►
From YouTube: Fil+ September 20, 2022 Notary Governance Call
Description
The September 20th community governance calls to discuss the Filecoin Plus program.
Slides and Links: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/18rCgjKSvRhLIKS5qKRC95b0YmFZCOhWENQ1EK3DwkFc/edit?usp=sharing
Agenda
- 4th Notary Election Dates
- FIPs 0036 and 0045 Final Calls
- Trust and Transparency Update
- E-Fil+ Update
Proposals Discussions
-- 568: 2nd Round Notaries on LDN
-- 587: LDN Application
-- 602: Self Reporting
-- 608: GITHUB Account requirements
- LDN Application Discussion: #974 (Sufy-Huidi-Data)
Github: https://github.com/filecoin-project/notary-governance/issues/609
If you would like to attend these meetings LIVE, the Fil+ Notary Governance calendar is available at: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=c_k1gkfoom17g0j8c6bam6uf43j0%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America%2FLos_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
All
right
well
good
morning,
good
afternoon,
good
evening,
welcome
to
the
September
20th
notary
governance.
Call,
let's
take
a
quick
look
at
what
we
have
planned
as
far
as
topics
on
this
go.
Typically
at
a
very
high
level.
We
share
this
agenda.
We
kind
of
modify
it.
Sometimes
we
take
time
for
metrics.
Sometimes
we
take
time
for
other
things.
This
call
we
have
a
lot
of
discussions
around
the
proposals,
the
fips
and
the
elections.
A
So
if
you
would
like
to
see
the
metrics,
we
leave
those
links
posted
in
the
starboard
and
registry
dashboard
I
could
share
those
again,
but
we're
going
to
carve
out
a
little
bit
more
time
on
this
call
for
the
proposal.
Discussions
and
some
of
the
updates
It
Feels
So
metrics.
You
can
take
a
look
on
your
own
as
we
go
through
it
friendly
hello.
If
you're
joining
the
call
or
haven't
seen
us
for
a
while
oops
sorry,
there
are
four
of
us
that
make
up
the
notary
governance,
Team,
Deep,
Galen,
myself
and
RG.
A
You
could
tap
us
for
any
respective
things
that
you
may
see
on
this
list
and
we'll
be
happy
to
back
you
up
and
provide
support.
One
quick
caveat
is
that
Galen
might
have
delayed
comms
over
the
next
couple
of
weeks.
So
if
you
do
send
a
message
to
Galen
I
recommend
that
you
CC,
myself
and
I'll
be
sure
to
help
Fast
Track,
that
for
you,
as
we
go
forward
on
that,
and
also
if
you're
on
the
call
right
now
and
you're
going
to
share
or
present,
it's
really
helpful
to
change
your
name
I'll.
A
Do
it
on
myself
right
now,
if
I
click
on
my
profile
picture
and
I
hit
edit
rename
I
can
then
change
it
from
just
saying
Kevin
to
putting
the
organization
on
behind
like
filecoin
foundation,
and
this
way,
if
we
have
this
recording
and
someone
watches,
it's
a
lot
easier
for
them
to
link
the
questions
to
who
was
asking
it
as
well
as
us
to
allocate
stick
time.
Obviously
totally
optional,
as
you
go
forward
on
that,
just
makes
a
little
bit
easier,
I'm
also
going
to
drop
the
link
to
the
air
table
form.
A
A
A
Then
starting
on
November
1st
we're
going
to
open
up
the
timeline
for
applications
to
be
submitted
in
past
election
Cycles.
We
kept
this
period
around
two
weeks
and
the
feedback
was
having
a
couple
extra
days
would
make
this
easier
on
everybody,
so
you'll
notice
that
time
frame
has
gone
from
around
10
days
up
to
16,
to
give
you
more
time
to
get
the
application
in
after
that,
we
allocate
another
three
weeks
for
what
we
call
scoring
and
review
questions.
A
So
if
you
turn
in
an
application
and
we
have
questions
or
we
need
any
kind
of
clarification,
another
feedback
we
got
on
the
election
cycle
was
the
turnaround.
Time
needed
was
just
so
quick
that
it
made
it
stressful.
So
hopefully,
this
way
we
can
have
a
few
weeks
give
you
time
to
not
just
put
in
your
application
but
be
ready
for
any
updates.
A
So,
just
as
a
heads
up,
that'll
be
kicking
off
and
then,
as
a
very
just
kind
of
introduce
you
to
the
program,
we're
going
to
be
rolling
out
some
changes
with
the
scoring
sheet
and
the
levels
of
notaries
we'll
get
into
this
at
more
of
a
strategic
and
tactical
level
on
the
next
couple
of
calls,
but
just
to
kind
of
kick
start.
The
conversation
we're
looking
at
how
scoring
participates,
but
like
just
the
slas
as
well
as
what
does
it
mean
to
be
a
notary?
A
That's
like
I'm,
going
to
be
approving
LDN
big
applications,
so
we're
going
to
be
drawing
out
what
that
proposal
looks
like
and
sharing
that
on
the
next
call,
but
just
at
a
high
level,
I
hope
what
you're
taking
away
is.
The
fourth
call
excuse
me.
Fourth,
election
is
getting
ready
to
kick
off
and
that'll
start
here
at
the
last
week
of
October,
and
then
the
election
kicks
off
I'll
pause
and
see.
If
anybody
has
any
questions
before
we
move
on.
A
These
have
had
a
lot
of
discussion,
so
there
was
a
last
call
that
was
issued,
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
was
on
everyone's
radar
and
that
you
were
having
a
takeaway
for
it.
Second,
we
have
two
guest
speakers
that
are
joining
us
that
are
going
to
talk
about
their
programs.
Kevin
Z
will
give
an
update
on
e-fill,
plus
and
RG
is
here
to
kind
of
walk
us
through
some
trust
and
transparency
updates
for
us
as
well.
A
Then,
as
far
as
proposals,
we've
had
four
big
proposals
that
we've
talked
about
over
the
last
couple
of
weeks,
hoping
just
like
the
fips
to
give
these
one
last
voice
before
we
start
to
Sunset
these
into
a
final
decision.
So
lots
of
time
allocated
for
discussions
around
the
issues
that
you
see
this
slide
deck
is
been
LinkedIn
slack.
So
if
you're,
the
kind
of
personality
that
likes
to
have
this
in
front
of
you
or
pull
this
up,
please
jump
into
the
fill
plus
channel
on
the
public.
A
Slack
and
you'll
see
all
this
listed
and
then
one
late
item
ad
is
an
update
from
begin.
So
we'll
add
that
to
this
list
at
the
top
of
the
hour,
and
then
we
had
one
LDN
application
I'll
share
their
video,
so
you
could
watch
it
for
the
notaries
on
the
call
and
if
anybody
has
questions
we'll
give
them
a
chance
to
kind
of
allocate
or
address
anything
as
we
go
forward.
B
B
At
this
point,
I
think
it's
it's
considered
relatively
non-controversial.
I
had
a
couple
of
comments
and
and
us
on
the
team.
Last
week,
when
we
sat
down,
we
went
together
and
clarified
a
lot
of
our
understanding
with
the
actors
team,
and
so
we
might
be
making
some
changes
to
the
draft
to
improve
some
aspects
of
readability.
But
overall,
it's
looking
in
good
shape
in
terms
of
like
what
the
intent
is
and
what
the
goals
are.
B
Realistically,
so,
even
for,
like
the
next
six
months,
I
would
imagine,
like
things
are
going
to
stay
largely
the
same
I
see
your
question
in
chat
according
to
the
Lord
is
the
maximum
sector.
Duration
is
540
days
if
a
client
wants
to
store
data
for
540
days,
while
the
minor
sector
duration
is
360
days.
What
happens
when
this
sectors
expire.
B
Halia,
you
can't
store
a
deal
in
a
sector.
That's
going
to
expire
before
the
deal
ends
so
either
you're
going
to
go
into
a
sector
extension
scenario
where
you're
extending
the
life
of
the
sector
to
match
the
deal,
or
you
know,
you're
not
going
to
put
it
in
that
sector.
You
put
it
in
a
sector
where
it
can
actually
be
stored.
B
This
is
interesting,
so
if
a
deal
is
being
extended,
the
mechanism
for
this
doesn't
exist
today
in
a
way
that
the
deal
extension
is
verified.
