►
From YouTube: Fil+ August 09, 2022 Notary Governance Call
Description
The August 09 community governance calls to discuss the Filecoin Plus program.
Github:
https://github.com/filecoin-project/notary-governance/issues/588
Slide Deck:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Bp-s-yBMfVrtG0J57zcXg5za8tUnXXqu36HQlosPToM/edit?usp=sharing
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,
quick,
look
at
metrics
because
we
have
a
busy
schedule
coming
up
this
sheet
on
the
metrics
is
one
thing
that
we've
been
pulling
up
and
we've
been
looking
at
for
the
the
last
calendar
year
and
what
we
drew
attention
to
in
the
last
call
is
no
different.
If
you
take
a
look
at
the
average
time
data
cap
for
ldn
notaries,
we're
still
hovering
at
that
10
10
hour
mark,
it's
gonna
take
some
time
to
pay
down
some
debt
on
those
issues
that
we're
just
really
skewing
the
metrics
right
now.
A
So
I
won't
call
too
much
attention,
but
our
average
time
to
date,
a
cap
is
four
days
which
is
getting
better.
If
you've
been
on
this
call
for
a
while,
you
might
remember
this
number
around
six,
then
it
got
to
five
now
we're
down
to
four.
So
we're
really
starting
to
see
returns
on
the
amount
of
notaries
that
are
in
the
system
as
those
notaries
get
more
up
to
speed
and
start
processing.
A
We're
going
to
see
this
number
get
even
faster.
Another
thing
that
I
would
point
out
on
this
slide
is
the
amount
of
data
cap
collected
to
clients.
The
network
is
still
growing.
I
like
to
call
out
if
we
have
like
a
big
spike
or
if
we
have
a
big
drop
this
last
two
week,
pretty
much
steady,
so
we're
growing
at
that
point,
five
petabyte,
which
seems
to
be
about
average
for
our
for
our
project.
That
comes
up,
so
nothing
really
to
call
out
on
this
slide.
Specifically,
I
sent
this
deck
into
slack.
A
So,
if
you'd
like
to
see
where
any
of
these
numbers
come
from,
you'll
see
that
there's
a
link
to
all
these
slides.
So
if
you
want
to
go
grab
the
metrics
yourself
or
see
how
we're
pulling
these?
That's,
where
we're
getting
it
from
on
that
statistics
on
the
interplanetary
page,
all
right
to
the
meat
and
potato
of
the
call
so
on
the
agenda
today,
I
think
we
have
seven
issues.
Some
of
these
are
quick.
A
Recap
what
we've
accomplished
on
the
spring
kind
of
alluding
to
what
the
projects
are
coming
up
in
q3
and
q4
of
the
year
I'll,
be
giving
you
a
reminder
and
a
footstomp
that
the
notary
governance
call
for
the
second
part
of
the
day
is
shifting
back
two
hours
just
want
to
make
sure
we
don't
leave
anyone
at
the
bus
stop
and
that
everyone's
on
that
call
that,
like
to
be
we're
going
to
be
talking
a
little
bit
about
an
issue
in
github
with
the
assignee.
This
is
flagged
from
a
few
members
of
the
community.
A
There's
an
action
that
you
have
to
take,
and
so
galen
will
walk
you
through
the
steps
on
what's
causing
that
as
well
as
what
you
should
see
on
your
inbox.
We'll
talk
about
the
data
cap
distribution
and
we
have
a
slide
bit
from
jeff.
Then
we're
going
to
have
the
template
for
ldn
exports
proposals
and
wrap
it
off
with
ldn
ceiling.
So
again,
lots
of
time
on
this
call-
and
these
are
meant
to
be
not
just
updates,
but
a
lot
of
discussions
from
you
as
we
go
through.
B
Thank
y'all,
so
we
had
a
six
week
sprint
we
hit
some.
We
missed
some
our
you
know
this.
This
was
a
busy
busy
six
weeks,
I'm
going
to
talk
through
kind
of
the
different
ones
and
say,
but
at
a
high
level
I
would
say
from
system
status.
