►
From YouTube: Filecoin Plus - July 11 Notary Governance Calls
Description
The thirteenth set of Notary Governance calls of 2023 July 11 to discuss the Filecoin Plus program.
Slides and Links: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1K0qHJxx6q3e3iONhxKUlVMOE-A1ddUFVnHyPo-aJnhI/edit?usp=sharing
Agenda
Notary
Survey: https://airtable.com/shrj4af3NykcF9hSo
v5 Notary election (postponed)
SLA Metrics
Removing Inactive Notaries
Working Group Updates
Trust and Transparency
Proposals
Reduced Notaries
Abuse T&T issues
Community Issues
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%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
Foreign
friendly
hellos
welcome
to
the
first
governance
call
of
July
11th.
Let's
take
a
look
at
a
very
high
level
of
what
we
have
on
the
agenda
for
this
week.
We
start
out
with
notary
issues.
On
the
top
of
mind,
it's
Communications.
What
standards
should
go
into
slack
and
GitHub?
How
do
we
talk
with
each
other?
How
do
we
flag
resolutions
and
discussions
in
a
clear
and
effective
way,
then
we're
going
to
spend
a
lot
of
time
talking
about
the
activity
review?
A
A
And
then
kind
of
establishing
that
goal
for
working
group
upstates
this
week
we
have
RG
who's
joined
the
line.
We
have
about
four
issues
that
he's
going
to
cover
everything
from
minors
to
Pathways,
so
a
lot
of
information
is
going
to
be
coming
from
the
trust
and
transparency
working
group
on
this
call,
and,
lastly,
will
be
all
of
the
new
proposals
that
have
come
in
it's
quite
a
bit
so
we'll
talk
about
what
did
those
proposals
currently
flagged?
A
Make
sure
that
you
have
a
chance
to
review,
see
and
provide
input
and
have
a
lengthy
discussion,
and
we
anticipate
time
at
the
end
of
the
call
for
anything
that
might
not
be
discussed
already
that
you'd
like
to
see
on
the
agenda.
So
as
always
a
friendly
reminder.
We
have
these
calls
every
two
weeks
we
stopped
last
week
due
to
a
holiday
in
the
States,
but
we've
resumed
the
normal
every
other
week.
Tempo
today
is
July
11th.
The
next
call
will
be
taking
place
on
July
25th.
A
You
could
follow
along
with
this
calendar,
if
you'd
like
to
add
this
and
see
what
takes
place.
If
you'd
like
to
see
anything
specifically
brought
on
this
agenda
and
have
discussed,
we
make
an
issue
in
GitHub.
Every
two
weeks
feel
free
to
add
a
comment.
Add
a
proposal
and
just
link
it
and
I'll
make
sure
that
it's
in
the
deck
and
make
sure
that
we
have
talking
points
or
if
there
was
anything
that
you'd
specifically
like
to
flag,
feel
free
to
say
that
and
I'll
make
sure
that
I
dedicate
time
on.
A
Call
for
anything,
that's
top
of
mind
if
you
need
anything
at
all,
there's
a
team
on
the
governance.
That's
here
to
help
you,
we
all
have
a
very
specific
facet
that
we
work
in
that
way,
you're
getting
the
best
support
as
you
go
forward,
if
you're
not
sure
who
to
reach
out
to
or
you
haven't
gotten
a
ping
back.
You
can
always
send
me
a
friendly
message
and
I'll
be
happy
to
route
you
to
the
best
place
to
get
you
the
fastest
support
as
you
go
forward.
A
So
with
that
notaries,
on
the
call
thank
you
for
being
here,
let's
take
a
quick
look
at
what's
going
on,
so
the
question
came
up
in
chat
was
hey.
What's
going
on
with
the
elections,
so
a
quick
update
for
everybody
as
we
go
through
right
now,
we
are
currently
delaying
and
postponing
the
V5
elections.
A
The
reason
for
this
is
we're
working
on
improving
the
current
resources
for
the
current
V4
notaries.
So
in
the
last
election
we
went
up
from
around
45
notaries,
up
to
86
that
were
on
chained
on
the
multi-sig,
and
what
we've
been
seeing
is
that
participation
is
still
remaining
around
the
same
levels
that
we
had
in
V3.
So,
even
though
we
have
more
V4
notaries,
we're
not
seeing
a
great
increase
in
the
number
of
participation,
so
it
really
kind
of
begs.
A
The
mindset
does
an
election
with
more
and
more
notaries
translate
to
faster
and
faster
application
reviews,
and
the
answer
that
we
got
from
V3
to
V4
was
no.
So
what
we're
doing
is
we're
looking
at
how
we
can
best
support
the
V4
notaries
that
we
currently
have,
as
well
as
like
improved
onboarding,
making
sure
that
they
have
the
tools
available,
that
they're
well
aware
of
how
to
review,
find
sign
applications
and
that
they're
tracking,
all
of
the
requirements
related
to
fraud,
trust
waste
and
abuse.
A
So
the
current
V4
notary
pool
is
quite
substantial,
where
we're
not
at
a
deficit
and
what
we're
going
to
be
looking
at
is
when
we
get
ready
for
this
V5
notary.
How
are
we
approaching
this
in
an
effective
way,
because
what
we
found
is
just
by
scaling
the
amount
of
notaries
doesn't
scale
the
effective
of
the
program
in
actuality.
A
It
actually
slows
things
down
because,
rather
than
having
a
core
group
of
notaries
that
we
have
a
very
clear
communication,
what
we
found
with
a
lot
of
the
newer
notaries
that
were
on
board
and
that
are
inactive-
is
that
they
require
substantially
more
time
more
changes,
more
updates,
more
follow-ups
and
that
really
detracts
from
the
program
so
to
Circle.
Back
on
this,
we'll
probably
be
providing
dates
on
B5,
probably
in
the
coming
weeks
or
months.
A
A
We
are
going
to
moderate
this
so
for
the
first
time,
two
weeks
ago,
we
removed
a
comment
right
now.
I
haven't
seen
anything
that's
removable
worthy,
but
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we're
just
readdressing
that
we
are
holding
you
to
standards,
notary
storage
providers,
miners
whatever
it
may
be.
That's
on
the
call
that
we're
communicating
in
a
way
where
everyone
feels
like
their
voice
is
heard
and
they
feel
safe,
vocalizing
that
voice.
A
If
we
get
reports
of
things
to
the
contrary,
they
will
be
dealt
with
severely
and
swiftly,
and
so,
just
to
reiterate,
the
operational
guidelines
are
listed
in
GitHub.
There
should
be
no
communication
on
abusive
content
as
we
go
forward
on
those
calls
and
notaries
who
are
on
the
call
SLA.
Thanks
for
being
here,
I
really
appreciate
you
being
on
the
call
I
just
posted
into
chat
the
link
to
the
air
table.
We
are
pulling
this
every
two
weeks
we
gave
in
q1
of
2023
and
Q2.
B
A
2023
a
lot
of
leeway,
so
if
you
were
a
notary-
and
you
came
to
one
of
these
calls
but
didn't
sign
on
last
time,
I
was
like
that's:
okay,
I
just
manually
added
you
and
I
took
your
word
for
it
going
forward
in
the
second
part
of
2023.
If
you
were
on
this
call-
and
you
don't
sign
this
participation,
roster
will
have
no
way
to
verify,
and
since
we've
made
this
standard-
and
this
expectation
very
clear,
the
you
please
sign
this
form
to
get
credit.
A
If
you
are
a
storage
provider,
a
Community
member
or
someone
else
in
the
ecosystem.
Filling
this
out
is
a
great
way
to
kind
of
Mark
your
attendance
here.
We
don't
pull
this
for
any
metrics
for
you,
but
if
you
want
to
get
involved
later
either
as
a
notary
or
someone
who's
showing
that
you're
involved
in
the
program,
this
is
a
really
effective
way
to
do
so.