So
yes,
if
you're
going
to
save,
if
you're
just
going
to
extend
the
deal
with
whatever
inbuilt
stuff,
there
is
not
with
Feb
45
pass,
then.
Yes,
the
the
qap
adjustment
will
drop
because
there's
no
way
to
apply
that
new
data
cap
for
that,
and
so
with
45,
though
you
would
have
the
same
quality
adjustment,
and
so
it
would
continue
to
provide
10x
without
flip
45.
B
The
client
would
have
to
go
get
more
data
cap
and
issue
a
new
deal,
and
so
it
would
still
be
easier
because
the
data
transfer
would
not
be
required
because
the
SP
already
has
the
CID,
but
it
would
not
be
like
the
you
know.
The
super
cheap
extension
with
qap,
at
least
to
my
understanding
I,
might
be
wrong,
but
I'm
pretty
sure
that's
accurate
foreign.
B
45,
no
there's
no
Poll
for
45.
in
general,
it
wasn't
nearly
as
controversial
and
the
poll
isn't
even
really
pulled
out
a
handful
of
times,
but
Eric
I
mean
if
you
have
any
suggestions,
agreements
or
disagreements
so
that
you
know
please
feel
free
to
to
post
directly
as
an
issue
in
the
repo
itself
or
on
one
of
the
newer
PRS.
It
would
be
great
yeah,
I
think
Eric.
That
is
the
plan
right
now.
I
I
think
23rd
is
the
last
call
the
the
signaling
that
we're
getting
from
the
core
devs.
C
Yeah,
so
the
main
update
on
the
trust
and
transparency
side
is,
we
stood
up
the
working
group
for
Progressive
transparency
and
if
there
are
any
proposals
or
discussions
related
to
data
cap,
abuse
it'd
be
great.
If
you
can
start
the
discussion
in
this
channel.
If
the
link
is
here,
if
you
are
not
in
the
channel
yet
we're
also
looking
to
hold
bi-weekly
calls,
I
didn't
want
to
kind
of
propose
on
time
and
day,
A
Time
right
away.
So
what
I'll
be
doing
is
setting
out
a
short
survey
to
get
a
sense.
C
What
times
work
I'll
also
be
looking
for
potentially
two
volunteer
moderators,
because
you
know
the
goal
of
this
working
group
is
sort
of
for
the
community
to
come
together
and
discuss
so
I,
don't
want
to
be,
like
kind
of
you
know,
take
a
top-down
approach
where
you
know
I'm
kind
of
telling
the
community
what
to
do,
and
so
just
look
out.
You
know
the
card
for
that
other
than
that.
We
again
just
as
a
flag.
C
D
All
right
thanks,
K
Ray,
hi,
everyone,
I'm
KZ,
for
those
of
you
who
I
haven't
interacted
with
yet
I
work
for
for
protocol
Labs
on
the
client
growth
team
and
I've,
been
put
in
charge
as
project
manager
for
the
e-fill
plus
project.
Over
the
past
few
months,
behind
the
scenes
we've
been
working
on
the
planning
phase
for
this
pilot,
putting
together
details
of
how
it
will
work,
what
processes
were
needed
to
better
enable
onboarding
of
private
data
and
how
we
can
better
support
SPS
who
are
looking
to
onboard
new
new
clients.
D
So
yesterday,
I
posted
a
modification
in
the
GitHub
repo,
with
the
details
that
I'm
proposing
to
be
part
of
the
pilot,
so
without
going
through
everything
and
and
I
recommend
everyone
to
go
to
the
modification
and
read
through
the
proposal.
But
we,
you
know,
we
talked
through
a
lot
of
this
behind
the
scenes
with
a
notary
working
group
with
SPS
who've
applied,
we've
sort
of
gained
consensus
on
the
need
to
check
the
business
and
the
data
owner
a
little
bit
more
thoroughly
before
approving
applications
for
datacap.
D
D
Additionally,
we're
we
focused
on
providing
more
efficiency
and
approvals.
That's
been,
you
know
a
lot
of
feedback
and
and
thoughts
that
people
have
had
about
not
only
this
process,
but
also
just
Phil
Plus
in
general.
So
we
really
want
to
Pilot
this
idea
of
having
notaries
be
Auto
assigned
that
are
part
of
the
working
group
to
approve
the
applications.
D
Just
to
sum
this
up
so
so
I
would
love
everyone
to
read
through
this
provide
some
feedback
on
the
proposal
in
the
GitHub
repo
I'll
be
starting
working
group
calls
bi-weekly
it'll
actually
be
the
same
time
as
this
call
every
other
Tuesday.
So
next
Tuesday
will
be
the
first
call
at
11,
A.M,
Eastern
and
there'll
also
be
an
evening
call
for
the
other
time
zones
to
sort
of
act
as
open
Office
hours.
My
job
as
part
of
this
project
is
to
lead
and
support
the
SPs
who
are
applying.
D
D
You
know
run
by
the
community
and
bringing
ideas
and
thoughts
and
and
working
together
as
a
group
to
help
push
applications
through
and
make
this
a
successful
program
so
that
the
plan
is
to
kick
this
off
in
the
next
few
weeks
in
October
we
have
SPS
who've
applied
that
will
get
started
with
the
program
and
over
the
next
few
months,
we'll
we'll
continue
to
assess
how
it's
going.
You
know,
I'll,
provide
updates
on
the
governance.
Calls
we'll
hold.
The
working
group
calls.
We
have
a
separate
working
group
select
channel.
A
D
A
A
So
this
proposal
was
how
are
we
as
a
community
and
how
is
the
government's
team
dealing
with
technological
updates
that
may
come
through
and
then
a
lot
of
the
discussion
that
came
from
this
issue
from
the
community
was
hey.
We
need
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
prioritizing
people
that
may
have
intentionally
not
participated
or
intentionally
been
dropped
off.
Due
to
this,
so
I
wanted
to
kind
of
provide
some
color
that
I
saw
in
discussions
on
this
and
then
kind
of
put.
One
final
thought
is
before
we
close
this
out.
A
First,
the
question
came
up:
were
these
two
notaries,
people
that
had
reapplied
and
then
been
denied,
and
the
answer
is
no
and
then
the
second
was.
Maybe
we
asked
these
two
notaries
if
they'd
feel
comfortable
just
coming
forward
forward
sharing
a
little
bit
about
themselves,
neither
of
them
thought
that
it
was
something
that
they
want
to
lift.
They
will
just
reapply
and
kind
of
stay
behind
the
scenes.
A
So
I'm
going
to
close
this
issue
out,
not
add
the
two
second
round,
notaries
onto
the
multi-sig,
but
one
of
the
things
that
I'll
be
leaving
a
comment
on
is
probably
in
the
next
round
of
Elections
baking
in
some
wording
that
if
you
do
not
reapply,
it's
not
like
it's
going
to
block
you
from
receiving
technical
updates
that
we
make
in
order
to
make
the
notary
process
a
little
bit
simpler.
So
I
wanted
to
share
that
give
a
final
round
of
input
or
thoughts
before
we
put
that
close
button
on
this
issue.
A
All
right,
this
one
is
pretty
straightforward.
If
anything
comes
to
light,
I'll
leave
it
up
for
the
next
couple
of
days
feel
free
to
comment
on
five
six,
eight
all
right.
Next
one
was
five.
Eight
seven
I
know
that
these
were
a
kind
of
a
batch
from
you
Carolina
did
you
want
to
kick
this
off
and
then
I'll
kind
of
circle
up.
F
F
That
makes
me
wonder
if
it's
right
to
have
encrypted
encrypted
data
set,
has
the
same
requirement
and
from
what
I
saw
I,
don't
think
just
personally
I,
don't
think
they
did
answer
notarized
question
properly.
I,
don't
know
if
that
would
be
considered.
If
that
would
be
considered
as
enough
transparency
like
for
private
data,
I
think
it
needs
better
to
improve
the
credibility
of
the
application.
I
did
some
recap
on
the
link
itself.
I
think
it
would
be
better
to
get
some
Community
input.
B
I
mean
I
think
this
one.