I
think
we
had
mixed
results
volume.
I
think
we
passed
overall
speed
and
engagement.
I
think
we
missed,
but
governance
and
risk.
I
think
we
passed
so
jumping
into
those
as
a
quick
recap
of
what
our
objectives
were
next
slide,
please.
B
B
With
that
we
had
a
specific
call
out
around
broader,
tooling
metrics.
We
are
getting
some
ldn
tracking.
We
still
have
some
other
tools
that
didn't
ship
on
times
that
we're
working
on
and
then
with
training.
I
would
say
that
on
this
one
we
kind
of
missed.
We
had
some
intentions
of
doing
some
more
screencasts
and
training
sessions
and
we
didn't
get
to
as
many
of
those
as
we
wanted
volume.
B
B
So
I
consider
that
a
win
overall
speed,
though
we're
still
falling
short
by
a
pretty
decent
amount.
Here
we
are
tracking,
ttd
and
reporting
that
now,
but
we
had
kind
of
this
hope
of
once
a
ldn
got
approved
to
getting
its
first
allocation,
that
that
should
be
three
days
currently
on
our
dashboard,
that's
listing
as
25
days,
but
I
think
that
that
may
be
tracking
incorrectly.
B
I
think
the
25
days
is
from
when
an
lbn
is
submitted
to
when
it
gets
its
first
allocation.
So
I
need
to
follow
up
on
that
metric
and
then
the
days
without
data
cap,
we
are
still
working
on
tracking
that
so
speed,
not
the
best
and
it's
kind
of
a
you
know
an
all-team
effort.
So
no
single
point
of
failure.
There
next
slide.
Please
engagement.
B
We
have
some
in
progress
work
that
is
gonna
ship
pretty
soon,
but
we
didn't
get
as
many
of
the
readme
documentations
updated.
We
are
working
with
some
different
teams
to
ship
some
infographics
and
add
some
additional
content.
So
I
think
that
this
is
going
to
be
useful
in
the
future
governance.
The
working
group
proposals-
casey,
is
here
as
representative.
B
B
So
I'd
say
we
passed
that
one
looking
ahead
if
we
could
go
to
the
next
slide.
This
is
pretty
quick.
This
next
six
week,
sprint
will
take
us
through
september.
20Th
time
flies
when
you're
having
fun
so
for
this
one
we're
going
to
focus
on
you
know
the
missed
topics
from
above
around
speed
and
tooling
and
bugs.
B
So
our
sprint
priority
for
these
next
six
weeks
will
also
be
prepping
for
that
summit
and
then
making
sure
that
that
summit
is
useful
and
effective.
More
news
on
that
to
come
once
we
have
an
agenda.
Well,
there'll
potentially
be
some
different
open
sessions
where
it
will
invite
targeted
user
groups
to
come,
provide
some
brainstorming
and
some
design
feedback.
B
So
the
summit
itself
will
not
be
is
not
kind
of
a
conference
event
that
would
be
open
to
the
public.
It
is
primarily
for
the
governance
team,
but,
like
I
said
we'll
be
once
we
have
an
agenda,
there
will
be
some
sessions
that
have
kind
of
targeted
audience
invitation.
So
I
think
there
were
some
questions.
B
C
Thanks
kailyn
so,
as
we've
been
working
on
a
new
landing
page
for
real
plus
clients,
right
now,
they
are
coupled
on
plus.field.org
and
we
think
that,
just
like
other
on-ramps
to
the
palco
network,
it
can
be
useful
from
a
content
perspective
to
have
a
separate
landing
page
for
clients
to
learn
more
about
filmplus
and
so
we're
in
the
very
early
stages
of
that.
And
so,
as
it's
mentioned
and
as
we're
creating
more
pathways
for
private
data.
C
I
think
it
can
be
useful
for
clients
to
learn
how
what
are
the
different
ways
and
you'll
learn
more
about
one
of
the
proposals
that
we're
making
to
help
on
that
end
later
today,
and
finally,
we're
also
considering
adding
guidance
and
toolings
on
finding
sps
added
to
this
landing
page.
