allocated,
you
could
sign
right
that
hour.
So
if
you
have
any
questions
on
that,
please
hit
me
up
and
again
thank
you
for
your
pay
patients.
A
I
know
some
of
you,
notaries
have
reached
out,
like
hey,
you've
done
everything
you're
just
kind
of
waiting,
and
yes,
you
have
I.
Thank
you
for
that
patience.
We
have
just
scaled
quite
a
bit
if
I'm
going
to
be
frank
and
with
that
scale
comes
just
putting
the
right
systems
in
place,
and
that
takes
time
and
we're
kind
of
reaching
that
limit
of
finishing
it
up.
So
again,
thank
you
for
that
patience
and
we'll
get
you
onboarded
properly.
So
before
I
go
on
to
the
next
section.
A
A
Two
weeks
ago
we
had
a
lot
of
conversations
about
how
this
tooling
will
work
and
fabri,
who
is
a
contractor
to
protocol
Labs,
has
been
working
on
a
mock-up,
this
Mo
MVP
product.
Essentially,
so
we
built
his
demo
video
into
this
presentation
deck
we're
not
going
to
invest
the
time
while
there's
40
of
us
on
a
call
to
watch
the
video,
but
at
your
own
Leisure
come
through
and
take
a
look.
He
won
a
hackathon
project
with
this,
so
we're
kind
of
excited
about
the
functionality
works.
A
So
again,
we're
still
looking
for
comments
on
this
whole
all
staking.
It
could
be
like
pros
cons,
whatever
your
thoughts
are
for
it
and
we're
going
to
pause
at
the
end
for
any
kind
of
like
questions
you
may
have,
or
any
discussion
points,
but
a
really
effective
way
to
get
your
voice
heard
is
leaving
comments
in
those
GitHub
issues,
so
we'll
Circle
back
at
the
end.
A
So
if
you're
curious
to
listen
to
more
detail
since
a
notary
needs
to
essentially
verify
the
LDN
one
of
the
questions
that
came
up
is:
is
this
going
to
move
to
a
world
where,
essentially,
notaries
are
worried
about
signing
LDN
applications
for
fear
of
losing
their
stake?
And
a
lot
of
this
gets
addressed
in
the
GitHub?
A
Yeah
I
believe
at
this
current
iteration
the
way
the
conversation
works
is
yes
putting
up
their
own
capital
in
order
to
verify
those
applications.
It
goes
into
a
lot
of
detail
on
how
that
works
in
the
actual
application.
But
yes,
okay,
no
worries
of
it.
Thanks,
yeah
I
appreciate
you
asking
that
Mark
thanks
I
see
a
question
come
through
in
the
chat
it's
from
Darlene
over
at
SSX
future.
A
It
says:
do
we
have
a
deadline
for
onboarding
good
question
Darlene
just
to
kind
of
skip
back
in
the
slides,
so
it's
easier
to
kind
of
follow
as
far
as
the
onboarding?
No
there's
no
deadline,
I
think
the
deadlines
on
us,
the
governance
team
to
make
sure
that
it's
done
right
and
sustainable
and
then
out
for
you
as
soon
as
possible.
So
I
kind
of
mentioned.
We're
at
this
juggling
point
where
there's
fast
and
there's
correct
we're
trying
to
like
land
in
the
Middle
With.
A
A
A
Again,
this
is
one
of
the
second
proposals.
This
is
8
21..
If
you
haven't
seen
this
proposal
or
had
a
chance
to
read
it
essentially,
what
we're
seeing-
and
this
was
spearheaded
by
Simon-
is
that
there's
been
this
influx
of
reasons
why
there
might
be
a
need
to
remove
data
cap,
so
this
could
be
something
as
effective
as
someone
needs
to
change
their
wallet.
A
This
could
be
that
it
was
sent
to
the
wrong
address,
or
this
could
be
a
potentially
that
we
start
to
get
into
like
addressing
the
consequences
of
like
violation
of
community
standards
and
revoking
that.
So
this
is
the
first
step
to
kind
of
have
the
thought
process
spelled
out
for
how
we
would
address
this
as
a
community.
So
we
spelled
out
that
for
this
to
take
place,
we're
not
going
to
give
all
the
reasons
for
it.
But
what
would
be
the
mechanism?
The
mechanism
to
trigger
this
would
be
once
it
was
flagged.
