►
From YouTube: Filecoin Plus - April 13 Notary Governance
Description
Community governance call in which we discuss the upcoming Fil+ day (May 11), DataCap Flow - long with movement and distributions, as well as a review of the open issues.
A
Like
note
reason,
access
to
notaries,
and
then
I
have
compiled
some
statistics
because
there's
been
a
lot
of
awesome
momentum
in
this
ecosystem
in
general.
In
the
last
couple
of
months
around
like
how
data
cap
is
moving,
and
so
I
wanted
to
dedicate
some
some
time
to
talk.
Talk
about
that
as
well.
So,
first
things:
first,
we
finally
have
a
section
in
the
official
falcon
docks,
so
docs.falcon.io
has
a
store
section,
which
then
has
a
falcon
plus
section.
A
So
for
those
of
you
that
are
interested,
please
take
a
look,
please
review,
and
let
me
know
if
you
have
any
feedback:
you're
welcome
to
make
changes
directly.
Of
course,
this
is
all
a
public
github
repo
that
you
can
address,
but
in
general
I
expect
this
to
be
the
main
entry
point
for
people
who
want
to
learn
about
the
falcon
plus
program.
So
your
suggestions
would
be
incredibly
valuable
in
making
sure
that
this
is
a
good
source
of
knowledge
and
data
for
people.
A
Next
up
k,
ray
mentioned
at
the
last,
call
that
we
have
a
frequently
asked
questions.
Doc
that
was
put
up
for
general
review
from
everybody
would
be
great.
If
you
could
take
a
look
so
right
now,
it's
got
a
bunch
of
different
questions
and
answers.
I've
got
a
link
here,
I'm
going
to
drop
this
well,
we'll
share
the
link
to
the
deck,
so
you
all
can
take
a
look
after
the
call
as
well,
but
yeah.
A
Please
feel
free
to
drop
any
suggestions
if
there's
questions
that
you
think
haven't
been
addressed
or
should
be
addressed,
it'd
be
great
to
do
so.
If
you
have
improvements
to
the
answers
that
are
there,
that
would
be
even
better,
and
the
last
call
out
is
a
repeat
on
the
fact
that
we
will
be
having
a
falcon
plus
day
summit.
Currently,
that's
slated
for
may
11th.
A
So
I
just
want
to
put
up
this
table
that
that
qra
compiled
earlier
today
for
those
of
you
that
are
in
the
room,
if
you
notice
any
immediate
mistakes,
please
just
tell
us
right
now
and
we
get
them
corrected,
but
of
course,
for
those
of
you
that
are
watching
this
later,
the
link
is
in
the
deck
feel
free
to
head
over
and
check
and
make
any
corrections
as
needed.
This
should
just
serve
as
like
a
this
is
sort
of
simple,
like
unblocking
hey.
A
A
I
don't
see,
I
don't
see
any
comments
or
see
anything
in
chat,
so
I
think
we're
good
to
progress.
Okay,
so
exciting
sort
of
new
topic.
I
would
like
to
make
this
like
a
more
regular
discussion
as
well
in
every
single
call,
if
possible,
but
just
in
general,
like
how
is
data
kept
flowing?
It's
become
much
more
of
a
theme
in
the
last
couple
of
calls
for
those
of
you
that
have
been
around.
A
You
know
that
you
know
a
lot
of
good
topics
and
conversation
have
around
happened,
have
happened
around
like
tying
to
data
cap.
Take
a
cap
flow,
so
I
took
a
little
bit
of
time
to
aggregate
some
of
these
metrics,
and
ideally
this
becomes
like
a
regular
report
that
we
can.
We
can
share
and
publish
among
ourselves
as
we
continue
to
learn
and
iterate
on
the
processes
in
this
program.
So
a
couple
of
points
to
highlight
this
week.
A
First
up
we're
kind
of
averaging
around
eight-ish
allocations
that
are
happening
manually
through
github,
at
least
so.
This
does
not
count.
The
automated
verifier
yeah
somewhere
between
like
eight
and
ten,
is
what
I'm
seeing
for
the
last
couple
of
weeks.
This
is
over
the
last
four
weeks.
In
the
last
seven
days,
I
see
at
least
48
terabytes
of
data
cap
that
have
been
allocated.
There
were
five
net
new
applications.
A
So
masaki
is
finally
been
activated
and
ready
to
go
on
chain,
glad
that
you
know
he's
been
unblocked
and
then
performers
notary
as
well
started
making
their
first
allocations
this
week.
So
that's
great
math
wallet
is
still
blocked,
so
I
will
be
discussing
this
later,
but
that
should
be
the
last
notary
left
in
terms
of
making
sure
like
technically
they're
able
or
unable
to
make
their
allocations
unchained,
but
some
of
the
more
interesting
statistics
at
the
meta
level
for
the
program.