A
So,
if
you
check
chat,
you'll
see
the
link
to
the
air
table
when
you
fill
that
out,
we'll
get
all
the
information
that
you
feel
comfortable
sharing,
notaries
I
also
look
at
this
based
off
how
you
allocate
time.
So,
if
you're
allocating
time
for
a
self-reported
contributions,
it's
really
helpful
for
me
to
see
like
we're
reviewing
applications
where
you
bog
down
into
something
else.
So
thank
you
for
taking
the
time
to
fill
that
out.
It
goes
a
long
way
all
right,
so
we're
checking
on
what
we're.
Looking
at
with
the
notary
participation.
A
We
kicked
this
off
in
June
and
really
the
goal
was
we
have
86,
notaries
and
I
think
it
was
around
56
of
those
where
SLA,
fours
and
fives,
which
means
we
should
have
around
65,
really
active
notaries
that
are
reviewing
applications
signing
coming
to
calls
filing
proposals
commenting
on
proposals
and
we
really
just
weren't
seeing
that
level
of
activity.
So
it
started
with
like
let's
check
it
out
and
see.
A
What's
going
on
so
for
the
month
of
June,
we
culminated
a
lot
of
metrics
who's
coming
to
calls
who's
on
proposals,
who's
reviewing
data
who's
in
slack
and
we
put
together
a
list
of
like
hey.
These
are
the
notaries
that
are
active,
inactive
that
are
responsive
and
here's
where
we're
pulling
that
and
I
proposed
a
discussion.
It
was
issue.
990
you'll
see
the
link
there
and
essentially
what
we're
looking
at
next
is
there's
another
proposal
for
how
do
we
address
the
inactivity?
Should
they
be
pipped,
should
they
be
removed
outright
so.
A
A
So
let's
take
a
look
at
what
that
looks
like
for
the
notaries
that
we
have
active.
These
were
the
SLA
standards
that
we
put
forward
and
a
lot
of
these
standards
tie
back
to
are
you
able
to
sign
applications
effectively
and
quickly,
so
I
think
we
have
around
400
open,
ldns
applications.
So,
ideally,
if
we
have,
you
know
50
60
notaries
that
are
all
signing
every
week,
two
weeks
monthly.
That
number
should
rapidly
diminish
because
of
the
diligence
being
done,
but
we're
not
seeing
that.
A
So
in
the
issue
that
I
put
together,
you
can
see
the
link
here
at
the
bottom.
What
I
did
was
I
didn't
rank
them
they're,
not
like
tagged
in
any
way.
I
just
wanted
to
make
it
very
transparent
for
all
of
the
notaries
to
see
what
other
notaries
are
doing.
So
you
can
see
exactly
what
a
different
notary
is,
what
their
SLA
level
that
they
were
accepted
to
in
their
applications,
as
well
as
how
many
applications
they've
signed,
as
well
as
how
many
notary
governance
calls
they've
come
to,
and
what
this
does
is
now.
A
I
can
use
this
list
to
come
back
and
follow
up
with
those
inactive
notaries
that
have
no
signing
activity
or
very
limited
signing
activity
that
might
have
come
to
governance
calls
but
aren't
active
and
see
where
the
block
is
again.
The
goal
of
this
project
isn't
to
just
blankly,
remove
individuals
it's
to
find
out
what
might
be
stopping
them
from
performing
a
notary
diligence
role
and
help
correct
that
problem
to
get
them
all
set
up.
A
So
that's
really
the
goal,
and
that's
the
next
steps,
that's
being
followed
and
there's
a
proposal
open
to
take
a
look
at
like
how
that
removal
issues.
So
this
proposal
9-1-1,
was
filed
by
the
community.
It
was
essentially
saying:
look
if
we
have
inactive
notaries.
How
does
the
process
work
for
removing
them?
And
so,
when
I'm
talking
about
inactive,
it's
clear
that
we
should
establish
what
those
three
things
are:
the
three
parts
of
an
activity
that
we're
seeing
is
one
not
attending
a
governance
call.
Now
not
all
of
these
calls
are
required.
A
That's
why
the
metrics
on
this
isn't
a
hundred
percent,
but
keeping
up
with
some
of
the
issues
that
we
discuss
on
this
call.
We
flag
some
of
the
highest
priorities
that
come
up
from
GitHub
from
slack
from
everything,
and
so
this
is
a
good
way
to
see
it.
The
second
is
not
reviewing
applications,
so
one
of
the
new
tooling
that
you
can
go
in
the
registry
is
say
why
you
do
not
want
to
sign
an
application.
A
So
if
you
are
not
signing,
the
expectation
is
that
a
notary
should
be
reviewing
these
applications
that
way
they're
moving
forward
and
they
have
tags
on
what
might
need
to
be
done,
so
the
requester
can
do
those
things
or
have
them
removed
or
have
them
move
forward.
So
reviewing
applications
is
a
very
key
metric
for
an
active
notary
and
the
third
is
not
signing.
So
we
have
some
notaries
that
might
not
have
signed
I've
been
reached
out
to
hey.
I've
got
a
problem
with
my
ledger
or
I've
since
moved
on.
A
These
are
very
rectifiable
programs,
projects
and
problems,
and
the
goal
is
that
we
solve
these
quickly
and
effectively
for
you
so
I'm
going
to
open
this
up
and
I'm
really
looking
for
discussion
on
this
one,
because
one
of
the
questions
outstanding
is
what
is
an
appropriate
timeline
expectations
for
notaries
to
go
in
and
sign
applications?
Should
a
notary
be
signing
every
day
every
hour?
A
Probably
not
realistically,
should
a
notary
be
signing
every
week
every
other
week
once
a
month
that
feels
like
more
of
an
in
line
and
that's
where
I'm
looking
for
feedback
so
feel
free
to
put
in
chat
or
feel
free
to
raise
a
hand
if
you
have
thoughts,
but
what
we're
looking
for
is
when
we're
establishing
these
standards
of
how
a
notary
should
be
signing
I
realize
that
there
might
be
bursts
of
signing
and
then
a
while
and
then
burst
of
signing.
So
what
should
be
the
delay
if
a
notary
is
not
signing?
A
A
A
What
is
a
timeline
if
we
don't
get
it
on
this
call
I'm
going
to
come
back
to
issue
9-1-1
I'll
link
this
in
the
notaries
Channel
too,
to
make
sure
that
it's
high
on
the
radar,
because
we're
going
to
be
pulling
from
this
as
we
start
to
like
write
new
governance
docs
and
again,
what
I'm
looking
for
is.
Should
diligence
be
required
to
be
done
every
two
weeks
once
a
month?
What
is
a
realistic
timeline,
because
you
all
have
obligations
outside
of
notary
responsibility?
That's
not
unreasonable.
A
I
would
hate
to
set
a
standard
that
was
so
tight
that
it
was
difficult
to
be
met.
So,
looking
for
your
feedback
on
this
one
as
we
go
forward
and
again,
if
you
are
a
notary
on
this
call,
we
flagged
this
on
the
last
one.
A
great
place
to
go
is
checking
that
fill
Plus
application
review.
I
see
applications
come
through
there.
A
That
is
a
great
resource
to
read
in
Slack
and
then,
as
a
quick
refresher,
I
know,
we've
showed
this
slide,
but
just
making
sure
that
we're
really
driving
this
home
is
that
when
that
diligence
takes
place
inside
of
the
registry,
once
you
might
have
done,
diligence
and
you've
done
your
your
questions
and
the
notary
gave
you
an
excuse
me.
The
application
gave
you
an
answer.
You
can
mark
in
the
registry
on
why
or
why
not.
You
are
signing
that,
and
this
is
that
participation
that
we're
looking
to
measure.
A
How
often
should
this
be
done,
and
then
how
can
we
actually
hold
this
standard?