It
also
introduces
just
a
bunch
of
like
just
clarification
of
things
that
we
have
as
assumptions
and
at
the
very
least,
my
current
opinion
on
it
is
at
the
very
least.
We
should
include
some
of
this
stuff
in
the
documentation
for
the
LDN
process,
even
if
we
include
it
as
precedence
and
not
as
like.
You
know,
formal
requirement,
Cairo
part
of
why
it
hasn't
been
added
like
that
is
because
we,
you
know,
number
one.
B
We
weren't
sure
what
the
changes
might
be,
that
we
introduced
to
the
E
field
plus
working
group,
and
the
second
was
we
didn't
know
how
many
of
these
types
of
cases
we
would
even
see
in
the
immediate
term,
but
given
that
we're
seeing
even
more
of
these
might
not
be
a
bad
idea
to
just
integrate
this
in
I.
Think
right.
So
it
could
be
interesting
to
just
see
if
we
can,
at
the
very
least
State.
Some
of
these
things
is
basic.
B
F
D
I'll
make
I'll
make
one
comment
based
on
feedback
I've
received
when
we
were
talking
about
the
number
of
notaries
required
to
approve
for
the
efo
pilot.
So
a
lot
of
the
SPs
involved
are
not
excited
to
have
like
we
talked
about
having
you
know,
all
of
the
all
of
the
notaries
in
the
working
group
approve
applications
could
be
upwards
of
12
plus
right,
but
not
only
is
that
time
consuming,
but
also
the
SPs
aren't
looking
to
have
X
number
of
notaries,
see
knowing
who
the
clients
are
and
what
the
data
is.
D
F
Yeah
what
I
was
thinking
about
this
is,
you
know,
five
on
the
notaries,
the
it's
like
a
small
circle,
everyone!
Basically
you
know,
everyone
knows
everyone
in
certain
region
and
the
five
notaries
doesn't
stop
from
collusion.
That's
what
I
think
it's!
It
would
be
nice
to
see.
You
know
people
sharing
opinions
about
this,
but
I
don't
think
I
have
got
enough
feedback.
That's
why
I'm
bringing
it
up
here.
A
Good
flag,
it
sounds
like
if
there's
any
discussions,
we'll
check
it
out,
and
maybe
what
we
just
kind
of
say
is
that
we'll
give
this
one
more
week,
whatever
feedback
we've
collected,
we'll
we'll
move
forward
with
appreciate
you
flagging
that
the
next
one
is
a
little
bit
about
the
LDN
rules
and
applications.
Similar
I
know
that
you
flagged
this
one
as
well.
Would
you
like
to
kind
of
bring
this
up
and
provide
an
update
as
of
this
post
seven
days
ago,.
F
Yes,
I
would
love
to
do
that
about
602
audienced
application.
One
second
yeah
I
actually
brought
up
like
three
proposals.
Right,
like
personally
I
think
that
the
most
well
the
most
risk-free
one
is
this
one
like
the
notaries
should
circumvent
the
project
that
they
enjoy,
that
they
join,
that
they
share
partnership
with
other
SPS
join
us
as
Space
by
themselves.
I
did
some
recap
on
the
proposal
itself
as
well,
and
I.
Think
I
have
set
up
already
a
lot
in
the
proposal
and
it
would
be
nice
to
help
people.
F
F
But
yeah
the
recap
part
like
the
disadvantage
from
what
I
saw
is.
We
cannot
completely
prevent
collusion
as
what
I
mentioned
before
and
a
potential
self-dealing,
but
the
good
part
is
it.
Does
limit
self-dealing
and
reduce
this
piece
like
people
are
arguing
about
some,
you
know
SSP
and
notary.
Why
would
you
join
both
applications
right?
It
doesn't
seem
fair,
like
if
one
aspect
in
the
community
doesn't
have
the
role
as
notary.
They
would
actually
say
that
as
unfair.
F
C
I
think
I
think
the
I
I
think
the
proposal
is
great.
I.
Think
one
of
the
things
is
it
comes
down
to
reinforcement
of
this
right.
I
think
it'll
be
good
to
have
this
as
a
guideline,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
how
do
we
make
sure?
Because
I
think
you
know,
there's
been
a
discussion
in
the
community
about
what
is
really
the
incentive
for
a
notary,
right
and
I?
C
Think
we
don't
really
have
explicit
incentives
today
and
one
of
the
incentives
for
the
notary
from
is,
among
other
things
so
like
they
might
be
like
fill
holders
or
they
might
have
an
interest
in.
You
know
the
success
of
the
program
I.
Think
in
that,
like
you
know,
knowing
that
I
think
it
can
be
a
bit
difficult
to
kind
of
start
policing
this
in
some
sense
and
I.
F
I
I
got
a
porn
to
RG,
I
I
think
the
same
like
notaries
they
can
be,
they
can
make
their
connections
public
or
not.
That's
their
personal
choice,
the
choice
but
like
in
the
links
I
shared
below
they
are
actually
applicants
that
they
share
the
SPs
that
they're
going
to
be
working
with
in
the
certain
application.
F
C
It
can
be
a
bit
tricky
to
kind
of
put
the
gun
on
the
on
the
head
of
the
person
holding
the
gun
right
so
to
say,
and
so
yeah
but
I
agree
that
this
this
would
be
a
great
addition
to
the
guidelines
and
yeah.
If
the
community
feels
collectively
that
we
should
start
signaling
more
which
I
am
in
the
favor
of
then
we
should
go
ahead.
F
Yeah
I
absolutely
have
your
point
and
there's
another
point
that
I
would
like
to
add
in
it's
like.
We
have
a
lot
notaries
like
50,
something
yeah,
one
notaries
absence
won't
stop
the
application
from
you
know,
get
approved,
that's
the
most
important
part
of
it.
It
will
not
reduce
the
overall
power
of
the
network.
That's
what
I
think
it
will
certainly
not
do
that.
Yeah
and
Alex.
Is
there
anything
you
want
to
add.
E
B
I
just
want
to
flag
a
couple
of
things.
The
tokenization
of
data
cap
is
not
actually
resulting
in
it
being
like
a
purchasable
asset
or
an
exchangeable
asset
that
way
Alex.
You
should
go
check
out.
The
FIB
and
I
actually
think
that
would
be
like
pretty
bad,
because
it
would
create
like
a
a
disassociation
between
the
actual
client
and
the
project
and
what
the
data
Gap
is
given
for.
B
So
we
don't
want
that
generally,
the
minting
of
it
in
a
way
that
it
can
be
predicted
on
how
it's
going
to
be
used
is
where
the
value
add
comes
in
and
we
will
get
that
with
45.
So
your
philosophy
is
accurate.
I
agree
with
where
you're
coming
from
just
your
choice
of
words
is
there's
some
parts
of
that
that
are
dangerous
and
so
I'm
just
flagging
that
Carol
I've
been
thinking
about
this
one.
B
A
lot
and
I
I
feel
like
if
you
can
come
up
with
a
good
way
to
implement
this
in
a
way
that
it
doesn't
significantly
impact
applications
that
are
trying
to
do
the
right
thing
where
the
notaries
themselves,
even
though
they're
SP
they're,
actually
benefiting
the
network.
I
would
be
supportive,
but
my
feeling
today
is
that
actually
I
don't
think
it
makes
sense
to
this
because
of
two
reasons:
number
one
I
think
the
role
of
the
notary
itself
needs
to
change
a
little
bit
over
time.
B
B
What
we
should
instead
do
is
force
more
notaries
to
be
part
of
the
decision
to
reduce
the
leverage
provided
by
an
individual
notary
or
shift
that
notary
role
to
come
later
in
the
line
to
act
more
on
the
due
diligence
and
the
abuse
cases,
rather
than
every
single
application
and
I
think
those
are
better
long-term
directions
than
trying
to
to
do
this.
Because
I
think
this
will
just
it
will
work
for
a
few
weeks.
And
then
you
know
the
people
that
want
to
cheat
the
system
will
easily
cheat
the
system.
F
Yeah
I
don't
agree
with
what
you
said,
but
there's
a
point:
I
don't
got
like
a
via
notary
means.
You
don't
have
income
right.
You
don't
get
nothing
from
that,
but
as
as
space
you
get
power
or
tokens
or
files,
whatever
you
call
it.
I
I,
don't
know
why
they
have
to
take
to
rows.