A
For
making
this
like
great
progress
like,
of
course,
we've
got
more
to
go,
but
it's
still
an
important
milestone,
and
we
should
acknowledge
that
we're
working
together
as
a
community
and
improving
our
processes
and
of
that
only
about
175
pebby
bytes,
has
actually
made
it
into
deals
with
miners.
So
clients
today,
on
average,
are
roughly
using
about
20
of
their
data
cap
and
so
that
to
me
actually
is
a
little
lower
than
I
expected.
A
But,
of
course,
like
you
know,
deal
making
in
general
and
falcon
is
not
the
easiest
thing
and
again
something
that's
continuing
to
improve
as
clients
are
exploring.
But
I
wanted
to
just
toss
these
up
here
and
see
if
anybody
had
any
reactions.
Anyone
have
any
thoughts,
I'm
just
going
to
open
the
floor
for
a
minute
to
see.
If
folks
have
anything
they'd
like
to.
A
A
A
Okay,
none
so
hopefully
these
are
not
too
surprising.
We'll
continue
to
track
this,
and
speaking
of
tracking
this,
I
don't
know
if
andrew
hill
is
in
the
call
at
the
moment,
andrew
if
you're
here
feel
free
to
unmute
and
talk
through
this
stats
thing
that
you
threw
up.
If
not,
I
can
speak
to
it.
I'm
here
yeah.
C
Yeah,
I
mean
well,
it's
pretty
basic
there's
just
it's
just
drawing
on
the
github
api
to
measure
some
stats
from
the
notary,
onboarding
repo
or
sorry,
the
client
onboarding
repo.
And
so,
if
you
go
check
out
this
github
repo,
it
just
is
a
python
notebook,
and
so
you
can
read
through
what
it's
doing,
to
pull
the
stats
for
each
notary
and
then
compile
this
table
of
stats
and
there's
a
little
cron
job
on
the
repo
itself.
C
So
it
will
rerun
the
python
script
every
night
and
update
the
readme
with
this
data,
it's
kind
of
limited
because
it
doesn't
know
much
about
being
a
notary.
So
it's
not
pulling
out
the
not
pulling
out
the
text
about
the
size
of
data
caps
or
anything
like
that.
It's
purely
about
it's
purely
about
data
cap
flow
through
the
github,
repo
and
so
yeah.
It
could
be
useful.
We
can
add
more
things
if
people
spot
other
measurements.
That
would
be
helpful,
but
otherwise
it's
on
autopilot
and
it'll
just
keep
updating
every
night.
A
I'm
hoping
that,
like
we
get
to
a
place
where
we
we
have
like
a
more
standardizing
reporting
format
on
data
cap
flow
that
we
we
can
share
in
each
of
these
calls,
and
maybe
like
comparing
the
history
like
becomes
like
a
important
part
of
that
so
like
these
these
today,
six
that
are
called
on
the
previous
slide
plus
like
what
is
the
actual
responsiveness
and
the
time
to
data
cap.
Looking
like
from
existing
notaries.
C
Yeah
and
if
anybody
remembers
some
of
the
comments
I
made
a
few
weeks
ago,
this
is
really
motivated
by
trying
to
measure
what
the
experience
of
the
client
is.
So
how
long
are
they
waiting
are
they
like?
Are
they
getting
rejected?
More
often
they're
being
accepted
those
sorts
of
metrics,
and
it's
not
really
meant
to
be
any
kind
of
measurement
of
a
specific
notary,
or
anything
like
that,
so
just
to
decouple
those
thoughts
from
people's
minds.
Yeah.
A
Can
make
things
better
for
the
notaries
that
you
know
you're
looking
at
these
numbers,
some
of
you
might
be
reacting
to
like
larger
numbers
for
days
granted
like
please,
you
know
heavy
caveat.
This
ecosystem
and
program
is
extremely
early,
like
a
lot
of
us
are
learning.
There
were
plenty
of
technical
glitches
along
the
way
as
well,
and
so
of
course,
some
of
these
numbers
are
a
lot
higher
than
expected,
and
so,
ideally
the
client
experience
does
become
easier,
and
so
we
should
continue
to
talk
about
that
as
a
theme
for
this
program.
A
Cool
with
that
said,
let's
jump
into
a
couple
of
updates
in
general
for
nodris.
I
wanted
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
math
wallet
notary
situation
that
went
down
last
week.
So
basically,
there
was
issue
number
107,
which
was
meant
to
finally
grant
math
wallets
notary,
its
data
campground,
which
didn't
go
through
the
first
time
around
actually
from
the
initial
the
round
of
elections,
the
what
we
learned
actually,
which
was
really
interesting,
oops,
I'm
pressing
all
sorts
of
buttons.