So,
if
we're
not
seeing
the
notaries
that
are
doing
this
step,
taking
them
out
of
the
program,
so
they
can't
sign,
but
they
can
still
participate
and
they
can
reapply
when
their
bandwidth
opens
up.
So
again,
please
in
the
registry
list
out
the
DD
and
then
that
way
it
moves
the
applications
forward
and
gives
you
a
chance
to
go
down
on
that
I'm
going
to
pause
here
before
I
hand
it
over
to
working
group.
A
Some
of
you
may
notice
on
this
call
that
we
have
an
English
closed
caption,
that's
running.
This
is
still
testing,
it's
a
proof
of
concept
and
we're
still
looking
at
a
third-party
vendor
that
can
then
take
this
translation,
live
and
translated
it
to
a
different
language.
So
for
those
of
you
on
the
call
that
might
be
looking
for
Mandarin
or
simplified
Chinese,
we're
still
testing
that
and
working
on
it
and
we
should
hope
to
have
that
set
up
in
the
next
call
or
two
for
you.
A
So
that
way
the
words
that
are
coming
out
here
can
be
directly
translated
on
the
screen
and
we're
working
on
that
for
you.
So
thanks
I
see
some
of
you
trying
to
change
it.
I
apologize.
We
can't
at
this
time
it'll
only
close
caption
the
language
being
spoken,
so
we
should
see
that
and
if
you
don't
see
that
on
the
screen
inside
of
Zoom
you'll
see
more
settings
and
you'll
see
captions
under
that,
so
that
will
display
the
captions
as
we
go,
but
again
right
now,
it's
only
set
for
English.
A
So
even
if
you
change
that
spoken
language
to
Chinese
simplified,
all
it's
doing
is
it's
taking
the
English
here.
We
should
have
an
update
for
that
in
the
coming
sessions
to
actually
have
Chinese
simplified
as
we
go
on.
So
thank
you
for
that
RG
and
Casey.
Thank
you
so
much
for
joining
the
call.
I
think
this
next
session
works
very
well
handing
it
back
to
you
so
RG
I'll
hand
the
floor
over
to
you.
D
I
just
want
to
share
that
this
is
a
work
in
progress,
but
everyone
within
PL,
as
well
is
externally
is
very
aware
of
this.
Metric
and
I
also
want
to
clarify
that
everyone
who's
been
saying
that
field
plus
does
not
have
the
ability
to
enforce
retrievability
this.
This
retrievability
is
based
on
essentially
holding
the
cloud
the
client
accountable
if
they
say
that
the
data
is
retrievable,
so
we
very
much
the
governance
team.
Very
much
has
the
right
and
the
ability
to
enforce
retrievability
I.
D
Think
for
everyone.
If
you
are
a
client,
if
you're
a
storage
provider-
and
you
would
like
to
manage
the
SLA-
is
about
retrievability
with
your
client,
we
would
request
to
either
apply
make
sure
that
you
know
you
are
kind
of
being
honest
about
that
in
the
in
the
LDN
or
you
just
apply
for
e-fill
Plus
or
another
pathway
that
works
for
you,
but
for
all
open
public
data
sets
as
well
as
commercial
public
data
sets.
D
Retrievability
is
a
core
part
of
what
filecoin
the
value
that
Falcon
provides,
and
this
effort
will
continue
and
there
might
be
consequences
in
the
future
for
low
low
retrievability
right
now.
I
think
this
is
the
other
question
that
we're
getting
that.
What
is
a
good
level
of
retrievability
anything
above
one
percent
is
good
for
now.
The
goal
here
is
to
encourage
more
and
more
SPS,
as
and
especially
sps2
clients
to
actually
hold
them
accountable.
D
You
know,
disrupt
the
flow,
the
business
flow
of
the
different
stakeholders,
but
it
is
very
important
to
know
that
retrievability
is
a
very
important
part
of
the
value
provided
by
filecoin
and
so
yeah.
If
you
disagree,
if
you
have
questions
you're
more
than
welcome
to
raise
an
issue
and
we
can
have
a
conducive
discussion,
so
that's
all
I
had
to
say
on
that.
D
Once
again,
what's
I'm
not
sure
what
the
screenshot
is
about,
but
we
can
continue
due
diligence,
so
I
think
this
was
coming
out
of
a
discussion.
I
think
there's
been
consistent
requests
from
different
stakeholders
over
the
last
two
years,
since
the
program
has
developed
we've
given
a
lot
of
power
to
notaries,
especially
when
it
comes
to
due
diligence.
Unfortunately,
we're
seeing
a
lot
of
abuse
of
that
power,
and
so
and
as
a
result
of
that,
we
are
taking
things
in
our
hands.
Of
course
we
are
big.
D
Proponents
of
you
know
decentralized
consensus,
and
we
would
like
to
do
that
in
that
way.
So
this
issue
is
essentially
crowdsourcing.
What
should
be
good
due
diligence,
I
think
or
everyone
who
cares
about
Falcon
plus-
should
participate
here.
I
just
posted
another
issue
this
morning,
which
is
specifically
about
from
the
perspective
of
trust
and
transparency,
but
this
issue
is
different
from
the
issue.
D
I
posted
this
issue,
essentially
is
is
a
discussion
about
what
should
be
kind
of
the
minimum
requirements
and
the
guidelines
that
a
notary
should
follow,
which
would
become
part
of
the
SLA
requirements
for
V5.
The
next
round
note
three
elections,
whereas
the
issue
that
I
posted
today
that
I'll
be
discussing
next
discusses.
What
can
the
TNT
working
group
do
to
take
action?
D
So
again,
this
was
posted
this
morning.
This
essentially
outlined
some
of
the
minimum
requirements
that
different
stakeholders
should
have.
In
my
opinion,
again,
it's
a
proposal
for
different
types
of
data
sets
I.
Think
I
think
we
have
some
new
forms
come
in
as
well
as
some
new
approaches
like
kyc
that
have
been
launched
in
the
past
month
or
two,
so
we
want
to
leverage
all
of
that.
So
please
engage
with
this
issue
and
I
just
want
to
I
think.
D
Lastly,
respond
to
the
discussion
that
has
been
going
on
in
the
field
plus
Channel
I.
Think
I've
mentioned
this
before
in
the
TNT
working
group
calls.
But
we
are
very
aware
that
you
know
people
are
selling
data
cap
and
you
know
what's
happening,
you
know
in
secondary
interest
rate
markets,
I.
Think
people
I
think
the
approach
that
a
lot
of
people
take
is
well.
You
can't
do
anything
about
it
and
I
think
that's
very
much
going
to
change
I.
Think,
of
course
you
know
I
I,
don't
I.
D
D
That's
totally
fine
and
I
would
encourage
you
to
please
reach
out
to
me
the
fact
that
you
know
certain
community
members
are
more
active.
Of
course.
That
is
a
strong
sign
for
trust.
You
know
how
else
will
you
know
want
to
untrust
100
trust
by
in
an
open
ecosystem
by
building
tools
showing
proof,
and
if
someone
is
doing
that,
work
and
saying
that
you
know
I'm,
just
trusting
them
of
course,
I'm
trusting
them
because
they're
doing
the
work
so
I
think
I
will
continue
to
do
so.
D
D
D
So
essentially,
if
there
is
an
issue
that
say
that
requests
information
about
SPS,
we
can,
we
will
always
approach
it
from
the
client's
lens,
because
we
understand
that
Falcon
Plus
in
the
fip003
does
not
have
much
power
over
a
space.
But
that
is
not
to
say
that
you
know
there
are
other
ways
in
which
we
can
address,
because
we
understand
that
you
know
many
SP
Supply
on
behalf
of
their
clients
or
are
pretending
to
be
clients
so
yeah.
D
All
of
this
is
not
like
new
knowledge
for
us,
but
we
also
understand
the
constraints.