At
the
same
time,
I
mean
the.
If
the
application
is
genuine,
there
are
50
something
notice
left.
F
B
F
B
F
B
F
This
this
application-
sorry
again,
it's
not
to
to
to
force
notaries
to
to
make
their
notes
public
or
their
connections,
not
at
all,
just
for
the
applications
that
they
mentioned
is
themselves
like
if
I'm,
not
a
company
but
but
I.
If
I'm
company
I
applied
it
on
behave
on
behave
of
my
client
and
I
made
the
application
and
assign
it
that's
gonna,
be
yes,
I.
B
B
Yeah
so
I
mean
if
the
if
the
final
recommendation
is,
you
know,
put
documentation
language
that
says
you
know
it's
against
the
policy.
The
program
to
participate
in
every
single
role
in
the
value
proposition
of
an
LDN
flow.
So,
like
don't
be
the
client
and
the
notary
and
the
SP
I
think
that's
a
reasonable
piece
to
put
into
documentation.
I
just
think
it'll
be
harder
to
action,
but
that
at
least
gives
us
something
that
if
we
do
catch
a
case
of
it,
then
we
can
take
that
up
as
a
dispute.
B
Remove
that
notary
and
like
find
some
ways
to
reprimand
in
the
future.
I
think
that
is
a
more
concrete
proposal
and
I
think
that
that
is
what
we
should
probably
take
forward
and
see
what
people
have
to
say,
I,
think
picking
taking
it
down
to
two
roles
is
really
difficult.
But
if
we
were
to
say
you
cannot
be
all
three
I
think
that's
a
good
starting
point.
F
Oh,
there
sorry
there's
a
question
from
Katrina
I
guess
we're
only
taking
two
real
songs
like
you're
having
a
conscience
right
now.
Isn't
it
like?
That's,
not
the
intention
for
my
purpose,
so
I
would
like
to
have.
If
you
are
SP
working
on
the
same
project,
you
can,
you
know,
use
your
connections,
invite
other
notaries
to
sign
for
you,
but
I
prefer
not
to
have
them
directly
involved.
B
I
think
so
I
do
this
again.
I
just
want
to
have.
This
came
up
like
when
we
were
first
designing
the
LDN
process
and
what
we
thought
then,
was
that
hey,
there's
like
you're
saying
right,
there's
enough
other
notaries,
but
the
approach
that
we
took
was
slightly
different,
which
is
because
there's
enough
other
notaries.
B
We
would
propose
a
system
with
seven
notaries,
so
you
need
six
others
or
even
if
you
you
know,
you
sign
this
application,
you
can't
send
the
next
one,
and
so
the
Assumption
was
effectively
like,
even
if
an
SP
participates
as
the
notary
and
the
SP
there's
enough
other
faces
in
the
mix
kind
of
like
what
you
were
describing
for
the
previous
issue,
right
yeah.
What
I'm
hearing
from
you
is.
B
C
B
B
But
if,
if
you
know,
if
the
whole
Community
thinks
that
it
makes
sense
to
try
and
put
that
in
the
documentation,
I'd
love
to
figure
out
how
we
can
also
then
follow
through
on
that.
My
fear
is
basically
introducing
a
lot
of
policy
that
we
cannot
enforce,
reduces
the
usefulness
of
future
policy.
That's
that's
my
risk.
B
B
B
Now,
a
lot
of
people
that
have
Falcon
and
participate
in
this
and
care
about
the
success
and
network
are
the
ones
that
are
making
it
their
full-time
jobs,
and
that
happens
to
be
the
storage
providers
and
that's
why
I
think
from
an
incentive
standpoint.
It's
not
the
worst
thing
for
a
notary
to
be
a
storage
provider
either
like
that's
fine.
That
is
a
way
in
which
they
are
incentivized
to
do
a
good
job
and
move
quickly.
B
Then
that's
okay,
but
then
we
need
to
put
enough
in
the
system
that
there's
a
check
and
a
balance
somewhere
down
the
line
so
like
empowering
the
people
that
are
this
disagreeing
with
the
decisions
or
setting
policy.
That's
like
don't
do
all
of
it,
for
example,
are
ways
in
which
we
can
deter,
that
we
can
never
prevent
it,
and
so,
instead
of
preventing
it,
what
we
should
take.
B
F
Yeah
I
don't
think
we
should
enforce
it
as
a
brew
like
not
at
all.
Maybe
that's
like
a
guideline.
You
know.
If
there
are
people
notice,
some
knows
are
doing
some
weird
dealing
or
some
connections.
People
could
find
it
out
and
comment
and
reflect
the
community.
That
would
be
a
better
way
to
do
it.
Yeah.
A
Good
Flags
I
put
the
link
here
in
the
chat.
I
think
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
kind
of
move
this
to
the
finish
line.
So
if
anybody
had
any
additional
contacts
or
thoughts,
this
would
be
the
time
to
add
it.
In
that
thread,
we
still
have
this
plus
one
more,
so
maybe
only
allocated
around
two
three
minutes
for
this
at
a
really
high
level.
Do
you
want
to
kind
of
talk
about
this
GitHub
issue?
This
came
up
on
the
last
call
as
well.
F
Yeah
yeah,
okay,
guys.
It's
me
again
about
this
proposal
like
I,
already
shared
enough
from
my
side
under
the
proposal
itself,
but
I
made
some
change
to
the
duration
and
the
revised
version
is
lowering
90
days
to
16,
but
with
one
variable
yeah
Kevin.
Could
you
go
down
in
this
part,
so
I'm
changing
the
duration
to
6
Plus
x
x
is
defined
as
the
number
of
days
from
the
submission
date,
which
is
4th
September
to
the
approval
date
of
The
Proposal
I
get
this
idea
from
the
joke.
F
In
the
last
conference
call
it
will
be
literally
pointless
if
it's
if
it
takes,
you
know
90
days
to
get
it
approved
and
if
only
I
think
I
got
a
lot
of
comments
here,
like
people
are
saying
like,
oh
maybe
we
should
take
it
as
half
a
year
and
60
days,
30
days,
seven
days
from
my
point
of
view,
I
think
60s
is
appropriate
and
with
X
is
limiting
the
sorry
for
folks
who
are
watching
this
right
now
and
religious
team
account
at
the
moment.
That's
that
will
certainly
block
this
kind
of
cheating,
Behavior.
B
B
F
B
Well,
that's
that's
different.
That
was
an
idea
that
I
just
you
know
just
chatting
around
and
thinking
that
that
to
me
is
kind
of
like
we
need
a
layer,
a
social
layer
on
top
of
GitHub,
even
right
that
says:
okay,
when
Carol
here
posts,
something
Carol
here
has
posted
10
other
things.
So
this
is
a
person
that
has
some
reputation
in
the
community
which
is
different
than
like.
You
know
if
I
don't
know
Cairo
not
here
shows
up
tomorrow
and
like
starts
saying:
oh,
this
is
bad.
B
This
is
bad,
don't
do
it
don't
do
it
and
like
says
no
to
everything
that
Carol
here
is
saying,
but
Carol
not
here
has
never
existed
in
community.
Has
no
reputation
has
no
no
proof
of
participation
in
the
community,
then
the
rest
of
us
know:
okay,
like
this-
is
just
somebody
who's
here
to
disagree
with
Carol.
That
doesn't
mean
that
we
have
to
listen,
or
this
is
like
a
high
leverage
input.
It's
just
like
an
arbitrary
Anonymous
person
versus
somebody.
B
Who's
earned
a
lot
of
reputation
in
the
Falcon
plus
community
and
we
all
know
that
they
understand
it,
and
so
it's
not
that
we
it's
not
to
say
that
we
shouldn't
listen
to
new
opinions,
but
more
that
we
should
Wade
the
ones
that
have
earned
the
weight
better
over
time
and
give
people
a
reason
and
incentive
to
stick
with
the
program
long
term
and
establish
themselves
in
the
community.
That
to
me,
is
a
different
different
problem
than
I
opened
up
a
new
GitHub
application
to
apply
for
data
cap.
We
have
data
on
that
one.
F
A
I'm
gonna
say
this
one
really
quick.
That
way.
We
save
more
time
we
tried
having
the
second
governance
call
in
August
at
a
different
time
shift.