A
Let
me
find
a
way
to
stop
doing
that
back
back
back
back
cool,
sorry
about
that
so
yeah.
So
in
107
we
attempted
again
to
actually
get
notably
status
granted
to
the
address
that
was
supplied
by
the
math
wallet
folks,
and
it
turns
out
that,
because
that
address
had
actually
been
used
to
receive
an
automated
data
cap
account
from
verified
uplift.io.
A
It
was
already
registered
on
chain
as
a
verified
client
and
had
received
like
eight
gigabytes
of
data
cap,
and
so
that
obviously
disqualified
it
actually
from
from
becoming
a
notary,
and
that's
because
there's
there's
two
general
tenets
that
I
think
not
everybody
knows
about,
and
I
just
want
to
highlight,
which
is
firstly,
this
one,
I
think
more
of
you
know
about.
But
if
there
is
an
address
that
has
received
data
cap,
it
can't
receive
data
cap
again.
So
this
is
currently.
A
A
The
second
thing
is
that
if
something
has
been,
if
an
address
has
been
mentioned
on
chain
as
a
verified
client,
you
can't
then
go
and
give
it
like
verifier
status,
so
verify
status
like
we
refer
to
as
notary
status,
and
that's
basically
because
like
as
in
as
a
player
in
this
stakeholder.
If
you
hold
the
role
of
a
notary,
then
you
should
that
address
that
you
own
is
associated
with
being
a
notary.
A
If
you're
also
a
client
which
could
be
the
case,
then
you
should
have
a
separate
address
for
that,
so
that
we
can
also
track
like
transactions
happening
across
the
board,
and
so
all
actions
are
auditable
and
trackable.
And
so
in
this
particular
case,
it
turned
out
that
math
walls,
notary
address
that
was
supplied,
ended
up
being
registered
already
as
a
verified
client
on
chain
and
had
received
data
cap.
A
A
A
A
Sounds
like
I
just
talked
too
much
is
what
happened,
but
if
anybody
has
any
questions
feel
free
to
drop
them
in
the
chat
or
you
know
we're
going
to
first
call
up
and
slack
afterwards,
thanks
again,
as
always,
I'll
still
take
the
compliment.
The
other
thing
I
didn't
want
to
bring
up
is
this
concept
that
we've
talked
about
a
bunch
around
elections,
so
in
the
last
call
we
addressed
like
separating
pop-ups
for
existing
notaries.
A
That
demonstrated
good
practices
versus
electing
new
notaries,
and
dr
and
shin
actually
raised
an
excellent
point
that,
like
the
process,
should
still
be
the
same
across
the
board
like
we
shouldn't,
have
a
difference
in
process
so
that
we
always
have
like
consistency
in
the
methods
that
we're
using
as
a
community
to
elect
and
give
notifications
data
gap
grants
in
general.
It
seemed
at
that
point
that
the
room
agreed
with
that,
and
so
assuming
that
that
is
still
the
case.
A
I'd
like
to
propose
that
we
kick
off
a
new
round
of
elections
soon,
as
you
saw
on
the
earlier
slide,
like
40
of
all,
data
gap
has
already
been
allocated
and
we're
moving
at
a
pretty
consistent
rate
like
nearly
10
percent
a
week.
And
if
that's
the
case
like
given
how
long
not
re-elections
took
the
last
time
around
with
people
that
were
new
to
the
process,
learning
how
to
write
an
application
and
then
the
analysis
of
all
the
applications
plus,
the
rubric
was
just
getting
everybody
on
chain.
A
Continue,
improving
the
experience
for
clients,
as
well
as
for
notaries,
that
are
done,
enabling
the
clients,
and
just
in
general,
like
data
cap,
does
not
need
to
be
a
difficult
or
scarce
thing
for
people
like.
If
somebody
is
truly
bringing
a
useful,
legitimate
use
case
of
our
coin,
they
should
be
able
to
get
the
data
cap
that
they
need,
and
so
my
assumption
is,
as
we
increase
the
number
of
notaries,
we
are
likely
to
increase
the
responsiveness
of
the
notaries.
A
We're
also
likely
to
learn
a
lot
more
about
the
use
cases
that
we
can
serve
as
a
network
and
what
we
believe
we
value
and
collect
additional
data
on
how
we
can
continue
to
improve
the
falcon
plus
program,
and
so
this
is
I
I
expect
this
to
be
potentially
controversial
discussion
topics
I
didn't
want
to
like
earmark
enough
room
for
it.
So
with
that
I'd
like
to
open
up
the
floor
for
a
few
minutes
and
hear
any
opinions
hear
thoughts
from
people
in
the
room.
A
A
A
It
would
be
anybody
that
wants
to
apply,
but
it
would
be
through
the
github
application
process,
dr
like
similar
to
last
time
around
where
we
you
had
that,
like
full
application
form
that
you
would
fill
up.