So
if
anyone
in
the
community
is
interested
in
contributing
or
collaborating,
please
tame
me
on
slack
and
we
can
chat
further
thanks.
A
All
right
I'll
speak
to
this
one
here.
So
we've
been
talking
about
this
for
a
few
weeks
on
the
calls
just
like
one
of
those
more
reminders
this
afternoon
or
tomorrow
morning.
For
some
of
you,
the
second
governance
call
is
going
to
take
place
at
6,
00
p.m,
pacific
0,
1,
utc
and
9
o'clock
beijing
in
the
morning
time
we're
going
to
run
this
for
two
sessions
in
august
and
I'm
going
to
compare
if
we
get
more
attendance
for
that
time
slot
or
if
we
lose
a
lot
of
the
people
that
come
to
that.
A
A
So
if
you
found
that
you
came
to
this
morning-
and
you
came
to
the
one
in
this
afternoon-
and
it
was
all
repetitive-
really
good
feedback
for
us-
but
maybe
we
can
catch
some
other
people
in
that
process,
so
I'll
send
out
a
quick
survey
at
the
end
of
august
just
to
gather
the
input
and
see
if
that's
something
we
want
to
make
public.
So
I
posted
this
in
slack.
A
Just
consider
this
a
second
reminder
that
the
next
call
today
or
tomorrow,
based
off
where
you
are,
is
taking
place
at
these
times
and
in
the
slide
deck
we
have
the
shared
calendar
which
will
bring
you
to
a
google
shared
calendar
where
we
store
all
of
the
events.
If
you
add
that
you
can
then
follow
these
without
all
the
invites,
every
time
makes
it
really
helpful,
so
pin
in
any
questions
in
chat,
or
anybody
wants
to
interrupt
really
basic.
The
next
call
is
going
to
play,
take
place
two
hours
later.
B
No,
no,
I
got
I
got
this
one
jumping
in
because
this
is
related
to
a
conversation
that
is
happening
in
the
chat
right
now,
so
in
github,
when
a
client
makes
a
direct
allocation
request,
what
it
is
supposed
to
do
is
assign
the
notary
that
the
client
shows
in
the
front
end
so
that
that
notary
it
will
show
up
for
them
to
prove
it.
It
will
also
get
the
notification
to
go
into
github
and
complete
more
diligence.
B
We
are
getting
reports
from
some
notaries
that
this
process
isn't
working,
that
it
will
put
the
notary
in
sort
of
the
body
of
the
comment
issue,
but
it
will
not
assign
them,
and
the
reason
for
that
is
because
the
notary
has
to
be
added
with
triage
level
access
to
this
repo.
So
I
went
through
and
added
everyone
last
week
and
everyone
should
have
gotten
an
email.
However,
if
you
did
not
take
action
on
accepting
that
invitation,
it
has
now
expired.
B
B
B
B
Awesome
up
next
data
cap
distribution.
We've
also
got
a
couple
questions
on
this.
I
wanted
to
speak
to
this
for
a
second.
The
current
guidance
for
for
data
cap
distribution
for
large
data
sets
is
that
those
clients
should
be
engaging
at
least
four
different
sps
and
that
a
single
minor
id
basically
should
not
be
getting
more
than
this
is
worded
a
little
strange.
Sorry
just
typing
this
too
quickly.
B
No
single
minor
id
should
get
more
than
30
of
a
client's
allocated
data
cap.
That
is
our
current
guidance.
There
are
some
situations
where
a
large
data
set
has
intentionally
proposed
that
they
would
be
working
with
a
single
sp,
for
example,
some
of
the
proof
of
concept
ones.
We
had
them
say
for
this
client
address
it's
going
to
work
with
this
set
of
minorities
and
in
those
situations
those
minor
ids
are
going
to
have
a
higher
percent
of
data
cap
allocated
to
them.