We
had
greater
participation.
There
was
a
question
on.
Why
did
we
move
back?
We
are
going
to
float
feedback
from
the
folks
that
came
to
that
call
and
during
the
fourth
round
of
Elections,
asked
the
majority
of
the
notary
population
what
time
works
best,
so
this
issue
was
not
dead.
I
wanted
to
bring
this
back
up.
A
B
I
think
we
can
just
do
a
really
quick
one
and
I
think
that
there
was
a
one
client
application
that
we
can
keep
five
minutes
for
if
you'd
like
as
well
Eric's
in
the
call
Eric.
Okay.
So
there's
a
there's,
a
there's,
a
few
things
that
you
know
we
went
back
and
forth
on
if
it's
okay
with
you
can
I
share.
Some,
like
summary
of
our
conversation,
put
it
in
the
in
the
comment
and
then
recommend
that
we
move
forward
with
the
initial
allocation.
B
Do
you
or
do
you
want
to
share
your
version
of
it?
I
don't
know
effectively,
like
the
the
I
think,
there's
information
that
was
to
the
community
there's
information
that
was
provided
to
me
over
email
privately,
because
I
was
asking
a
lot
of
questions
that
was
not
shared
on
the
comment
side,
but
I
don't
think
it's
particularly
sensitive
and
so
I
just
want
to
figure
out
with
Eric
like
let's,
please,
post
that
and
share
that
with
a
group
of
notaries
that
are
doing
the
due
diligence
and
then,
let's
move
forward.
A
A
Right
and
those
of
you
on
the
call
watching
they
submitted
a
video
I
will
link
it
in
our
application
as
well
as
notaries.
If
you
want
to
watch
just
kind
of
explaining
what
their
project
is,
what
they're
looking
for
as
far
as
like
any
kind
of
signatures,
any
questions
to
kind
of
get
ahead
of
it,
but
just
making
themselves
known,
is
like
very
active,
very
much
looking
for
a
tie-in
to
kind
of
get
back
to
some
of
the
questions
just
came
into
slack
before
we
give
you
the
two
minutes.
A
A
571
or
proposal
we'll
follow
up
with
you,
offline
I
think
RG
will
be
hitting
that
one
and
just
kind
of
giving
you
some
talking
points
to
to
come
back
to
that.
So
with
that
pending
any
other,
like
any
notes,
we'll
give
you
two
minutes
back.
Was
there
anything
else
that
anybody
wanted
to
flag
before
we
sign
off.
E
Yeah
one
minute,
I
guess
I
guess
one
one
topic
that
I
just
wanna
get
in
here.
Just
so
we
can
start
thinking
about
is
actually
having
another
governance
team
that
is
not
focused
on
only
on
notaries,
but
focus
on
Cyclone
plus
as
like,
more
broad
chance
and
having
more
a
more
discussion
around
the
process
involved
in
the
Falcon
plus
program
as
a
whole,
especially
if
you're
thinking
about
actually
changing
a
lot
of
what
an
order
is
and
and
like.
A
So
that's
what
we
are
I'm,
sorry
just
to
interrupt
so
I've
I
focus
on
notaries
and
Community,
but
along
with
Galen,
who
focuses
on
large
data
sets
RG
who
focuses
on
the
trust
and
transparency
element
and
deep
who's
focused
on
like
the
deal
size
and
the
unification.
Then
we
also
have
the
the
forks
like
Kevin,
who
presented
the
e-fill
plus
program
for
the
Enterprise.
Speaking
of
it
so
yeah
those
those
groups
are
up,
those
are
ready
and
if
you're
Keen
to
participate,
please
link
up
with
RG,
please
link
up
with
Casey.
A
Sweet,
my
man
all
right.
Well,
we
have
90
seconds
left
I.
Think
that's
enough!
Remember!
If
there's
any
topics
that
you'd
like
to
see
in
these
discussions,
we
post
the
GitHub
every
week
after
the
call
so
we'll
be
up
for
two
weeks,
just
add
a
line
item
and
we'll
make
sure
to
save
you
time.
Other
than
that,
thanks
for
coming
and
we'll
see
you
guys
on
the
next
call
in
a
few
hours,
cheers
thanks.
E
A
A
This
is
a
friendly
note.
We
always
introduce
ourselves
whether
it's
the
first
or
second
call
Deep
Galen,
myself
and
RG
we're
your
governance
team.
We
can
back
you
up
with
anything
going
on
within
the
field
plus
program
as
well
as
some
of
the
outline
that
are
coming
on
board,
like
Casey
who's,
on
the
call
which
we'll
talk
about
that
as
we
go.
A
There's
only
three
of
us
we'll
spend
time
on
this
and
then
Mark
you'll
see
in
chat
that
there's
a
link
to
sign
up
to
get
your
participation
credit.
It
feels
like
a
third
grader
teacher,
saying
that,
just
as
a
way
to
kind
of
measure
who's
coming
to
these
calls
in
the
community
engagement.
So
if
you
have
a
moment,
fill
that
form
out
and
then
we'll
use
that
on
your
application
form
as
we
go
forward.
A
Well,
the
nap
time
schedule.
Well,
here's
the
big
update
for
you
guys,
picnic
colon.
You
might
be
Keen
to
know
about
this.
We
had
a
summit
that
took
place
last
week
and
we
kind
of
came
up
with
what
is
a
general
timeline.
Look
like
for
a
very
successful
election,
so
some
of
the
dates
that
we're
going
to
be
finalizing
and
pushing
forward
to
the
community
come
about
where
we're
going
to
open
up
the
fourth
round
of
notary
elections,
starting
on
November
1st
through
the
16th.
A
The
couple
days
that
we
have
before
that
are
going
to
be
an
event
that
we
hosted
until
Lisbon
I'm
working
on
the
coordination
for
that
now
and
then
we're
going
to
make
that
open,
Period,
probably
around
three
weeks,
and
the
lesson
learned
last
time-
was
that
it
took
a
while
for
applicants
to
get
in
ask
questions
and
get
back
to
us.
Then
you'll
also
see
that
the
scoring
period
is
around
three
weeks.
What
we
found
last
time
too
is
we
would
send
notaries
a
question
like
hey.
A
Can
you
please
get
back
to
us
on
your
application?
They
would
spend
about
three
or
four
days
to
answer
it
get
back
to
us
and
then,
within
that
fully
of
time
it
ended
up
running
out,
so
we're
going
to
make
that
a
little
bit
longer.
So
just
as
a
heads
up,
if
you
are
an
existing
notary,
there
is
no
need
to
reapply,
but
we're
going
to
have
some
more
baked
in
technical
SLA
participation.
A
That
line
up
with
how
much
involvement
notaries
would
like
to
be
going
forward
in
the
program
we're
going
to
announce
that
as
we
go
forward
like
this
model
of
Tears,
how
much
participation
are
we
looking
for
I?
Think
the
big
thing
to
put
on
your
radar
is
that
election
will
be
kicking
off
in
November
and
we'll
be
making
much
more
formal
announcements,
so
I'll
pause
if
Charles.
Thank
you
for
joining
the
call
Mark
James
Jesse.
If
you
guys
have
any
questions
about
this.
D
A
A
I
think
it's
a
good
question
and
we
just
started
to
flush
this
out
last
week,
so
this
might
evolve
a
little
bit,
but
I
can
definitely
see
a
world
where
some
of
the
less
active
notaries
are
asked
to
reapply
to
gauge
their
interests.
Maybe
their
slack
handle
has
gone
dark.
Maybe
they've
been
involved
in
some
applications
that
were
a
little
bit
off
the
board.
A
I'm
sure
that,
as
we
play
around
with
this,
we'll
probably
measure
like
to
all
existing
notaries
stay
in
their
current
capacity
or
do
any
non-renewal
notaries
automatically
drop
down
into
this
just
kind
of
voting
tier
that
we're
going
to
flush
out
I.
Don't
have
a
lot
of
answers
for
you
right
now,
but
I
will
in
the
coming
days
and
probably
buy
our
next
call
the
good
flag.
Thanks
for
raising.
B
That
can
I
just
add
one
more
thing.
To
that
day,
please
James
there's
a
couple
of
additional
things
to
watch
out
for
number
one.