A
There
would
need
to
be
two
signatures
from
various
notaries
from
different
regions,
as
well
as
two
root
key
holders,
so
this
wouldn't
be
something
that
was
taken
lightly.
This
would
require
like
a
significant
broad
swath
of
the
governance
and
Lead
Community
across
notaries.
To
make
this
happen,
and
what
this
would
be
used
for
is
effectively
addressing
those
three
key
points.
So
I
wanted
to
kind
of
pause
on
this
and
see
if
anybody
had
any
comments
or
thoughts
or
had
a
chance
to
review.
A
All
right:
well,
if
anything,
should
change,
please
feel
everybody
to
leave
it.
This
one
is
a
little
bit
more
straightforward
in
that
it's
just
kind
of
building
the
foundation
for
how
this
process
would
work
and
you'll
probably
see
more
as
this
envelops
in
the
next
quarter.
So
Auto
close
is
one
of
the
third
proposals.
That's
open.
This
is
818.
It's
linked
right
there
in
the
slide
deck
and
essentially,
if
you
are
an
existing
notary
or
a
new
notary
that
got
access
to
the
registry.
The
first
thing
you're
going
to
notice.
A
When
you
look
at
a
lot
of
these
applications,
is
there
are
hundreds
of
them
lots
of
these
applications
that
we're
working
through
what
we're
also
noticing
and
hearing
from
notaries
is
some
of
these
applications
are
extremely
old
and
there
is
not
a
lot
of
like
activity
on
them.
There's
not
a
lot
of
communication
and
back
and
forth,
and
so
then
it
really
becomes
a
juggling
Act
of
like
triaging,
which
it
wants
to
respond
to
as
well
as
knowing
if
the
application
is
still
needed.
A
The
benefit
of
having
this
Auto
close
is
that
when
you
go
to
the
registry,
we
would
essentially
sweep
out
a
lot
of
those
old
Legacy
things
that
we
might
not
be
addressing,
but
still
be
cluttering
the
system
and
again
this
would
be
an
easy
way
if
anybody
wanted
to
reopen
it.
So
the
time
frame
that
we
set
was
14
days.
The
14
days
is
not
based
off
like
a
specific
TTD
metric,
it's
more
based
around
like
a
common
sense
like
two
business
weeks
with
an
organization.
A
If
you
haven't
heard
back
from
them
within
that
time
frame,
then
that
might
be
that
hey.
This
wasn't
like
a
priority
and
again
can
be
reopened,
but
that's
where
the
two
weeks
time
frame
came
by
based
off
it.
So
I'll
pause
and
see
if
anybody
has
any
thoughts
or
questions
about
this
issue
or
anything
they'd
like
to
address.
A
Sweet
in
the
morning
call
one
of
the
topics
that
came
up
was:
is
this
14
days
like
a
reasonable
time
frame?
Should
it
be
longer,
and
just
to
close
this
out?
One
of
the
conversation
was
once
you
start
extending
to
30
days.
What
are
you
really
benefiting
by
those
extra
two
weeks
like
if
we
are
closing
non-movement
applications?
So
again,
if
you
have
thoughts
or
want
to
expand?
This
is
issue
818.
A
If
you'd
like
to
discuss
the
last
issue
that
we
have
for
the
the
call
was
flagged
by
a
Community
member
and
what
they
were
is
essentially
kind
of
calling
out
for
discussion
was
the
disclosure
and
Reporting
self-reporting
and
transparency
around
an
organization
and
like
different
aspects
that
would
entail
before
I
kind
of
highlight
this
issue.
I
wanted
to
commend
Cairo
here
and
Charles
cow,
for
what
I
would
just
say
was
like
really
respectable
communication
and
really
helped
move
this
along
quickly
and
effectively.
A
So
essentially,
once
Carol
kind
of
saw
this,
she
flagged
a
GitHub
proposal,
kind
of
spelled
out
like
hey
here's,
what
I'm
seeing
here's?
What
I'd,
like
an
explanation
on
in
front
of
the
community
in
a
very
transparent
way
and
followed
up
in
slack
after
the
issue,
was
made,
so
there
was
a
way
to
kind
of
move
this
discussion
into
like
a
place
where
we
could
voice
it
and
have
like
a
very
framed
conversation,
so
they
both
joined
the
line
this
morning.