B
There
are
also
cases
where
a
client
has
said
we
are
going
to
work
with
a
group
of
sps,
they
start
getting
data
cap
and
they
are
only
working
with
one
minor
id
and
in
that
situation
the
notaries
have
in
the
past
done
exactly
what
they
should
do,
which
is
to
say,
hey,
wait
a
minute.
Your
allocation
rate
is
80
to
a
single
person.
Why
is
that?
Please
give
us
more
information,
and
that
is
part
of
this
process
right.
There
may
be
a
very
justified
reason.
B
In
that
case
the
client
can
say
we
want
to
work
with
more,
but
for
this
first
batch
we
only
had
one
lined
up.
Our
next
allocation
amount
is
going
to
go
to
this
other
sp,
and
then
our
third
allocation
is
going
to
go
to
another.
Is
that
the
ideal
flow?
No,
because
it's
requiring
more
trust
from
the
notaries
to
say.
Am
I
confident?
If
I
give
this
person
another
allocation,
they
will
do
what
they
said.
B
They
would
do
so,
it
might
be
more
suspicious
might
be
less
likely
to
get
signed
it
might
take
longer
to
get
signed,
but
these
are
still
like
programmatic
guidelines,
where
the
notaries
are
the
ones
able
to
be
empowered
to
make
these
decisions
and
perform
this
diligence.
Now
that
said,
like,
we
would
love
for
every
client
who
is
getting
data
kept
through
the
large
data
set
process
to
start
making
distributed,
deals
and
work
with
lots
of
different
sps
right
out
the
gate.
B
Other
current
guidelines,
which
we've
talked
about
a
lot,
is
notaries,
should
be
rotating,
doing
the
investigation
and
signing
those
allocations.
We
don't
want
notaries
to
sign.
We
don't
want
the
same
notary
to
sign
subsequent
allocations
in
a
row
and
if
you
go
to
the
github,
large
dataset
repo
and
you
search
by
label
bot
ready
to
sign.
That
means
that
that
issue
is
ready
for
diligence
by
the
notaries
and
ready
for
signatures
either.
It
has
one
proposal
and
it's
waiting
for
an
approval,
or
it
is
waiting
for
its
first
proposal.
B
When
I
checked
this
yesterday,
there
were
50..
There
were
50
client
applications
that
were
waiting
and
from
what
I
could
tell
a
lot
of
those
did
not
have.
They
were
not
waiting
for
the
client.
It
was
not
a
situation
where
a
notary
had
gone
to
one
of
these
asked
a
follow-up
question
said
this
looks
suspicious
said.
You
know,
please
fix
the
link
to
your
website.
Anything
like
that.
B
B
Seeing
if
you
think
that
you
know
it
is
safe
enough
to
propose
or
approve
a
data
cap
allocation
to
the
client,
and
if
it
isn't,
if
it
they
are
not
working
with
a
distributed
group
of
sps,
if
they
don't
have
enough
information
in
their
application.
Please
ask
those
questions
flag
that
in
there
and
comment
back
to
the
client
themselves,
so
they
have
an
opportunity
to
understand
why
they
are
not
getting
approved
and
they
can
address
it.
B
Are
we
confident
that
this
client
is
operating
in
good
faith?
Do
we
need
to
flag
this
and
call
it
out?
Does
this
look
normal,
and
that
is
where
the
guidance
is
that
we
would
like
distributed
deal
making
that
is
part
of
the
intent
of
the
large
data
set
process
is
that
you
have
distributed
deal
making
across
regions
and
across
minorities.
B
So
there
is
no
hard
and
fast
rule
that
says
we
will.
You
know
every
notary
will
be
held
to
exactly
this
standard
and
every
client
who
doesn't
meet
this
will
be
instantly
shut
off.
That
is
not
currently
how
the
program
is
structured.
We
would
like
to
have
some
flexibility
so
that
we
can
learn
how
the
program
you
know
really
needs
to
respond
to
these
needs
of
the
community.
B
D
B
We
can
like
discuss
it
in
governance,
calls
and
say
you
know
this
notary
or
this
group
of
notaries
came
together.