As
Carrie
saying
you
know,
I
think
the
rubric
is
going
to
change.
We
need
to
introduce
some
different
things
that
we
want
in
terms
of
what
we're
collecting
from
notice,
how
we're
improving
the
quality
of
disclosures,
how
we're
going
to
like
judge
that
stuff,
so
definite
heavy
plus
one
to
work
here.
B
You
just
said
expect
your
own
reaction
to
the
process
to
guide
your
decision
and
that's
going
to
change
a
lot
in
the
next
few
weeks.
As
we
start
to
push
out
some
ideas,
we
have
and
start
to
I
also
get
ideas
from
Sunny
from
Carol
from
other
community
members
that
have
contributed
things
on
how
we
should
track
no
reason
in
the
past.
B
The
second
thing,
I
wanted
to
add,
is
there's
implications
to
applying
or
not
reapplying
as
well,
that
we
didn't
really
anticipate
it's
impossible
right
now,
realizing
like,
for
example,
you
know
if
you
didn't,
there
were
some
notaries
that,
like
didn't
reapply
in
the
last
rounded,
because
it
wasn't
explicit
that
notaries
would
get
to
continue
on
on
to
the
Aldi
and
B3
multi-seg.
That
turned
into
an
issue,
and
people
actually
went
against
that
to
some
extent,
and
so
there'll
be
learnings
from
that,
and
so
my
mental
model.
B
If
I
were
you
looking
at
this
or
for
the
node
he's
watching,
the
recording
would
be
please
pay
close
attention.
It
is
more
than
likely
that
you're
going
to
want
to
at
least
participate
in
the
discussions
themselves
as
they
start
to
come
up
on
changes
to
the
rubric,
because
it'll
influence
your
future
likelihood
of
participation.
A
A
A
We
also
have
e-fill
plus
cases
on
the
line
to
just
kind
of
introduce
that
program
and
ask
any
questions
that
you
may
have
or
kind
of
an
update
on
when
they're
going
to
meet,
get
involved,
and
then
the
majority
of
our
time
was
spent
on
the
proposal
discussions.
What
we're
trying
to
do
is
put
those
all
to
bed
with,
like
one
of
those
open
that
we
can
close
out
and
then
ideally
have
a
clean
slate
going
forward.
So
it's
kind
of
a
last
chance
to
talk
about
those
or
flag.
A
Any
concerns
that
you
may
have
also
checking
in
on
the
call
time.
Right
now
we
have
very
low
engagement.
So
maybe
this
is
something
that
definitely
needs
to
be
reinvigorated,
to
make
sure
that
we're
giving
a
time
that
fills
the
best
people's
schedule
as
we
go
forward
and
deep
has
an
update
on
beating.
So
with
that
deep
can
I
turn
it
over
to
you
for
anything
you
might
want
to
share
or
talk
about
from
the
fips
yeah.
B
It's
an
exercise
in
governance,
regardless
of
what
the
outcome
is,
and
so
Phil
poll
is
live
right
now
on
Feb
36
I
believe
it's
football
number
16,
maybe
in
url
yeah
it
is
I'm
dropping
in
the
Lincoln
chat
but
yeah.
This
is
the
one
where
they're
trying
to
introduce
a
3.5
year,
multiplier
linearly
scaling
with
time
to
incentivize,
longer
term
network
alignment
with
the
network
and
so
check
this
out.
Please
vote.
B
B
In
last
week,
our
team
got
together
and
spent
a
bunch
of
time
reading
through
the
FIP
itself
and
sort
of
just
understanding
like
what
it
meant
and
what
the
content
was,
because
as
it's
written,
it
is
slightly
complex,
and
so
my
recommendation
to
you
would
be
give
the
system.
If
you
can.
Let
us
know
if
you
have
any
questions
or
anything
seems
like
massively
awry.
I
and
folks
on.
B
Our
team
will
be
following
up
with
the
FIP
authors
and
posting
some
issues
and
comments
with
some
stuff
that
I
think
we'd
like
to
see
adjusted
in
order
for
this
to
be
a
smooth
transition,
but
overall
it
feels
relatively
non-controversial
and
not
really
impacting
us
for
several
months
anyway.
This
is
more
just
like
setting
us
up
for
future
interesting
use
cases,
which
is
usually
a
good
thing,
and
so
we're
expecting
sort
of
we're
expecting.
B
For
this
one
to
go
through
this
except
45,
not
the
one
that
Kerry
has
on
screen
right
now,
I
care,
I'm,
talking
about
the
field
plus
one
I,
dropped
the
link
in
chat
to
the
actual
FIP.
So
at
this
point
the
discussion
is
actually
happening
on
the
FIB
draft
itself,
so
yeah
if
you've
got
some
kind
of
Swag.
If
that
read,
and
please
drop
your
comments
either
as
a
PR,
if
you
can,
if
not
open
up
an
issue,
I
think
that
seems
to
be
the
best
practice
in
terms
of
moving
forward.
A
C
C
Again,
I
think
Jesse
James,
you
guys
have
been
involved.
Charles
and
Mark
are
more
than
welcome
to
join.
The
link
was
here
I
also
recently
posted
in
the
philippos
channel.
But
essentially
the
idea
is
we'll
be
holding
bi-weekly
calls
where
you
know
the
main
kind
of
focus
area
is
talking
about
data
cap
abuse,
but
I'll
also
want
this
to
be
a
space
where
you
know
if
there
are
certain
applications
that
are
blocked.
C
For
that
specific
reason,
those
can
be
bought
up
here
instead
of
governance
calls,
and
we-
and
you
know
we
can
look
to
unblock
those
or
discuss
those
with
the
community.
So
that's
where,
since
in
the
since
the
morning,
I've
proposed
two
times
so
those
are
on
Tuesdays
again
two
times
one
in
the
morning,
one
in
the
evening
you
can
find
the
times
in
the
in
the
channel
as
well,
so
yeah
more
than
welcome
I
shared
a
Google
form
as
well,
where
you
can
express
your.
C
We
can
share
your
email
and
I
can
add
you
to
the
invite
and-
and
that
also
has
a
section
to
provide
suggestions
on
what
kind
of
what
you
would
like
to.
What
you
would
like
out
of
the
working
group
calls
and
the
group
as
well
so
feel
free
and
anyone
watching
the
recording
same
goes
for
you.
You
can
find
the
link
to
the
group,
as
well
as
the
Google
form
on
the
philplus
channel,
and
you
can
also
join
the
trust
and
Trust
rescue
slack
Channel.
G
Yeah,
sorry,
can
you
guys
hear
me
yeah?
We
can
hear
you,
oh
great,
so
first
Enterprise
I
do
have
some
I
would
like.
We
are
talking
about
ardn
right.
So
how
about
the
small
data,
for
example,
terabytes
or
less
50
by
terabytes?
Does
the
notaries
have
the
probability
to
assign
those?
Now
because
we
see
like
we
well,
everybody
is
working
on
large
data
set
accuracy.
G
G
I
mean
like
a
small
one,
for
example
less
than
100
terabytes,
so
that
because
I
can
see
like
there
is
a
because,
because
it
was
not
a
big
issue
before,
but
another
become
an
issue
now.
So
if
you
look
at
it
as
a
fire,
construction
there's
actually
no
regular
year
only
right
of
idea,
which
means
that
in
fact,
making
people
are
feeling
that
if
I
cannot
get
a
rough
idea,
prefer
not
a
store,
let's
become
an
issue.
G
How
about
the
private
data
previously,
like
president,
can
go
through
the
regular
deal
because
nobody
actually
goes
to
Regular
year
and
I
believe
sorry,
I
didn't
test,
but
I
believe,
like
a
lot
of
story,
provider
actually
rejects
those
because
there's
no
such
a
assistant
sector
story
provider
now
so
there's
no
regular
and
the
mechanism
now
become
a
little
bit
but
I
say
like
spit
when
I
say
specific.
At
this
moment,
people
need
a
web
idea.
Even
his
private
data
otherwise
cannot
stop.
G
This
is
something
like
because
we're
working
on
with
we're
doing
the
data
Hexum.
So
we
see
like
that
was
the
net
Drive
some
network
drive,
but
it
didn't
ask
us
like
if
I
cannot
get
as
a
data
cap,
how
can
I
continue
to
throw
the
on
practical
Network
or
even
pay
the
storage?