So
again,
I
think
if
you,
if
you're
just
going
to,
if
you
know,
if
you're
a
Community
member
who
disagrees
I,
would
highly
encourage
you
to
open
a
dispute
in
the
TNT
dispute
tracker
or
have
a
conducive
discussion.
I
think
finger,
pointing
or
violating
the
code
of
conduct
is
probably
not
the
best
way
to
move
forward.
A
Thanks
RG
I
appreciate
you
that
there
was
a
chat
question
that
just
came
in
from
cloud
X,
so
you
might
have
missed
it
when
we
addressed
it
earlier
right
now.
The
subtitles
are
only
closed.
Captioned
for
English
we're
still
working
for
a
translation
that
goes
live
so
you'll
be
able
to
see
Chinese
simplified,
probably
on
the
next
call.
We'll
have
everything
worked
out
for
you
so
just
to
let
you
know
great,
we
had
a
few.
A
Quite
a
few
issues
come
through
on
proposals
want
to
make
sure
that
theirs
were
on
the
radar
for
everybody
and
then
give
it
a
chance
for
open
discussion.
So
the
first
one
was
The
Proposal
on
the
open
data
set
flow.
I
was
wondering
Casey
if
you're
on
the
line.
I
know
that
you
know
this
a
lot
more
along
with
RG.
Would
you.
E
A
E
E
Looking
to
address
the
issue
of
not
enough
information
related
to
public
open
data
sets
now,
as
most
people
know.
Historically,
and
currently,
the
majority
of
applications
coming
through
fill
plus
are
for
the
category
of
public
open
data,
which
is
could
be
a
data
set
from
AWS
common
crawl.
There's
a
lot
of
examples
out
there
that
are
data
sets
that
are
not
technically
owned
by
the
applicant,
but
they're
they're.
E
That's
meant
to
help
enable
SP
entities
grow
around
the
world,
so
the
idea
needs
you
need
to
follow
the
guidelines
to
be
able
to
support
more
and
more
SPS
and
enable
better
Network
growth
right.
So,
over
the
past
few
months,
we've
seen
a
lot
of
comments
and
issues
coming
through
the
different
Community
channels
related
to
clients,
not
following
guidelines
and
notaries,
signing
off
without
doing
property
due
diligence.
E
So
this
issue
essentially
looks
to
both
of
those
in
the
butt
up
front
by
requiring
applicants
to
submit
more
information
about
not
only
themselves
from
from
a
Viewpoint
of
checking.
You
know
who
they
are
confirming
if
they're
a
data
prepare,
but
also
the
SP
entities
that
they're
working
with
this.
This
is
becoming
very
clear
that
it
needs
to
be
mapped
and
and
looked
at
throughout
the
process.
E
E
A
E
Historically,
you
know
being
able
to
submit
a
Proposal
review
it
on
a
call
like
this,
so
that
we
have
awareness
in
the
community
and
then
opportunity
for
people
to
express
support
or
or
feedback
generally
within
a
one
to
two
week.
Time
frame,
so
I
would
hope
by
the
end
of
this
week
we
can
review
what's
out
there,
and
then
you
know
by
by
the
end
of
next
week.
Have
this
cut
this
out
and
running.
That's
my
goal.
A
This
was
a
community
flag
and
I
think
this
comes
from
a
lot
of
the
SLA,
and
we
touched
on
this
earlier,
but
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
this
one
proposal
was
on
all
notaries
radar,
as
well
as
like
collecting
feedbacks
and
input.
So
we
kind
of
mentioned
that
we
went
from
I
think
it
was
a
handful
like
less
than
13
in
round
one
of
Elections.
A
It's.
How
do
we
look
at
that
removal
process
of
the
V4
notaries?
So
when
we
get
set
for
a
V5
election,
we
have
a
very
core
group
and
we
have
a
very
well
established
set
of
like
what
does
it
take
to
perform
in
this
program
to
be
a
steward
of
the
data.
That's
coming
onto
this
network,
so
a
very
good
proposal,
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
we're
looking
at
and
we've
touched
several
times
on
this
call
the
kind
of
feedback
into
this.
It's.
A
Casey
just
spoke
about
like
how
does
that
proposal
look
as
far
as
tie-ins,
and
we
had
talks
about
like
how
often
should
that
diligence
be
conducted
as
we
kind
of
push
this
out
and
as
we
start
to
look,
there
are
some
very
low
hanging,
notaries
that
can
be
removed,
those
that
aren't
on
the
calls,
those
that
might
not
have
conducted
diligence
then
the
second
is
looking
at
the
pool
of
notaries.
It
might
have
had
past
abuse.
Claims
how
those
claims
have
been
addressed.
Are
they
like
rectifying
that
behavior?
A
Are
we
still
seeing
something
so
these
this
proposal
really
ties
into
a
lot
of
how
we're
focusing
on
the
quality
phase
of
it.
So
a
very
well
written
proposal,
I'd
encourage
everyone
to
go.
Look
I'd
also
encourage
you
to
leave
any
comments.
If
there's
nothing
new
that
you
had
to
the
discussion
simply
giving
a
thumbs
up
or
a
thumbs
down
on
an
existing
thread
is
wildly
helpful
for
having
a
record
of
transparent
data.
A
That
way
as
we
move
forward
on
this
notary
removal,
there
should
be
no
question
for
a
notary
like
why
am
I
being
removed.
What
did
I
not
do
that
was
needed.
We're
trying
to
make
this
as
clear
and
transparent
as
possible
and
I'll
be
following
up
on
what
that
looks
like
for
any
notaries
in
the
program.
That
way,
there's
no
confusion
on
if
you're,
meeting
expectations
or
missing
it,
because
they're
all
clearly
lined
out
so
so
I
highly
encourage
you
to
go.
Look
at
this
issue.
A
A
All
right,
one
of
the
things
that's
come
out
of
the
trust
and
transparency
working
group.
That's
been
really
effective
is
a
few
months
ago,
if
a
member
of
the
community,
a
notary,
a
member
of
the
governance
team,
noticed
things
that
were
flagged
as
abusive.
There
really
was
no
mechanism
to
collect
that
input
and
then
have
some
place
where
it
can
be
implemented
and
documented.
A
So
RG
who
rolled
out
the
dispute
resolution
tracker
as
well
as
GitHub
proposals,
so
I
wanted
to
flag
this
for
all
notaries
that
are
on
the
call
or
anybody
watching,
because
this
is
the
opportunity
to
kind
of
address
this.
So
if
you
see
something
on
the
network
or
if
you
see
Behavior
putting
it
in
the
dispute,
resolution
tracker
or
making
a
proposal
like
these
new
ones
that
have
been
stood
up
is
a
very
clear
way
to
establish
this.
A
One
thing
that's
nice,
coming
back
to
comms
is:
if
we
take
this
out
of
slack,
it
has
a
retrievability,
so
this
GitHub
issue
will
be
open
as
long
as
the
program
is
so
we
can
come
back
to
this,
not
just
two
weeks
but
two
months
or
two
years
later,
and
tie
this
and
connect
it
and
have
a
pathway.
The
second
is
that
it
gives
more
rails
to
like
how
are
we
looking
at
this
and
how
are
we
discussing
it?
A
So
I
know
RG,
spends
time
on
the
trust
and
transparency
working
groups
to
kind
of
go
over
this,
but
I
also
wanted
to
make
sure
that
all
notaries
on
the
call
were
taking
to
to
come
into
the
issues
in
GitHub
and
looking
at
some
of
these
flags
leaving
any
comments.
Some
of
these
comments
will
have
like
one
or
two.
Some
are
much
more
lively
discussions
like
7,
4
and
989
that
you
could
see
here,
I'm
going
to
pause,
cloudx
I
see
you
have
a
hand
up
the
floor.
Is
yours.