They
wrote
a
proposal
that
said
the
for
large
data
sets.
You
know
by
your
third
allocation.
If
your
percentage
is
this,
then
you
know
we're
not
going
to
give
you
any
more
data
cap
like
that
might
be
a
rule
that
a
group
of
notaries
want
to
propose,
and
then
the
community
could
say
why
don't
we
add
this
addendum
or
why
don't
we?
B
You
know
what
about
this
exception
and
then
we
could,
you
know,
discuss
it
in
governance,
calls
take
a
vote
on
it,
see
if
it
seems
safe
enough
to
implement
and
then
try
it
out.
So
I
think
that's
like
a
great
possible
direction
to
go,
but
as
as
of
right
now
like
these
are.
These
are
guidance
because
the
community
has
not
said
we
have
ratified
like
this.
Like
specific
rule
that
applies,
you
know,
in
all
cases,
there's
a
link
here
from
carolina.
Oh
go
ahead.
D
B
Yeah,
I
think
that's
also
an
open
question,
and
what
we
really
want
to
see
is
that
the
whole
community
can
add
feedback
and
add
opinions,
so
the
whole
community
can
come
in
and
say
I
don't.
I
think
you
are
forgetting
you
know
this
exception
or
the
whole
community
can
come
and
say
you
know
this
is
going
to
prioritize
this
type
of
person,
but
fundamentally
the
governance
team,
the
root
key
holders
and
the
notaries
are
the
ones
who
I
I
think
have
the
power
to
decide
what
to
implement.
B
So
everyone
in
the
community
is
empowered
to
like
speak
their
mind.
Have
an
opinion.
Ask
questions,
but
really
it
lands
on
the
notaries,
the
governance
team
and
the
root
key
holders
to
kind
of
make
these
make
these
decisions
and
ratify
them
by
taking
into
account
all
of
those
opinions.
But
yes,
there
is
the
the
ultimate
authority
lies
in
those
other
stakeholder
groups.
E
But
I
think
ultimately,
this
idea
that
we
have
a
open
source,
modifiable
list
of
criteria
by
which
you
become
elected
as
a
steward
of
a
community.
And
then
the
steward
of
the
communities
then
held
responsible
for
voicing
an
opinion
and
and
presenting
and
pushing
things
in.
A
positive
direction
is
probably
the
the
more
efficient
path.
But
then
we
want
to
make
sure
that,
like
that
transition
happens
over
a
period
of
time
where
it's
it's
safe
and
people
also
feel
like
they
got
a
chance
to
influence
things
in
a
way
that
they
wanted.
B
C
Yeah,
so
so
one
of
the
things
that's
come
up
is
there's
been
a
lot
of
applications
that
that
have
private
data
and
then
they
they've
been
sort
of
stuck
because
you
know
we
we're
running
the
pilot
with
the
fill
plus.
But
not
everyone
can
be
part
of
the
pilot.
So
we've
come
up
with
a
proposal
here
to
get
more
information
from
some
of
these
applications
that
are
in
the
pipeline,
which
some
of
it
is
modeled.
C
After
a
previous
precedent
that
was
set
by
some
clients,
and
so
we
would
love
your
comments
and
your
responses
to
this
issue.
So
if
you
can
go
to
github
and
please
comment
and
see
if
there,
if
there's
no
kind
of
opposition,
we'll
move
ahead
with
this,
and
this
will
be
used
by
our
fraud
analyst,
who
sometimes
helps
us
around
analyzing
incoming
applications.
B
And
yeah
that
one,
if
you
go
back
one
slide
for
a
second
okay.
Thank
you.
So
yes,
so
this
one
593,
I
posted
the
link
to
this
issue,
and
this
issue
also
has
a
pull
request
associated
with
it.
I
know
sometimes
github
can
be
like
a
little
weird
to
to
look
through.
But
basically,
if
you
check
the
pull
request
has
a
couple
different
commits
that
are
in
it,
and
you
can
kind
of
look
through
to
see
what
the
proposed
changes
are
and
there's
sort
of
a
snapshot
view
there
of
that
template.