Of
course,
it's
a
lot
easier
for
people
that
have
already
filled
out
the
application
to
fill
out
like
a
lengthy
application
again,
but
hopefully
that's
not
like
a
difficult
thing.
A
I
got
a
question
in
the
chat
from
someone,
so
I'm
just
going
to
share
just
a
question
which
is
basically
if
we
have
each
region
having
five
notaries,
would
that
include
the
existing
notaries
or
not,
and
so
just
want
to
share
a
little
bit
of
context
like
when
we
said
three
notaries.
First
time
around.
The
only
reason
certain
regions
have
more
than
three
notaries
is
because
of
like
perfect
ties
in
the
rubric
scoring
and
we
as
a
community
sort
of
agreed
to
skew
towards
adding
more
people
to
get
more
activity
in
the
ecosystem.
A
And
so,
if
I
remember
correctly,
china
and
north
america,
as
regions,
ended
up
having
more
than
three
notaries,
but
every
other
region
was
three
or
less,
and
so
what
I
would
say
here
is,
I
think
we
should
probably
hold
to
the
same
principle,
which
is
every
region
should
have
five
notaries,
which
includes
the
existing
and
or
new
notaries.
And
again,
if
there's
ties,
we
can
either
use
the
same
heuristic
or
we
can
introduce
a
new
decision-making
framework.
But
this
way
at
least
we're
increasing
the
total
amount
of
like
notice
in
other
regions
as
well.
A
And
yes,
current
notaries
would
have
to
apply
again
if
we
went
by
this
process.
The
benefit
of
this,
though,
is
that,
if
you,
if
you
do
remember,
the
notary
rubric
had
an
element
of
it
which
is
based
on
past
allocations
as
a
notary,
and
so
as
you
apply
again
as
a
notary.
The
likelihood
that
you
get
objectively
scored
to
have
even
higher
data
cap
allocations
will
continue
to.
B
A
That
is
correct,
but
the
assuming
the
rubric
is
the
same
as
what
we
did
last
time.
Then
it
takes
into
account
the
fact
that
you
were
a
notary
in
the
past
and
successfully
allocated
data
cap
in
the
past,
which
adds
like
a
scoring
parameter.
So
the
likelihood
that
you
were
you
served
as
a
good
notary
for
the
ecosystem
should
substantively
boost
your
ability
to
continue
serving
as
a
good
notary
for
the
ecosystem.
C
Yeah,
I
was
just
curious
about
yeah,
like
kind
of
matching
the
client
demand,
because
one
thing
that
is
kind
of
easy
as
a
as
a
notary,
is
to
just
lose
attention
to
it.
You
know,
like
I,
have
to
remind
myself
that
I'm
a
notary
and
have
a
reminder
to
go
and
check
the
status
of
applications
and
the
client
flow
is
pretty
minimal
in
some
regions.
A
Yeah,
I
think
it's
a
great
question,
so
obviously
I'm
just
one
opinion
I'd
love
to
hear
other
opinions
as
well.
I
know
megan
when
I
brought
this
up
to.
You
is
something
I
want
to
propose
today.
You
had
a
very
similar
thought,
so
maybe
it's
worth
you
sharing
your
opinion
as
well,
but
my
thinking
andrew
was
along
the
lines
that
like,
if
you
look
at
the
way
the
node
trees
were
initially
set
up.
They
were.
A
It
was
across
like
two
slides,
like
two
parameters,
if
I
can
call
it
that
so
one
was
region,
and
the
second
was
use
case,
where
certain
notaries
effectively
wanted
to
specialize
in
a
particular
kind
of
client
and
what
we've
seen
between
that
run
of
elections.
And
now
is
that,
like,
though
those
things
are
still
idealistic
and
like
good
ways
in
which
we
should
slice
the
pool
of
available
notaries,
because
we
do
want
to
use
people's
expertise
in
a
way
that
will
benefit
the
network.
A
The
stage
that
we're
at
today
is
that,
like
the
clients
that
are
there
today,
as
long
as
you
know,
they
actually
want
to
come
onto
falcon
they're,
going
to
go
to
as
many
notaries
as
possible,
and
what
we're
seeing
is
that
nodejs
from
different
regions
are
still
serving
the
demand
of
of
clients
that
are
not
in
their
region,
as
well
as
clients
that
may
or
may
not
line
up
exactly
with
the
use
case.
That
was
proposed.
A
The
degree
to
which
this
is
executed
is
not
consistent,
so
certain
notaries
tend
to
adhere
more
strictly
to
their
policies,
whether
that's
based
on
region
of
operation
or
type
of
use
case,
but
others
are
a
little
bit
more
liquid
with
their
allocation
and
data
cap.
And
so
at
this
point
like
I,
don't
really
have
a
super
strong
desire
to
push
one
way
or
another.