A
A
Yeah
I,
don't
see
him
in
the
text,
so
I'm
glad
that
I
took
a
screenshot
and
Carol.
If
you
happen
to
be
done,
the
call
and
I
don't
see
you
feel
free
to
raise
a
hand
or
interrupt
me
at
any
time.
What
Charles
essentially
did
on
the
call
number
one
is
that
he
joined
the
line
and
he
just
kind
of
said
like
essentially
what
they
are
are
three
different
organizations
and
he
spilled
out
kind
of
like
who
was
the
controlling
partner
within
the
organizations,
and
then
he
kind
of
made
like
a
forward.
A
Transparency
commitment
is
that
even
though
they
had
like
a
signed
up
within
these
multiple
organizations
that
had
loose
affiliations,
they
kind
of
committed
on
the
call
that
they
won't
be
signing
applications
or
that
they're
both
a
part
of
or
an
organization.
So
this
was
a
nice
touch.
We
had
that
slide
deck
in
the
first
call.
A
A
little
long,
long,
mute
and
a
long
long
silence
if
anybody
has
anything
that
comes
up,
feel
free
to
bring
it
as
we
go
all
right
last
on
what
may
be
a
very
quick
call
for
this
Valentine's
Day
is
any
kind
of
new
business.
This
is
an
open
Line,
anything
that
we
talked
about
on
the
agenda.
Anything
on
your
mind,
complete
open
forum.
K
J
Didn't
I
mean
I've
had
one
open
from
way
back
when
to
on
this
topic
and
so
James.
It
might
be
good
if
you
just
resurrects
that
one
like
I
I,
think
that,
like
in
general,
that's
a
topic
that
would
have
gone
back
and
forth
on
quite
a
bit,
not
a
difficult
one
to
sort
of
re-kick.
We
spent
more
time
with
them
talking
about
inactivity
and
the
proposal
from
Simon
around
basically
like
closing
out
applications
that
didn't
have
any
kind
of
activity
in
a
2B
Horizon
got.
A
All
right,
I
guess
one
more
question
from
slack
and
I'll
ring
the
bell.
If
there's
nothing
that
comes
up,
it
says:
when
can
the
notaries
going
in
sign
Joffrey?
So
essentially,
if
you
join
the
call
late,
we
are
waiting
for
the
final
verifications
and
disclosures
sanctions
checks
and
the
onboarding
guidance
will
probably
be
out
early
next
week.
There
is
a
conference
going
on,
so
yes,
you'll
be
seeing
that
any
day.
Now,
as
it
comes
through.
O
A
I
think
after
this
call
I'll
double
check,
but
if
you
have
not
received
a
direct
message
from
me
in
our
private
Channel
saying,
hey
I
need
some
information.
That
means
you're
good
to
go
so,
unless
you've
reached
I've
reached
out
to
you,
you
should
be
all
set
so
I'll
double
check
yours
after
this
call
and
I'll
just
make
sure
you're
all
set.
O
O
A
O
Ahead,
oh,
please
go
one
one
more
former,
the
former
snide
about
the
yeah
yeah.
Yes,
at
least
what
I
have
a
long
question.
You
mean
the
first
controller
of
the
one
rate.
That
means
does.
That
means
the
same
that
that
that
means
the
person
who
controls
the
who
mainly
controlled
Elijah
Wantage,
like
the
person,
just
like
the
name
on
the
ID
card,.
O
A
Double
check
when
we
get
off
this
call
and
I'll
make
sure
that
you're
all
set.
But
if
you
haven't
heard
from
me
in
your
application
or
in
slack,
then
you
should
be
all
set.
So
I'll
double
check
just
to
make
sure
that
you're
all
alleviate.
But
if
you
haven't
heard
from
me,
then
you
should
be
good
to
go.
A
A
All
right,
I'm
going
to
give
you
guys
a
friendly
hello,
Happy,
Valentine's,
Day
and
stop
the
sync.
If
you
have
any
follow-up
questions
from
this
feel
free
to,
of
course,
raise
it
in
slack,
hit
us
up
and
we'll
be
happy
to
get
back
to
you
again.
Thank
you
for
coming
to
the
very
romantic
Valentine's
Day
notary
governance.
Sync
and
we'll
see
you
on
February
28th,
California
time
cheers.