B
If
you
are
not
super
familiar
with
github
and
how
to
like
look
at
pull
requests
and
see
what's
being
proposed,
then
I
would
encourage
you
to
kind
of
comment
that
on
593
to
say,
like
I
don't
really
understand,
what's
being
proposed
here
and
then
maybe
someone
can
jump
in
and
like
put
another
screenshot
in
issue
593
as
well.
Just
because
I
know
sometimes
you
know
non
non-tech.
E
I
can
speak
to
this
one
a
little
bit.
This
one
has
been
a
long
time
coming.
I
know
that
there
was
actually
originally
a
discussion
for
this
like
almost
nine
months
ago
or
something
where
we
were
looking
at
the
ways
in
which
ldns
could
scale
and
the
design
could
adjust
and
shift
in
a
way
that
would
make
sense
for
the
demand
that
we
were
seeing.
E
This
one
is
for
issue
594
and
the
intent
for
this
is
for
those
of
you
that
have
filled
out
an
led
application.
You've
seen
you
know,
total
amount
of
data
cap
being
requested,
and
it
says
max
of
five
and
the
intent
is
effectively
to
say,
hey
we're,
seeing
a
lot
of
applications
come
in
that
actually
are
using
a
lot
more
data
cap
and
so
we're
having
to
handhold
clients
through
owning
multiple
applications
and
that's
creating
a
lot
of
friction.
E
This
includes
because
they're
stuck
waiting
to
go,
get
data
cap
or
because
the
application
actually
finished
and
now
they're
waiting
for
another
one
to
go
to
the
approval
process
and
the
upfront
approval
is
always
slower.
There's
more
steps
than
that,
and
even
though
we
made
efficiency
gains
with
ldnv3,
we
still
have
ways
to
go
with
making
that
even
even
better,
quicker
and
easier
to
track.
E
E
On
the
other
hand,
some
people
have
been
totally
fine
with
the
five-page
right
upper
limit,
and
so
I
think
it's
worth
having
a
discussion
on
on
the
timing
of
introducing
this
kind
of
change
and
making
sure
it
actually
makes
sense,
and
so
I'd
love
to
talk
about
it
now
for
a
few
minutes.
If
anybody
has
any
immediate
reactions
to
moving
this
up-
or
let's
have
the
conversation
in
github
itself,
the
issue
number
is
594.
E
yeah.
The
intent
is
just
to
remove
that
upper
bound
up.
It's
not
to
move
so
yeah
move
that
upper
bound
from
5
to
25..
I
also
do
want
to
add
that
longer
term.
I
think
we
should
be
moving
away
from
like
upper
bounds
or
data
cap
requests
anyway,
and
thinking
more
about
utilization
and
specifically
utilization
over
time.
E
Based
on
the
project,
I
think,
is
a
better
direction
to
go
in,
but
that
is
a
longer
and
more
difficult
conversation
with
more
risks
and
will
also
result
in
needing
to
rehash.
Some
of
the
philosophy
philosophies
around
how
data
cap
is
currently
created
and
given
to
clients.
So
in
lieu
of
that
conversation,
I
think
this
is
a
good
stepping
stone
towards
asking
those
broader
questions
on.
How
is
data
cap
being
created?
Is
it
being
created
at
the
right
scale?
E
E
Yeah,
I
do
think,
there's
an
inherent
risk
because
you
know
if
you
increase
the
total
amount
of
data
capital
going
out
for
application.
You
also
have
the
tranches
that
get
bigger,
because
the
chances
are
a
factor
of
the
the
weekly
rate
as
well
as
the
total
amount
requested.
I
think
the
worst
case
scenario.
The
maximum
first
range
goes
from
something
like
250
tips
to
like
1.25
pips,
and
that's
quite
a
lot.
So
maybe
we
need
to
talk
about
adjusting
the
trench
logic
to
have
something
smaller
up
front
or
get
more
comfortable
with
the
tooling.