I
liked
the
idea
of
having,
as
many
like,
a
consistent
target
across
the
set
of
regions
so
that
we
have
the
geographic
distribution.
A
That
would
be
great
for
this
community
from
like
even
from
a
community
development
and
business
development
standpoint,
and
I
do
think
that
this
will
continue
to
serve
as
the
foothold
as
in
the
future.
If
we
have
many
more
notaries
and
many
more
clients,
that
kind
of
specialization
and
distribution
will
end
up
being
valuable.
A
C
I
was
actually
trying
to
thumbs
up
that
time
that
I
got
it
but
yeah
that
all
sounds
good.
I
mean
I
am
a
little
worried
about
the
client
flow
and
engagement
of
the
phil
plus
notaries.
Just
in
that
case,
if
you
have,
if
you
have
a
lot
of
notaries
and
we
haven't
built
up
the
flow
yet,
but
I
mean
I'm
down
to
experiment
too,
I
don't
know
like
a
hard
opinion
here
and
then
for
replication
yeah.
That
makes
sense.
C
A
A
We
can
agree
to
basically
put
the
conversation
into
the
issue
and,
depending
on
what
the
professing
pervasive
opinion
ends
up
being,
we
can
go
based
on
that
or
we
can
run
a
click
pull
on
it
either
later
this
week
or
next
week
or
by
the
next
call,
but
ideally
yeah
I'd
like
to
propose
that
we
get
the
consensus
relatively
quickly
and
then
hopefully
like
by
end
of
this
week
or
next
we
open
up
the
application
process
for
both
existing
and
you
know
trees.
Does
that
sound.
D
F
A
D
A
Occupying
one
of
the
spots
for
a
notary
in
that
region-
and
I
don't
know
if
that
has
implications
on
like
does
that
mean
we
we
target
like
you
plus
five
more
or
does
that
mean
we
still
target
five
turtle?
I
don't
know
I
would
love
to
hear
you
know,
maybe
even
your
thoughts,
if
that's
something
that
you
have
an
opinion
on
or
or
anybody
else,
that's
in
the
call.
F
D
Yeah
I
understand
that
data
cap
allocation
granted
will
somehow
improve
the
application
chances
of
a
notary
on
the
next
round.
But
how
will
this
impact
orders
that
had
a
technical
issue
like
me
preventing
me
from
giving
allocations,
I
mean
how
will
that
be
treated
and
accounted
for
when
I
reapply
on
the
next
round.
A
Plan
all
right,
I
want
to
preface
this
real
quick
by
calling
out
that
our
notary
governance
depot
currently
has
100
issues.
If
you
look
at
the
issues
which
is
cool,
of
which
18
percent,
because
of
my
phenomenal
mathematics
are
currently
open,
so
it's
18
out
of
100
issues,
they're
currently
open.
I
just
wanted
to
you-
know
prod
the
community
in
general
and
just
say,
like
a
lot
of
those
issues
are
interesting
and
important
conversations
that
are
going
to
shape
the
way
in
which
this
program
evolves.
A
A
lot
of
them
have
been
open
for
a
while
I'm
going
to
make
an
active
effort
to
push
closure
towards
some
of
the
points
that
were
raised
in
those
issues.
So
I
would
also
like
to
give
you
a
call
to
action
to
take
a
chance
to
review
that
open
issues,
tab
on
the
notary
governance
depot
and
see
if
there
are
any
that
you
particularly
have
a
strong
opinion
on
that
you'd
like
to
share
your
thoughts
on
as
we
try
to
make
an
effort
to
make
progress.
A
A
personal
sort
of
goal
for
me
would
be
that
before
we
have
this
next
round
of
elections
close
out,
the
set
of
issues
that
were
raised
based
on
the
previous
election
have
been
accounted
for
and
have
correctly
influenced
this
round
of
elections,
because
we
should
learn
from
our
own
processes
and
past
experiences,
and
I
think,
looking
at
the
issues
that
were
created
during
that
timer
is
a
good
way
to
do
that
cool.
That
being
said,
let's
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
current
issues.
A
The
first
one
was
around
the
formation
of
a
tribunal
for
falcon
plus
stakeholders.
So
we
had
a
pretty
intense
conversation
about
this
two
weeks
ago.
The
general
conclusion
was
actually
to
use
an
existing
tool,
which
is
phil
paul
with
the
optional
and
potential
ask
of
like
forking
football,
for
it
to
work
for
falcon
plus,
specifically
so
like
how
are
votes
of
different
community
stakeholders
in
this
ecosystem,
which
is
different
than
the
rest
of
the
general
file
cloud
ecosystem
like
if
you're
a
notary
versus
a
client
versus
a
miner.