A
A
Maybe
an
accidental
keystroke
I'm
going
to
manually
lower
your
hand,
but
if
you
want
to
come
back
by
any
means,
just
stick
that
hand
up
and
we'll
give
it
back
to
you.
So
everyone
else
highly
encourage
you
great
use,
great
flags
and
again,
this
is
what
trust
and
transparency
is
looking
at.
I
see
a
new
hand
coming
from
Peter
Peter.
The
floor
is
yours,.
G
D
D
We
don't
have
the
proper
decision
making
body
you
know,
so
it
won't
be
super
useful,
but
I
really
appreciate
that
you
made
a
slide
deck
but
yeah,
please
post
that
in
the
issue
and
then,
if
you
don't
mind
if
you
can
also
post
it
in
the
TNT
working
group,
because
I
know
it
was
a
working
group
Channel
because
I
know
the
call
was
canceled
today,
so
I
think
I
would
really
appreciate
it.
But
thank
you
so
much.
G
G
You
know
it's
basically,
as
if
paid,
maybe
you
know
driving
the
talk,
but
actually
you
can
see
you
can
just
labeling
everybody
to
top
blocks,
even
though
the
one
guy
Guan
Xin,
Yang
I,
don't
even
know
him
facing
his
top
blocks
and
he's
not
even
listening
to
anybody.
Actually,
it's
really
unstable
I
feel
like.
G
Jump
yeah,
yeah,
we've
been
a
long
time.
You
know
SP
starting
from
Space
Race.
We
are
based
in
California,
PL
team
did
visit
our
data
center
in
Santa
Clara
in
2022
I
think
it
changed.
Yeah
Colo,
we
are
huge.
Actually
she
was
impressed
during
her
visit,
so
we
are
doing
everything
in
California
and
sitting
coming.
Everything
is
very
expensive.
We
are
still
with
you
guys
with
with
Fair
coin.
We
we
did
invest.
We
we
did
not
even
sell
one
single
field
from
our
space
race.
You
know
mining
from
day
one
of
this
project.
G
Now
we
feel
we
are
building
here.
Actually
so
yeah
I
do
say
you
know
the
0.01
field
and
0.1
field
is
used
to
put
multiple.
You
know
minus
together,
whatever
cdlan
into
the
same
company
yeah.
This
is
only
one.
Only
0.1
was
pointed
in
the
GitHub
discussion
right
or
zero
point
zero
one.
Even
using
those
transactions
to
label
people
together
and
about
the
VPN
is
Sony
for
protection,
the
VPN.
Actually
it's
used.
It's
not
VP,
actually
we're
using
proxy
okay
again,
so
we
are
using
because
we
were
DDOS
during
the
Space
Race.
G
We
have
to
have
some
protection
here.
That's
why
we
are
using,
as
you
can
see,
all
those
all
those
IPL
just
still
belong
to
the
same
city.
If
we
would
like
to
do
any
abusive
activity,
we
should
be
hiding
to
some
different
city
right.
It's
still
the
same
city
just
from
California
to
New
Jersey
right.
G
So
what's
the
point
for
the
for
gaining
from
this
kind
of
proxy
or
VPN
activity
right,
so
I
don't
see
any
point
that
I'm
a
networking
engineer
for
20
plus
years,
so
basically
using
any
basic
networking.
Knowledge
here
is
not
going
to
drive
to
that
kind
of
conclusion,
say:
Okay,
proxy
or
VPN.
Here
is
kind
of
abusive
and
0.01
field
transfer
and
0.1.0
and.
F
G
G
D
A
I
appreciate
this
guys
good
feedback
and
for
those
of
you
on
the
call,
what's
really
helpful
about
the
structure
of
this,
is
this
call
meant
to
be
like
high
level
governance,
making
sure
that
all
issues
are
up
and
then
great
Flags,
coming
from
you
Peter
great
quag,
from
hippie
great
flags
on
this,
and
that's
what's
really
nice
about
the
other
calls
that
we
have,
which
is
specifically
dedicated
to
the
trust
and
transparency
working
you're
working
this
out
so
great
Flags.
We
posted
that
link
right
there
for
9
13..
A
A
So
kind
of
wrapping
up
we
just
kind
of
did
some
Community
discussion.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we've
saved
time
at
the
end
of
the
call
which
we
have
for
anything
else
that
might
be
on
your
radar.
I
can
tell
that
like
based
off
some
of
the
DMS
that
I've
gotten
it
was
about
the
election
and
a
lot
of
like
what
goes
into
the
inactive
notary
removal
as
well
as
like.
How
are
we
looking
at
this
communication?
So
anything,
that's
on
your
mind.
All
mute
floor
is
yours.
A
Will
be
there
because,
like
on
my
phone
right
now,
yeah
great
question
so
TNT
has
their
own
dedicated,
slack
Channel
and
inside
of
slack
they
post
that
and
they
also
have
a
couple
of
links.
I
will
moonside
task,
while
I
mute
again
and
I'll
dig
that
out
and
I'll
drop
those
links
in
chat.
So
you
have
it
RG
if
you're
on
the
call.
Do
you
mind
just
commenting
a
little
bit
about
when
the
next
call
is
and
what's
the
best
place
to
get
in
touch?
A
D
Yeah
I'll
just
drop
the
Falcon,
the
slack
link
here
the
next
call
today's
it
was
supposed
to
be
today
because
you
know
we
had
to
reschedule
it.
So,
given
everything
I'm
hearing
right
now,
I'll
propose
to
hold
the
call
next
week
on
Tuesday
I
will
be
at
espa.
So
just
give
me
maybe,
like
you
know,
like
just
look
at
my
schedule,
but
yeah
we'll
hold
the
call.
D
But
if
you
do
have
anything
urgent,
you
can
either
DM
me
or
you
can
also
Post
in
the
trust,
working
group,
channel,
yeah,
I
think
that's
where
we
can
do.
If
you
have
a
specific
dispute,
there's
also
the
TNT
dispute
tracker
I'll
post
a
link
to
that
as
well,
where
there's
a
Google
form
at
the
top
of
the
chat
of
the
of
this
tracker,
where
you
can
input
a
dispute.
A
Yeah,
nice,
that's
a
good
flag
too.
The
trust
and
transparency
meets
8
30
every
other
week,
8
30
Pacific
time
every
other
week
from
the
governance
calls
so
because
of
the
holiday
that
happened
in
the
states.
I
think
that
schedule
is
a
little
bit
overlapping,
so
RG
will
be
invest
Club
next
week,
espa
and
then
we'll
be
re-establishing
that
so
apologies.
If
you
were
looking
for
that,
I
think
that
we
stepped
on
that
on
the
governance
side,
so
good
flag,
I
appreciate
you
raising
that.
A
A
H
Okay,
next
guys
I'm
From
Below
tag
and
the
sense
for
your
dedication
in
this
project,
but
I
got
some
problem.
There's
I'd
like
to
address
that.
So
it's
a
matter
of
the
signature
problem
with
LDN
and
sorry
for
for
that,
I
will
say
that,
because
at
level
5.3,
so
we
follow
the
rules
strictly
in
the
perform
all
necessary
reviews.
But
you
know
we
are
not
on
Trend
detectives
and
it's
impossible
for
us
to
check
every
unchair
activities
you
know,
and
but
so
we
noticed
that
their
proposal
should
be
913.
H
Sorry,
I
will
I
will
post
it
on
the
on
the
training
board
later
and
the
the
proposed
to
remove
the
it
should
be.
913
is
supposed
to
to
remove
the
notary
was
signed.
We
we
can.
We
can't
understand
the
rules
of
such
a
proposal
because
we
are
in
accordance
with
the
working
produce
for
the
n4z1971
application
we
as
the
first
round
of
signers-
and
we
don't
know
the
next
setting
of
the
others.