Not
enough
people
want
to
accept
you
that
so
this
is
something
like
I
think
we
maybe
needed
to
think
about.
Small
allocation
for
small
data
sets
yeah,
it's
just
something
I'm
thinking
now.
C
C
So
yeah,
that's
more
than
welcome
I.
Think
Casey
will
be
able
to
answer
any
question
that
about
like
the
fill
plus
side.
The
encrypted
data.
That
thing
you
mentioned
brought
on
the
broad
Strokes,
I
think
I.
Think
what
I'm
hearing
is
right
now
speeds
are
rejecting
kind
of
you
know:
non-verified
deals
I,
that's
a
little
bit
out
of
my
scope,
but
I
don't
know
if
deep
or
and
if
yeah.
B
I'd
love
to
chat
about
that.
Basically,
Charles
I
think
your
identification
is
correct,
that
there's
like
a
few
different
pipelines
right
and
when
datacab
gets
that
small,
we're
not
seeing
that
much
traction
or
support
for
like
that
kind
of
direct
notary
allocation
thing,
so
I
would
love
to
instead
suggest
you
look
at
the
stats,
so
I
just
put
out
the
dashboard
right.
B
If
you
look
at
the
request
coming
into
direct
notary
allocations,
which
typically
tend
to
be
at
that
size
of
tens
of
tabby,
bytes
I
see
2
000
applications
received
in
total
326
in
the
LA
326
approved
total
and
in
the
last
30
days,
I
see
178
for
direct
versus
181
for
LDN,
and
so
it's
a
comparable
amount
of
throughput.
Today,
however,
on
the
client
onboarding
side,
we
know
that
clients
send
a
Spam
request
right,
like
we've
seen
like
people
will
come
and
like
send
five
requests
out
or
four
requests
out.
B
For
that
low,
low,
throughput
validation,
POC
type
scenario
or
for
the
you
need
to
earn
trust
in
a
different
way,
because
you're
unable
to
do
this
at
scale
with
your
LDN
application,
and
so
my
current
thinking,
you
should
recommend
continuing
it
in
the
form
that
it's
it
is
today,
I
think
long
term.
It
doesn't
really
make
that
much
sense.
Instead,
what
we
need
to
do
is
better
align
the
giving
of
data
cap
with
the
amount
of
trust
being
earned
by
that
client,
and
it's
it's
a.
It
should
eventually
turn
into
a
hey.
B
Heavy
byte
at
a
time
restricts
your
onboarding
rate
compared
to
100
or
200
heavy
bytes
at
a
time
and
I
think
that's
where
this
fits
into
the
picture,
which
is
lower
requirements,
lower
expectations,
easier
forms
of
kyc,
more
standardized
process
up
front
for
smaller
amounts
of
data
cap
and
so
over
time.
I
think
a
lot
of
these
things
will
turn
into
this
sort
of
unified
experience
for
a
client
which
is
a
menu
of
like
what
are
the
things
you're
willing
to
show
to
prove
who
you
are
to
the
network.
D
D
We
spent
the
past
few
months
planning
getting
this
ready
to
go
live
and
we
have
around
25
SPS
signed
up
to
go,
have
a
notary
working
group
that
are
active
and
willing
to
participate
in
in
approving
these
applications
and
we're
getting
ready
to
kick
this
off
in
a
few
weeks.
But
the
update
for
tonight
is
that
I
I
submitted
a
proposal
that
includes
all
the
details
highlighting
you
know
what
the
changes
will
make
to
the
Phil
Plus
process,
so
I
feel
free
to
check
that
out.
D
I'm
starting
some
bi-weekly
working
group
calls
starting
next
Tuesday
I'll
have
working
group
calls
or
feel
free
to
join
I
want
it
to
be
almost
like
office
hours
for
everyone
involved
in
the
project.
It
can
be
sp's
notaries,
community
members
who
have
questions
ideas,
thoughts,
I,
want
everyone
to
be
working
together
here
to
get
the
pilot
off
the
ground,
get
people's
applications.
A
So
for
those
of
you
on
the
call,
we
spent
a
lot
of
time
in
the
morning
just
discussing
these.
So
if
you
want
to
see
those
videos
and
hear
what
other
people
are
thinking,
I'll
link
that
later
tonight
early
tomorrow
morning,
so
that's
live
on
YouTube,
but
just
as
a
quick
check-in.
Maybe
to
get
your
input.
If
there's
anything
you
wanted
to
add
to
the
ticket
this
one
came
through.
We
briefly
mentioned
it.
A
Notaries
had
applied
in
the
second
round
of
election
were
not
able
to
be
added
to
the
ldnb3,
so
this
proposal
was
to
include
them
on
it.
There
was
some
Lively
discussion
from
the
community
about
bringing
inactive
notaries
onto
this
new
system.
We
are
discontinued.
It
won't
go
through
just
for
the
fact
that
the
two
notaries
just
decided
that
hey
we'll
just
wait.
A
It's
not
worth
it
to
kind
of
push
back
against
this,
but
the
larger
issue
at
hand
is
writing
the
elections
in
a
way
that
any
technological
improvements
can
be
included
to
existing
notaries
without
always
having
to
have
an
election
just
to
update
some
of
these
process
oriented.
So
these
two
notaries
will
not
be
added
to
the
ldnb2.
They
will
continue
their
direct
sign
and
then,
when
the
next
round
of
Elections
they're
going
to
decide
if
they
want
to
continue
so
hearing,
that
is
one
to
flag
for
any
discussion.
A
We
had
Carol
on
the
call
this
morning.
She
kind
of
spoke
to
this.
Maybe
I
kick
it
off
and
deep
rgkz.
If
there's
anything,
you
want
to
add,
feel
free
to
talk
over
me
or
just
jump
in
so
essentially
we
have
this
LDN
application.
Essentially,
what
we're
talking
about
is
like
how
do
we
distribute
the
load
of
these
notaries
applications
on
the
LDN
without
making
it
a
burdensome
while
still
improving
the
trust
and
regulation?
A
So
this
one
had
some
back
and
forth
the
proposed
solution
that
you
see
came
from
the
actual
issue
587.
it's
kind
of
been
dormant
for
a
few
days,
and
we
were
just
looking
to
pick
this
up
before
we
had
any
movement.
So,
if
you've
seen
this
application,
if
you
have
any
proposals,
now
would
be
kind
of
that.
Last
call
for
any
verbal
that
you
wanted
to
add
before
we
take
this
to
a
finalization
and
rebuild.
C
I
can
speak
of
it,
I
think
I
think
so,
of
course
you
can
look
at
the
discussion.
I
think
clearly
I
think
12
notaries,
for
you
know,
that's
a
lot
I,
don't
think
that
makes
sense,
I.
Think
since
then
the
proposal
has
evolved
to
like
to
lessen
the
requirement
where,
like
you
know,
we
have
different
regions.
I
think
we
do
have
a
challenge
right
now
and
I
think
some
of
this
could
be
potentially
be
addressed
with
the
next
round
of
notary
election.
C
A
To
be
honest,
but
this
also
is
under
the
vein
of
like
how
are
we
disclosing
the
relationships
that
take
place
between
applicants
between
notaries,
between
storage
providers
and
like
having
some
standardized
system
for
disclosing
that
so
at
the
root
of
this
issue?
Was
disclosure
of
relationships
in
602?
This
had
some
back
and
forth
the
posts
that
you
see
here,
Linked
In,
This
slide.
That
came
through
excuse
me
about
six
days
ago,
and
this
is
kind
of
outlining
the
pros
and
cons.
A
This
is
again
one
of
those
that
we
might
bake
into
the
fourth
round
of
Elections,
just
to
standardize
it,
but
the
more
input
we
have
in
the
issue,
the
more
helpful.
So
if
you
guys
have
had
a
chance
to
read
this
I'd
be
very
keen
to
hear
your
thoughts
on
why
this
was
feasible
or
why
this
not
be
feasible
and
also
deep
in
RG.
If
you
want
to
kind
of
input
from
the
pl
and
trust
and
transparency
side,
very
valuable.
B
We're
gonna
do
a
quick
recap
of
the
conversation
this
morning,
but
I
think
it's
not
significantly
different
than
it
was
the
last
Sunday's
topic
came
up.