A
So
for
those
of
you
in
the
chat
and
in
the
call
today,
we'd
love
to
hear
if,
for
some
reason
you
don't
like
the
idea
of
sort
of
putting
into
stone
that
we
can't
turn
to
phil,
pull
and,
of
course,
on
phil
paul.
There
are
many
ways
to
prioritize
a
decision
like
we
can
look
at
raw
power.
We
can
look
at
party
adjusted
power.
A
We
can
look
at
like
the
number
of
people
that
are
voting
and,
in
the
case
of
falcon
plus
it's
much
more
likely
that
we
would
skew
towards
the
individuals
that
are
voting
as
opposed
to
their
representation
on
the
network,
because,
of
course,
like
we
represent
a
small
part
of
the
network,
I'll
be
a
growing
part
of
the
network,
but
yeah.
That
being
said,
yeah.
A
A
A
There's
not
like
that
many
people
that
are
actively
involved
to
the
point
where
we
need
like
individuals
like
sets
of
stakeholders
to
be
represented
by
single
people,
because
everybody
is
here
and
everybody's
able
to
participate
and
voice
their
opinions.
And
so
then
we
started
looking
at
like
okay.
If,
if
we're
gonna
have
active
discussions
where
everyone's
participating
there's
a
chance
that
some
issues
just
never
get
closed
out,
which
is
evidenced
by
the
fact
that
we
have
issues
that
have
been
open
since
december,
and
so
for
those
we
were
like.
A
Why
don't
we
use
field
poll
where
all
of
us
get
to
get
to
contribute
our
votes,
and
we
use
that
as
an
initial
decision-making
framework
upon
which
we
can
continue
to
iterate
and
improve,
and
if
the
the
need
comes
to
fork
football
and
make
a
version
of
it
for
falcon
plus
and
that's
something
that
the
foundation
was
willing
to
give
a
ground
for
in
the
future
as
well?
And
so
that's
that's
the
general
crux
of
the
issue.
A
Hopefully
you
follow
that
if
you
didn't
or
have
any
questions,
please
feel
free
to
ask.
If
not,
you
know
feel
free
to
share
any
thoughts
that
you
might
have.
If
not,
I
think
I'm
gonna
consider
it
that,
like
we're
generally
in
agreement
on
this
and
as
andrew
said
before,
we're
iterating
learning
as
a
community
and
we're
happy
to
experiment
together,
and
we
can
always
make
changes.
A
A
I
have
some
updates
I'd
like
to
share
for
some
of
them
that
have
been
open
for
a
while,
but
before
we
get
into
that,
there
was
a
new
one
that
was
fun
last
week
around
adding
an
auto
close
bot
andrew,
if
you'd
like
to
unmute
and
talk
to
it
for
a
minute
or
two
that'd
be
great.
If
not,
I
can
always
speak
for
you.
I
do
that
very
well.
I
mean.
C
It's
pretty
self-explanatory
yeah.
We
should
put
an
auto
close
bot
on
the
issue.
I
don't
think
it
was
my
idea.
It
was
somebody
else's
idea.
It
might
have
been
your
idea,
but
I
I
thought
I
needed
an
issue
and
to
push
it
forward,
actually
that
that
stats
table
from
the
repo
that
I
put
together
that
you
showed
earlier
is
a
good
indicator
of
why?
C
C
Well,
just
because
I
had
the
mic
already
the
it
doesn't
matter,
because
the
I
mean
it
matters
only
a
little
bit
because
they
can
always
just
reopen
it.
I
don't
think
there's
any
permissions
on
the
repo
to
keep
people
from
reopening
it
so
being
like
respectful,
but
aggressive.
So
like.
I
think
the
number
we
were
floating
around
previously
was
like
10
days
seems
like
ample
time.
Even
if
they
were
away
on
vacation
for
a
week,
they'd
still
come
back.
It
would
still
be
open,
but
eventually
closing.
C
A
Cool,
so
I
I
think
that
in
general,
like
people
are
probably
gonna,
be
fine
with
this,
I'm
just
in
accordance
with
what
we
discussed.
We
should
you
know,
keep
the
keep
the
discussion
going
and
then
make
sure
we
get
more
opinions.
If
not,
I
think
this
is
pretty
reasonable
thing
and
and
andrew.
Maybe
we
can
talk
about
like
next
steps
to
implementing
something
like
this,
like,
it
seems,
relatively
basic.
A
It
seems
like
something
even
I
could
do
using
like
the
generic
github
bots
that
exist
and
so
given
how
the
discussion
evolves
in
the
next
week.
I
think
this
is
something
that
we
can
move
up
to
the
category
of
like
actually
implementing
pretty
quickly
cool
so
on
the
other
ones
that
have
been
sort
of
pre-existing
a
little
bit
so
103
and
104.
A
How
busy
you
get
at
work-
and
things
like
that
like
this-
is,
of
course
not
your
your
primary
job.