H
Besides
for
another
2045
issue
applicant
permits
that
they
would
not
store
more
than
30
percent
of
data
to
nodes,
and
the
report
showed
that
the
they
did
it.
But
for
this
it's
simply
no
problem
issue
past
the
city
saying,
but
why
we
are
still
convicted
or
break
the
rules
and
there's
no
enough
evidence
to
to
show
that
so
I
just
want
to
know
who's
whose
size
criteria-
and
we
want.
We
want
this
project
to
be
great
and
hopeful
is,
but
hopefully
it's
fair
sex.
D
D
I
am
the
one
who's
you
know
essentially
looking
at
like
the
quality
of
discussion,
and
you
know
the
pros
and
cons,
but
I
understand
that
that
is
a
very
that
might
not
be
the
best
approach
you
take.
So
what
I'm
going
to
do?
You
know
right
now
or
the
field
plus
team
is
currently
meeting
in
person
to
discuss
some
of
these
exact
issues,
and
so
there's
actually
an
issue
on
notary
governance
I'm
just
trying
to
pull
it
up.
D
You
know
where
we
try
to
like
form
a
set
of,
like
you
know,
a
counsel
or
a
committee
or
like
the
self-selected
set
of
members
who
will
be
essentially
the
the
subset
of
the
trust
and
transparency
working
group
I.
Think
the
challenge
there
was
that
fem
was
you,
know
very
new,
and
so
some
of
the
technicalities
that
we
had
in
terms
of
like
you
know,
staking
weren't
clear.
But
that
is
not
to
say
that
we
will
not
revisit
that
idea.
D
But
that's
where
we're
leading
to
so
to
answer
your
last
question:
that's
how
you
know
the
decisions
will
be
made
in
terms
of
you
know
again.
I
think
I
just
want
to
kind
of
say
this
again.
I
know
it's
very
very
hard
for
anyone
when,
when
they're
accused
in
public
right
I
think
if
someone
was
to
accuse
me
of
you
know
fraud
in
public.
Of
course
it
takes
that
repetition
hit
and
I
totally
understand
that,
but
I
think
I
just
want
to
say
like
right
now.
D
That's
you
know,
given
that
we're
using
GitHub
anyone
can
come
in
and
open
an
issue.
So
if
you
disagree,
I
think
my
best
recommendation
until
we
form
this
committee
would
be
to
you
know,
just
maintain
your
stance
and
if
you
think
you
are
doing
the
right
thing,
you
don't
need
to
worry
about
it.
I,
as
you
can
see,
I'm
very
conscious
before
posting
an
opinion
from
my
own
side,
and
so
yeah
I
just
want
to
reassure
that.
D
You
know
if
there
is
an
issue
against
a
client
or
an
SP
that
you're
working
with
just
just
please
participate
in
the
in
the
discussion,
and
we
are
as
the
governance
team,
taking
steps
to
come
up
with
a
better
decision-making
process.
I
think
it's
high
time
that
you
know
like
things
like
staking
are
introduced.
D
F
G
Again
from
Top
blocks,
yeah
I
think
I
really
respect
you
know
RG
or
even
high
hit
for
your
oil
efforts,
but
it's
not
only
you
have
the
logic.
Okay,
everybody
got
that
logic.
So
I
believe
you
know
RG
or
Kevin.
You
might
be
moderate
of
the
group.
So
when
there
is
obvious
one
side
voice,
something
obvious
you
gotta
kick
in,
so
hey
it's
not
only
you
have
logic.
Okay,
we
are
Engineers.
Also.
We
have
logic.
G
Yeah
yeah
yeah,
that's
right,
just
like
what
the
VPN
you
are
talking
about
right
so
I
mean
let's
look
engineer
for
20
plus
years.
Vpn
is
what
proxy
is
for
the
VPN.
If
you
just
point
it
out,
you're
still
using
the
same
geolocation
where
I'm
gonna
profit
from
that
think
about
it.
That
way,
where's
your
logic,
so
it's
obvious
that
you're
still
insisting
just
does
not
listen
to
anybody.
That's
not
just
right!
Okay
and.
G
Minimal
minimal
transaction
like
0.1,
0.01,
gassy
kind
of
thing
bound
the
people
together.
Actually
we
did
transfer.
You
know
few
to
people
like
stco,
believe
those
guys
you
could
bundle
everybody
together
using
that
logic.
Okay,
that's
not
right
right!
So
using
some
basic
logic.
You
would
not
trust
that
conclusion.
Okay,
just
bundle
everybody
together,
I
see
I'm
I'm,
I
kind
of
pity.
When
I
look
at
the
the
message
from
another
guy.
What's
his
name,
his
name
is
like
a
guanjin
yeah,
maybe
a
Chinese.
G
A
Peter
I'm
sorry
I
think
that
I
accidentally
cut
you
off
while
I
was
talking
so
Peter
if
you're
muted,
that
was
my
fault
but
great
points
and
I
love.
How
you're
looking
at
this
from
like
what
is
the
engineering
reason
and
then
what
is
the
use
case
in
the
program
and
then
how
does
it
align
I
think
that
is
such
a
well-structured
approach
to
take
and
I
think
that's
what
hidey
was
trying
to
say
too
is
like
love.
A
A
Thanks
yeah
yeah
I'm,
gonna
pause.
We
have
like
10
seconds
left
I'd
like
to
thank
those
of
you
that
were
on
this
call.
The
file
coin
and
governance
team
is
meeting
for
a
Colo
right
now.
So
a
lot
of
these
issues
that
are
flagged
we're
going
to
be
discussing
and
coming
back
those
of
you
on
the
call.
Thank
you
so
much
for
taking
the
time.
The
next
call
will
be
happening
at
the
next
schedule.
You'll
check
it
in
slack
appreciate
all
of
you
have
a
great
day.
Thank
you
again,
oh
good
evening,
good
morning.
A
Welcome
to
the
second
notary
governance
call
of
July
11th.
Let's
take
a
look
at
the
agenda
here,
so
we're
going
to
cover
the
same
points
we
hit
in
the
morning
and
the
main
emphasis
that
we
were
driving
home
on
that
call
as
well
as
this
one
is
what
notary,
Communications
activity
and
participation
looks
like,
and
how
is
that
driving
this
quality
phase
that
we're
working
towards
and
what
are
we
looking
for
you
as
notaries,
as
well
as
how
you
should
be
communicating
with
the
community
at
Large?
A
The
update
coming
from
trust
and
transparency
is
related
to
a
couple
new
features,
a
couple
of
mining
tools
that
will
be
of
interest
to
you,
notaries,
to
look
at
this
and
under
proposals.
We
have
two
new
updates
that
you
might
have
seen
in
GitHub.
If
not
that's,
why
we're
putting
him
on
this
call,
as
well
as
highlighting
a
couple
of
threads
from
the
trust
and
transduce
trust
and
transparency
abuse
reviews
if
it's
like
the
morning,
we'll
have
around
10
15
minutes
at
the
end
of
the
call.
A
So
if
there's
anything
that
you
want
to
dive
into
we'll
have
plenty
of
Cycles
to
jump
into
that
at
the
end,
quick
reminder
we
did
not
meet
on
July
4th
today
is
the
11th,
and
the
next
call
will
take
place
on
the
25th
of
July.
If
you
have
anything,
you
want
to
add
to
the
next
agenda.
As
always,
there's
going
to
be
a
repo
just
make
a
comment:
Kevin
I'd
love
to
talk
about
fill
in
the
blank
and
I'll
put
that
on
the
agenda.
A
If
you
don't
want
it
public
and
you
just
want
to
flag,
it
feel
free
to
DM
me
on
slack
and
I'll.
Do
the
exact
same
thing?
You
have
a
team
of
governance
here
to
back
you
up
no
change
to
this.