I
think
it
was
primarily
just
along
the
lines
of
like
it's
really
really
hard
to
do
this
and
people
that
want
to
see
the
system
will
continue
to
find
a
way
to
cheaply
cheat
the
system,
and
so
excuse
me.
We've
got
to
design
these
outcomes
in
a
way
where
we
can
actually
get
from
the
community.
B
What
we're
interested
in
seeing,
rather
than
just
you
know,
motivating
a
way
in
which
we
increase
the
friction
for
the
people
who
are
trying
to
do
the
right
thing,
and
so
I
think
that
that's
kind
of
where
this
particular
proposal
is
still
kind
of
figuring
out.
You
know
it's
it's
sort
of
next
steps,
but
I
definitely
think
the
the
heart
is
in
the
right
place,
and
it
would
be
great
to
figure
out
how
we
can
get
something
like
this.
B
Actually,
working
in
the
meantime,
I
think
the
recommendation,
at
least
from
from
my
in
my
opinion,
is
that
we
should
probably
move
forward
with
like
doing
like
a
documentation
based
approach.
First,
which
is
like,
let's
create
the
the
standards
in
from
a
principal
standpoint,
as
opposed
to
from
like
a
from
like
an
enforcement
standpoint
and
say
things
like
it
doesn't
make
sense
for
a
notary
to
be
both
like.
B
It
doesn't
make
sense
for
a
single
entity
to
be
all
three
like
client,
notary
and
SP
on
a
particular
application
and
stuff
like
that
and
put
out
those
kinds
of
guidelines,
because
then
at
least
we
can
have
conversations
where
we
see
that
and
and
can
start
to
address
that.
But
then
we
also
went
down
like
this
immense
rabbit,
hole
on
incentives
and
how,
like
ultimately
like
once
no
reinsentives,
look
a
little
bit
different
over
time.
B
Then
this
might
also
be
less
of
a
challenge
and
I
kind
of
agree
with
that
ascribe
to
that
mentality.
Overall,
where
right
now
part
of
the
incentive
alignment
is
that
you
are
a
bag
holder
or
a
stakeholder
a
fill,
and
you
want
to
see
it
go
and
do
well
as
a
project
and
as
a
token
and
Phil
plus,
is
a
really
good
way
to
do
that.
B
And
so
in
this
case
effectively.
We
we
have
this
setup
where
a
lot
of
people
who
are
shepherding
good
work
on
the
network
also
happen
to
be
search.
Writers
also
happen
to
have
a
lot
of
tokens
and
therefore
qualify
to
be
notaries,
and
so
it's
really
really
hard
to
disentangle
the
different
institutions
that
sort
of
come
together
and
have
overlap
on
this
front,
and
so
I
think
the
challenge
of
this
one
is
effectively
to
say
like
how
can
we
actually
set
guidelines
versus
rules
and
I?
B
Think
we
move
towards
saying
guidelines
and
it's
like
what
are
reasonable
guidelines
that
we
should
set
that
actually
result
in
incentive
alignment
across
the
community
and
have
some
amount
of
enforceability,
because
empty
guidelines
also
are
not
super
productive
and
so
I
think
the
proposal
will
continue
to
evolve
before
it
reaches
a
point
where
I
think
it's.
It's
ready
to
be
like
maybe
merged
in,
if
I
can
call
it
that
RG
is
there
anything
else
that
you
want
to
add.
A
Awesome
thanks
Steve
his
last
one
had
to
do
with
the
GitHub
applications
and
how
we
looked
at
dealing
with
some
of
the
headache
that
came
from
working,
real,
quick.
So
right
now
we
have
a
flag
for
fraud
right
now
we
have
a
flag
for
like
how
long
these
accounts
have
been
created.
There's
no
right
answer.
As
far
as
how
we're
doing
this,
this
conversation
had
a
lot
or
excuse
me.
This
proposal
had
a
lot
of
conversation
with
it,
so
flagging
this
issue.
A
If
you
haven't,
had
a
chance
to
look
608-
and
this
really
comes
down
to
how
are
we
looking
at
diligence
in
these
LDN
applications?
Is
it
waiting
for
a
GitHub
application
to
have
90
days
before
we
move
on
it?
Is
it
having
some
additional
set
of
requirement
so
again,
just
a
flag?
If
you
haven't
seen
this
one,
there's
been
a
lot
of
back
and
forth
a
lot
of
really
good
ideas
floated.
A
Okay,
all
right
governance
meeting,
sorry,
so
the
five
or
six
of
us
that
are
on
the
call
right
now
are
probably
seeing
that
attendance
is
vastly
dropped.
Since
August
in
August
we
ran
a
pilot
and
the
pilot
was
to
measure
how
many
people
will
come
to
the
call
if
we
pushed
it
back
two
hours
that
pilot
ended
in
September,
we
went
back
to
the
normal
call.
We
had
around
13
14
people
and
tonight
very
clearly
that
those
13
14
people
have
since
dropped
down.
A
So
it
could
be
that
they're
expecting
a
call
to
happen
two
hours
later
or
it
could
be
that
this
time
frame
just
does
not
work.
So
I
will
probably
give
life
to
the
issue
that
was
proposed
by
Batman
as
far
as
bringing
this
to
light.
As
far
as
what
is
a
conducive
second
time,
there
was
also
some
discussion
from
RG.
A
You
might
have
saw
this
come
through
in
the
Phil
plus
public
Channel
about
having
this
meeting
once
a
month
and
then
having
specific
working
groups
to
tackle
other
issues
that
come
up
so
that
might
self-solve
this
problem.
But
this
is
a
quick
line
of
feedback.
We're
definitely
working
on
this
and
we're
going
to
get
some
time
frame.
That's
conducive
involved,
then
I'll
pause
and
see.
If
you
guys
have
any
input
on
like
this
time
frame
if
it
works,
if
it
doesn't
and
then
thought
about
pushing
it
back
two
hours.
A
B
I
have
a
bunch
of
additional
knowledge
that
was
shared
because
I
was
asking
a
ton
of
questions
to
Eric
and
the
client
I'm,
just
gonna
dump
a
bunch
of
that
publicly
as
well,
so
that
we
can
move
forward.
I
know
a
town
of
Norris
have
decided
that
they're
interested
in
making
a
decision
on
this
I'd
like
to
move
this
one
to
a
resolution.
I
think
Eric
and
the
client
are
both
interested
in
seeing
that
happen,
and
so
I'm
going
to
put
out
everything
that
I
have,
and
my
recommendation
would
be
probably
just
like.
B
I
would
ideally
like
a
few
additional
guardrails
around
like
how
we
are
expecting
that
data
to
be
retrievable
they're,
at
least
one
or
two
hanging
questions
still
for
me,
and
so
I
would
like
to
see
those
answered
as
well,
but
tldr
from
the
morning
expect.
An
update
for
me
publicly
expect
that
we
need
a
little
bit
more
info
from
the
application
and,
if
you're,
a
notary
that
agreed
to
observe
this,
we
will
be
needing
your
inputs
that
we
can
move
forward
on
this
allocation
as
soon
as
possible.
B
A
We
went
through
this
pretty
quick.
We
have
time
for
any
kind
of
issues
that
you
want
to
raise.
Charles
I,
see
the
youth
like
something
in
slack
and
come
back
and
make
sure
we
get
it
before
we
do
I
just
wanted
to
flag.
We
had
an
applicant
with
an
LDN
who
submitted
a
video,
so
I'll
be
posting
this
on
a
notary
Channel
shortly,
but
just
to
kind
of
give
them
some
air
time
to
flag
this.
A
For
bandwidth
position,
number
974
from
kudi
data
and
Hoodie
data
is
looking
at
long-term
data,
storage
and
artificial
intelligence
machine
learning.
They
have
a
five
minute
video
and
their
application
is
open.
Looking
for
review
and
looking
for
process
so
you'll
see
this
come
through
the
next
day
or
so
in
the
field
plus,
and
every
channel
and
that'll
be
like
a
good
way
to
kind
of
take
a
look
at
it.
So
with
that
I'll
kind
of
come
back
and
see,
if
there's
anything
that
you
guys
wanted
to
talk
about
some
of
our
remaining
time.