I
would
love
to
hear
like
what
you
think
is
a
reasonable
amount
of
time
or
like
a
reasonable
expectation
to
set
with
notaries
around
like
how
long
we
typically
should
wait
before
like
getting
serious
about
like
having
a
note
to
either
step
up
and
serve
or
not,
but
yeah.
My
proposal
would
basically
be
like.
B
B
A
C
Yeah,
I
can
see
the
argument
for
wanting
longer
like
okay,
so
people
shouldn't
be
applying
to
be
a
notary
if
they're
not
prepared
to
verify
people,
but
I
can
understand,
maybe
in
the
future
we
have
people
that
are
applying
to
be
notaries
that
they
expect
to
say
hire
somebody
to
do
that
role
for
their
company,
and
so
you
wouldn't
do
that
before
being
accepted
as
a
notary.
So
I
can
understand.
Other
positions
might
where
it
might
take
longer.
I
feel,
like
a
month,
is
a
good.
It's
a
good
compromise.
A
E
Of
the
shorter
time,
though,
is
that
you
know
like
when
it's
only
you
know
14
days
like
you
know,
if
it's
been
14
days
and
you
haven't,
you
know
you
haven't
taken
any
actions
as
a
notary.
You
know
like.
I
think
that,
like
at
the
time
of
a
couple
months,
it's
easy
to
be
like.
Oh,
I
still
have
time.
You
know.
C
A
Yeah,
that's
interesting,
I
wonder
yeah.
I
wonder
if
there
needs
to
be
some
association
here
with,
like
the
last,
like
application
received
as
well
right.
So
maybe
it's
like
one
month
of
latent
like
four
weeks,
let's
say
four
weeks
because
we
like
to
operate
on
two
week
cycles
here
with
this
program.
So
four
weeks
from
your
last
action
as
a
notary
assuming
you
had
a
request
comes
in
is
like
a
warning
and
then
two
weeks
after
that
you
have
to
take
action.
Otherwise,
like
we
request
you
to
step
down
for
the
time.
A
I
don't
really
want
to
make
this
any
harder
for
nordies
than
it
is
because
the
notary
role
is
a
difficult
and
a
thankless
role
in
many
ways,
and
so
you're,
like
serving
the
network,
to
make
it
better
and
so
adding
stipulations
that
make
that,
like
a
higher
barrier
to
entry
like
I
don't
really
want
to
do
that
as
much
is,
is
part
of
like
what
I'd
also
present.
As
reasons
to
not
like
reduce
that
number
as
much.
A
C
E
D
A
A
A
From
like
purely
like
the
element
of
the
existence
of
data
cap.
However,
from
a
client
experience,
that's
not
a
good
experience,
and
so
I
would
say
we
should
get
like
more
aggressive
with
like
notification
bots,
and
we
should
get
more
aggressive
with
like
follow
up
like
follow
up
in
slack
or
in
falco.
In
fact.
So,
if
I
go
on
slack
or
github
or
whatever
each
notary
chooses
to
be
like
alerted
by
before,
we
decide
to
get
aggressive
about
removing
notice.
E
E
B
E
A
A
A
So
I
would
actually
say
we
should
say
like
if
you
haven't
like
reacted
as
a
notary
between
like
nerdy
elections.
So
roughly
once
a
quarter,
we
can
just
say:
maybe
three
months
then
like
we
should
just
remove
the
allocation
and
then,
for
the
time
being,
we
focus
more
on,
like
responsiveness
and
automation
for
responsiveness.
A
Okay,
I
think
I
think
I
think,
andrew
depending
on
how
you
feel
as
the
originator,
I
would
say,
feel
free
to
post
an
update
on
that,
and
then
we
can
either
close
it
out
or
discuss
it
again
if
needed
sounds
good
cool
and
then
the
the
next
one
was
on
adding
anticipated
response
time
and
throughput.
So
this
was
the
first
issue
that
I
think
spawned
like
a
bunch
of
really
good
and
creative.
A
Like
conversation
around
like
how
we
can
track
like
responsiveness
and
github,
including
the
data
that
you
now
sourced
andrew
and
are
publishing
via
the
crown
job
every
day,
is
there
anything
that
you
feel
went
unaddressed
from
that
like
for
me,
I
think
the
one
thing
that
I
wanted
to
take
away
from
that
issue
is
basically
like.
We
probably
want
to
add,
like
in
the
notary
election
process
this
time
around.
The
application
process,
like
part
of
you
signing
up
to
be
a
notary,
is
that,
yes,
you
will
respond
to
issues
within
like
x.
A
Amount
of
days
is
like
a
thing
that
you're
signing
up
for
and
you're
acknowledging
that
you're
signing
up
for
it,
but
other
than
that,
plus
the
automation,
we're
thinking
of
adding
plus,
like
the
tracking
that
we're
all
we're
starting
to
do.