So
if
you're
a
frequent
caller,
you
know
who
our
names
are
if
you're
new
to
watching
this,
if
you
need
any
questions,
feel
free
to
route
through
me
and
I'll
get
to
the
best
place
on
the
team
to
get
that
going.
A
So
with
that
notaries
first
off
is
we
have
this
a
question
come
up
in
slack
and
it
was
a
great
ping.
It
was
hey.
We
had
been
talking
about
the
election
coming
up
this
summer.
Is
there
any
news
on
dates?
So
here's
what's
going
on
right
now
with
the
election
for
full
transparency,
we
are
delaying
the
V5
elections
for
the
following
reasons:
one
is
we're
working
on
improving
like
the
accountability
and
resources
to
existing
notaries.
A
For
those
of
you
that
have
been
around
a
while
you've
seen
the
notary
pool
go
from
around
20
in
the
V2
two
years
ago,
up
to
around
50
on
V3
last
year,
and
this
year
we
jumped
to
around
86
new
notaries
and
a
lot
of
growing
pains
with
the
program.
That's
scaling
that
quickly
and
so
what
we're
finding
is
that
having
more
notaries
isn't
always
advantageous
for
fast
signing
and
diligent
signing,
so
we're
really
looking
at
if
an
election
is
just
designed
to
bring
more
people
on.
That's
probably
not
the
most
helpful
thing.
A
We
have
lots
of
quality
people,
but
how
are
we
enabling
those
notaries
to
sign
and
review
and
do
that
diligence?
So
that's
where
our
effort
is
going.
So
if
there
is
someone
on
the
call,
that's
Keen
to
get
involved
in
the
program
become
a
notary.
Please
message
me:
I'll,
put
you
on
a
list
make
sure
that
your
application
is
on
file
when
we
do
it,
but
this
is
kind
of
the
thought
process
so
no
election
time
frame
once
we
have
Tooling
in
place.
A
We'll
move
forward
with
this,
but
good
question
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
transparent
and
sharing
a
flag
on
communication.
So
we've
talked
about
this
on
the
last
call
just
a
friendly
reminder
that,
as
we're
communicating
on
slack
we're
mindful
we're,
not
abusive
and
if
there
is
any
Flags,
we
take
that
calm
over
to
the
GitHub
proposal
for
trust
and
transparency,
where
it's
really
easy
to
action
and
go
forward
on
that
all
right
notaries
on
the
call
I
am
putting
in
chat
the
link
that
has
the
SLA
air
table
for
you
guys.
A
Thank
you
for
filling
this
out
the
first
part
of
2023.
We
kind
of
took
this
approach
that,
like
hey,
if
you
said
you
were
on
the
call
but
didn't
sign
this.
That's
okay,
I
updated
the
roster
going
forward
with
2023
it's
going
to
be
much
more
of
a
hard
requirement
and
the
reason
for
it.
It's
not
just
like
signing
a
list
like
hey
I'm
here,
but
when
you
fill
these
out,
you
kind
of
allocate
your
self-reported
hours.
A
Where
are
you
as
a
notary
investing
your
time
and
this
matters
because
we're
trying
to
solve
that
so
that
you
don't
have
to
invest
as
much
time
on
things
other
than
the
applications
and
the
community
and
what
you
care
about?
So
thank
you
for
filling
this
out.
We
appreciate
it
and
that's
why
it's
going
to
be
used
for
the
SLA
going
forward.
A
So,
like
hey,
here's
for
everybody
to
see
how
many
applications
are
signed
what's
going
on,
and
this
is
issue
904.,
it's
meant
to
be
a
discussion.
Just
make
sure
we
have
the
data
correct
and
now
we're
going
to
be
looking
at
is
how
does
the
participation
that
we've
seen
happen
organically
tie
back
to
like
what
the
program
needs
so,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
there's
400
some
LDN
applications
over
the
course
of
86
notaries.
A
What's
a
realistic
expectation
to
like
look
at
those
applications,
suss
them
out
to
see
if
they're
quality,
and
then
they
should
receive
data
cap
or
not?
So
that's
really
the
heart
of
this
and
what
we're
looking
at.
So
if
there
are
notaries
that
aren't
able
to
meet
this
objective
like
either
they've
changed
companies,
or
this
really
wasn't
a
good
fit
for
them
or
they
don't
have
the
time
to
really
invest
in
this
going
forward.
A
There
needs
to
be
some
kind
of
mechanism
to
like
off-board
notaries
and
then
just
warmly
welcome
them
back,
should
bandwidth
increase
in
the
future.
So
there
was
this
issue
911
if
you
haven't
seen
it
in
GitHub.
This
is
your
call
to
kind
of
look
at
it,
Community
sponsored,
and
what
we're
looking
at
to
kind
of
look
at
this,
and
why
I'm
bringing
this
up
for
you,
notaries
and
the
call
is
I
like
your
feedback,
it's
that
what
is
the
time
period
That's
realistic,
to
ask
for
reviewing
applications.
A
Is
it
that
a
notary
should
do
this
once
a
week
once
a
month
every
two
weeks?
So
if
you
have
feedback
as
a
notary,
do
you
like
to
sign
and
review
applications
every
week
every
month?
Let
me
know,
because
what
I
would
hate
to
do
is
pick
some
arbitrary
timeline
that
says
notaries.
We
want
you
signing
every
week,
which
is
totally
unrealistic
if
you
sign
in
batches
every
couple
of
weeks
when
bandwidth
allows
so
please
put
it
in
chat.
A
A
So
in
the
chat
family
man,
thank
you
for
asking
that
so
monthly
I
kind
of
agree.
That's
what
I
thought
would
be
like
a
realistic
timeline
that
way
in
case
you
go
on
vacation
in
case
there's
a
holiday
in
case,
something
picks
up
at
work.
There's
not
like
this
looming
crisis.
I
appreciate
you
leaving
that
fat
man
I'll
put
that
in
the
comments.
If
anybody
else
has
feedback
agree,
disagree
I'd
love
to
hear
it.
Thank
you
all
right.
If
you
are
looking
at
this,
this
is
just
a
refresh
check
out
that
fill
Plus
application
review.
A
We
send
lots
of
applications
there
that
are
looking
for
notaries.
It's
very
public.
Those
guys
will
write
back.
Thank
you,
notaries
for
the
responding
to
it
and
then,
if
you
are
wondering
like
what
goes
into
the
monthly,
it's
not
just
pure
application
signed
like
it's
not
like
a
goal
where
we
look
at
a
notary
and
say:
you've
signed
30
applications
Bravo.
Obviously,
if
you
get
30
applications
and
you
review
and
all
30
of
them
are
very
clearly
fraudulent,
then
it
does
nothing
to
sign.
In
fact
it
does
the
opposite.
A
So
if
you
remember
that
tooling,
that's
now
in
the
registry,
you
can
review
30
applications
if
you
were
to
do
it
or
10
or
whatever
your
bandwidth
is
that
you
signed
up
for.
But
if
you
Market
in
this
diligence
in
the
registry,
it
makes
it
public
for
everybody
and
goes
a
long
way.
So
it's
not
just
signing
but
just
reviewing
and
leaving
your
notes,
greatly
appreciated
and
in
the
chat
just
to
Circle.
Back
on
the
timeline.
I
see
four
four
comments
for
monthly
I.
Think
that's
the
strong
leader.
A
A
If
you
check
out
the
storage
providers
on
quality
data,
capsite,
there's
a
new
column
really
kind
of
stoked
off
this
one
Cairo
posted
it
in
Phil
plus
today
and
essentially
what
it
shows
is
the
retrievable
bot
score
for
all
of
the
allocation
that
goes
off.
So,
if
you
look
at
it
right
now,
I
think
it's
still
beta
they're
kind
of
kicking
it.
If
you
have
feedback,
please
send
it
over
to
Cairo,
but
I.
Think
one
of
the
goals
that
we're
looking
at
is
what
is
a
good
retrievability
score.
A
So,
as
you
look
at
this,
is
it?
Is
it
zero
or
is
it
100?
And
it's
very
clearly
not
zero
RG
had
mentioned
anything
greater
than
one
percent
is
what
we're
looking
for
is
like
setting
the
Baseline
and
then
obviously
ratcheting
it
up
from
there.
So
tooling
is
live.
You
can
check
it
out.
Hopefully
this
is
as
helpful
for
you
as
it
goes
forward.
A
The
second
thing
that
RG
was
flagging
is
that
in
the
trust
and
transparency
they
have
essentially
like
a
due
diligence
process,
that's
going
on
and
that
there
was
a
couple
of
questions
that
were
outstanding
for
them,
and
so
we
shared
this
slide
that
they're
in
the
discussion
phase
for
trust
and
transparency.
And
if
you
sit
on
that
trust
and
transparency
working
group,
they
typically
meet
every
other
Tuesday
which,
because
this
call
shifted
one
week
was
today.
A
B
A
A
So
if
you're
curious
about
this,
if
this
relates
to
you
check
out
RG
on
the
morning,
call
on
the
YouTube
or
just
read
this
925
very
summarize
right
to
the
point,
and
it
just
highlights
what
they're
doing
this
question
came
up
on
chat.
We
included
in
the
sync
for
trust
and
transparency,
and
it
was
essentially
like
hey
if
I
want
to
check
a
Miner's
retrievability.
Is
that
something
that
we
can
do
on
the
tooling?
A
So,
as
some
of
you
that
have
been
around
this
program
for
a
while
now,
you
realize
a
lot
of
the
tooling
was
built
to
handle
like
a
certain
set
of
volume
and
a
lot
of
the
documentation
was
built
for
like
a
rapid
onboarding.
But
then
what
we're
seeing
now
is
that
some
diligence
is
not
being
done
and
a
lot
of
the
question
come
back.
It's
like
well
hey.
How
does
this
work
between
the
client,
the
SP
and,
what's
like
the
role
of
the
notary,
is
we're
doing
it?
A
A
So
this
is
probably
one
of
those
proposals
that,
if
you
were
going
to
take
time
to
read
just
one
I
would
say:
925
is
a
great
use
of
your
time,
so
925
kind
of
walks
through
all
that
I'm
just
going
to
link
it
here
in
chat
because
I
know,
if
you're
like
me,
multitasking
can
sometimes
get
the
better
of
you
so
I'm,
going
to
multitask
over
to
my
second
page
grab
that
GitHub
link
and
I'm
putting
it
here
in
chat
check
this
one
out.
I
think
this
would
be
worth
your
time
all
right.
A
Another
application
that
came
through
that
you
might
want
to
be
aware
of,
came
through
talking
about
community
and
how
we
have
notaries
in
the
program.
So
it's
been
a
theme
for
the
past
two
months.
That
quality
is
what
we're
really
looking
for
in
this
filecoin
plus
phase
of
growth
and
of
that
quality,
not
just
in
applications
but
in
the
diligence
process
of
those
applications,
and
that's
where
you
as
notaries,
lead
the
charge.
So
this
is
saying
essentially
look
if
we
have
a
lot
of
notaries.
A
Does
it
make
sense
to
keep
a
lot
of
notaries,
or
could
this
work
be
done
with
a
very
active,
smaller
user
base,
and
this
is
worth
teasing
out,
and
this
is
worth
having
a
discussion
around,
especially
as
we
look
at
like
the
SLA
and
removing
inactive
notaries.
So
if
you
haven't
seen
this
one,
this
was
filed
by
community
and
what
they're
trying
to
say
is
like.
A
Can
we
drive
higher
trust
and
engagement
if
we
reduce
the
number
of
notaries
and
then
they
really
kind
of
call
out
like
what
are
the
steps
that
a
notary
has
to
take
and
are
we
meeting
these
steps
and
that's
very
similar
to
something
that
we've
been
looking
on
the
governance
team?
But
our
approach
is
really
like.
What
can
we
do
to
help
you
the
most,
and
if
you
tell
us
that
it
really
makes
it
more
helpful
for
us
to
put
that
together
and
work
on
those
guides
and
those
trainings
or
hey?
A
What
are
we
doing
in
the
program?
That's
not
helping
you
so
again,
920
really
worth
a
read
kind
of
look
at
it
and
that
leads
us
to
how
abuse
is
kind
of
flagged
in
the
system.
So
what
I
have
is
a
screenshot
of
maybe
four
or
five
open
proposals
that
are
in
the
GitHub
repository
for
governance
and
what
these
all
all
just
essentially
like
abusive
Behavior
flags
that
were
flagged
from
the
community.
Looking
at
some
things
that
didn't
add
up.
A
What's
really
nice
about
this
model,
not
nice
that
we're
having
this
discussion
about
abuse
or
but
the
fact
that
it's
out
of
slack
is
what
makes
it
really
nice.
So
thank
you
for
making
these
inside
of
GitHub
because
we
can
have
the
discussion-
and
this
is
exactly
kind
of
the
content
that
comes
up
on
the
trust
and
transparency
call
so
on
Tuesday
I.
A
Think
some
of
the
folks
that
were
called
out
on
this
have
really
detailed
explanations
to
explain
this
or
to
articulate
it
or
to
ask
questions
themselves,
so
you
might
have
seen
in
fill
plus
chat.
I
think
they've
already
posted
a
slide
deck
rebuttal
to
some
of
the
issues
in
issue
9989.
So
it's
really
good
to
see
this
taking
place.
If
you
are
one
of
these
individuals.
That's
on
this.
This
is
perfect
to
kind
of
write
your
reply
in
this
comment.
A
If
you
come
to
the
trusted
transparency
working
group
that
happens
next
Tuesday
they're
going
to
dive
deep,
give
you
a
form
to
kind
of
discuss.
This
ask
more
questions.
Also
ask
rg's
time
for
anything
that
I
might
not
be
clear,
so
good
Flags!
If
you
have
any
questions,
please
check
them
out
and
with
that
I'm
going
to
ask
something
of
you
and
it's
knowing
exactly
what
to
talk
about.
A
Let
me
go
forward
so
obviously,
on
this
governance
call,
we
take
issues
that
were
flagged
from
the
chat
that
were
taken
from
GitHub
and
we
try
to
culminate
them
into
just
this.
One
call
I'm
going
to
post
in
chat
right
now,
the
survey
this
was
created
by
Simon
and
essentially
what
this
is
looking
to.
Do
it's
capture
a
little
bit
more
about
how
the
program
rules
are
perceived
and
thought
of
so
the
screenshot
that
I
have
on
right.
A
Now
you
can
see
it's
one
question
and
the
question
is
what
qualifies
as
abuse
for
data
cap
and
there's
all
these
different
answers,
and
then,
after
you
answer
that
the
follow-up
is,
how
confident
are
you
in
your
answer,
and
this
tells
us
two
things
one.
It
tells
us
like
K.
Is
this
something
that
10
of
the
people
don't
understand
or
fifty
percent
of
people
don't
understand
and
then
how
confident
are
they?
Maybe
we
have
some
documentation,
that's
unclear,
or
maybe
we
could
do
a
better
job
of
communicating
that.
A
So
thank
you
so
much
if
you're,
a
notary
hint
hint
please
fill
this
out.
This
is
going
to
go
a
long
way
and
also
I'll
put
this
on
the
tracker
as
like.
Hey
I
appreciate
that
time,
because
when
we
start
building
docs,
this
is
exactly
what
we're
hoping
to
gather
from
you
and
and
laser
focus
on
too
so
with
that
that
was
everything
in
a
nutshell
as
an
update,
a
lot
of
information
in
the
form
of
like
looking
for
the
next
steps
to
come
from,
you
and
I
think
we're
going
to
enjoy
that
together.