I
kind
of
like
figured
that
that's
like
those
were.
The
main
points
I
was
getting
at.
Is
there
anything
else
that
you
feel
should
have
been
considered.
A
Nope
not
up
to
my
head
okay,
so
I
think
that
the
next
step,
so
that
is
like
I'll,
probably
make
a
separate
like
like
application
process,
sort
of
refinement
proposal
and
then
I'd
like
to
get
some
thumbs.
Ups
on
that
and
then
accordingly,
we
can
close
out
both
this
and
then
the
new
issue
of
file
based
on
it.
A
Sounds
good
sounds
good
cool
cool
and
then
the
last
one
is
around
like
large
data
cap
projects
so
like
defining.
These
is
like
one
peppy,
biographer
or
even
500,
terabytes
of
greater,
and
so
I've
been
doing
a
bunch
of
thinking
on
this.
I
actually
spent
some
time
like
looking
at
ways
in
which
we
could
pull
this
off
so
issue.
94
is
like
pretty
active
with
like
proposals
and
suggestions
at
the
moment.
Would
you
know
suggest
for
those
of
you
that
are
in
the
room?
A
We
should
think
about
like
an
initial
implementation
in
the
near
future
and
probably
use
starling
is
a
good
test
case
for
something
like
that
and
then
based
on
that.
Of
course,
I
think
we
learn
a
bunch
from
that
and
start
to
bring
it
to
like
smaller
smaller
applications,
as
well,
so
like
clients
that
are
requesting
like
a
new
allocation,
might
be
able
to
go
through
some
amount
of
automation
if
they're
just
getting
a
top-up,
as
opposed
to
like
needing
to
go
through
an
entire.
A
A
I
not
explicitly
I
would
like
what
I'm
like
off
the
top
of
my
head
right
now.
I'm
thinking
we'll
probably
take
a
week
or
so
to
sort
out
like,
like
the
things
around,
like
the
total
numbers
per
region
like
what
to
do
with
pre-existing
notaries
that
haven't
run
out
of
data
cap
and
then
like
if
we
want
to
tune
it
to
like
the
demand
in
the
region,
as
opposed
to
like
a
flat
number.
So
I
think
it'll
take
about
a
week
or
so
to
resolve
that
so
say.
D
A
Off
like
applications
like
at
the
start
of
the
following
week,
we
can
keep
applications
open
for
maybe
three
weeks
and
then
scoring
will
take
like
a
week,
and
so
I
off
the
top
of
my
head,
I
would
say
like
five
ish
weeks,
which
actually
puts
us
right
around
phil
plus
day,
which
is
may
11th.
So
maybe
that's
the
day.
We
shoot
for.
C
A
C
If
we
want
to
double
the
notary
size,
it
might
be
really
interesting
to
document
what
are
the
different
rubrics
in
use
and
what
are
some
of
the
things
that
we're
learning
from
them,
because,
as
a
new
notary
go
to
an
awesome,
just
pick
up,
you
know
somebody's
rubric
and
be
like
yeah.
I'm
going
to
run
with
this
as
my
starting
point
too
so
yeah
anyway.
That's.
A
A
great
suggestion:
that's
a
really
good
idea
depending
so
I'm
thinking.
If
there's
one
of
two
ways
like
one
is
either
we
make
that
a
topic
at
full
plus
day
and
then
have
the
applications
close
after
that
and
just
find
everything
back
or
the
others.
Like
you
said,
we
dedicated
one
of
these
meetings
to
that
and
have
a
session
on
that
where,
like
you
know,
40
minutes
of
it
is
reserved
for
that
kind
of
conversation.
My.
C
A
A
A
I'd
love
to
see
if
there
are
things
we
can
do
around
like
why
this
this
client
number
is,
is
only
a
fifth
of
allocated
data
cap.
I
wonder
what
what's
whether
it's
just
like
people
asking
for
a
lot
of
data
cap
or
if
it's
just
like
allegation
like
usage
of
allocation,
is
slow
or
if
it's
something
else,
I
think
there's
probably
some
good
good
takeaways
for.
A
A
D
A
A
So
if
you
have
any
ideas
on
that,
specifically
I'd
love
to
hear
them,
let's
talk
in
the
field
plus
channel
on
falcon
slack,
and
the
same
applies
to
just
in
general,
five
point
plus
day
summit.
If
you
have
stuff
you'd
like
to
talk
about
like
pose,
is
talked
about,
please
reach
out
to
either
me
and
megan,
as
we
figure
out
like
what's
gonna
happen
happen
thanks
again
for
coming.
I
have
a
wonderful
rest
of
your
days
depending
on
where
you're
on
the
world
take
care
and
we'll
talk
soon.