E
That's
work
in
progress
right
now
with
removing
data
cap
from
client
addresses,
and
that
should
give
us
some
safety
as
well,
but
overall
for,
like
the
higher
trust
applications
that
are
coming
that
are
not
private,
not
encrypted
easier
to
show
progress
easier
to
show
justification
for
work.
I
think
that
this
would
be
a
good
unblocker
for
moving
forward.
E
A
A
F
B
E
E
A
good
example
of
this
alexander
is
also
that
we're
looking
at
better
audit
trailing
for
actions
that
take
place
on
github,
so
we
can
track
like
who's
doing
what,
in
the
depot,
for
example,
and
how
we
can
leverage
that
to
gain
a
better
understanding
of
like
actions
being
taken
by
different
entities
and
the
likelihood
of
building
versus
breaking
trust.
Basically,
and
so
I
think
we
still
have
more
to
learn
and
more
leverage,
but
not
a
bad
starting
point.
G
H
H
Yeah,
can
I
ask
just
quick
wonder
here
so
when
I
checked
another
release,
I
noticed
some
of
them.
They
are
involved
in
certain
projects
as
sps.
So
I
just
a
quick
wonder:
as
notary
and
sp
you
know,
is
it
reasonable
for
them
to
keep
granting
dc
to
other
aspects
working
on
the
same
project
with
them
like?
Is
there
any
verse
that
they
should
avoid
this
kind
of
situation,
or
it
doesn't
matter
at
all?
That's
what
I
was
wondering
and
that's
quite
confusing.
I
would
say.
E
I've
seen
thousand,
I
think
it's
a
good
question
we're
seeing
that
a
lot,
especially
with
ldn
applications
that
are
going
through
this,
like
private
and
encrypted
loop
as
well
right
where
it's
like
you
get
a
subset
of
notary.
Some
of
those
nodes
are
also
sp's
in
the
signing
data
cap
and
it's
it's
being
allocated
back
into
one
of
their
s3
operations.
E
I
think
in
general
what
we've
learned
is
that
it's
really
hard
to
identify
all
of
the
links
between
every
sp
and
every
notary,
and
so
I
think,
as
we
continue
to
do,
that
better,
we'll
be
able
to
create
better
guidance
and
policies
around
this.
But
I
think
the
official
stance
today
is
actually
one
of
transparency,
rather
than
one
of
like
restriction.
Where
effectively
it's
you're,
a
notary,
you
might
have
an
sp
operation,
you're
associated
with
you're
signing
in
clients
that
you
think
are
verifiable
by
the
community
and
by
yourself.
E
Some
of
that
data
gap
might
be
stored
back
with
an
sp
operation
that
you're
associated
with,
in
the
case
that
you're
doing
that
for
a
direct
allocation.
That
is
a
that
is
a
violation
of
like
your
terms
of
notary
and
the
idea
there
is
that
you
shouldn't
be
the
sole
determinant
of
whether
or
not
somebody
is
trustworthy
when
they're
just
going
to
store
deals
with
your
operation,
because
that
is
an
obvious
conflict
of
interest.
And
so
those
three.
H
E
E
You
know
in
the
disclosures
or
notaries
when
you
sign
up
to
be
notary,
you
agree
to
not
do
that
and
retract
those
separately,
and
so
those
end
up
in
the
client,
onboarding
repo
there's
a
link
from
gilan
in
the
case
of
antarctic
and
several
other
applications
where
we
see
links
between
notaries
and
clients.
A
lot
of
them
are
going
through
this
path
of
the
large
data
sets
where
you
have
multiple
notaries
and
it's
a
completely
public
application
process
right
in
the
in
the
direct
one.
E
So
I
think
the
paul
the
the
guidance
that
we
initially
agreed
on,
I
think
as
a
community.
Now
it's
a
little
bit
old.
So
maybe
we
should
talk
about
it,
but
about
six
months
ago,
when
this
conversation
came
up,
I
think
the
general
thinking
was
effectively
that
if
multiple
notaries
are
involved
or
the
community
is
involved,
it
is
a
little
bit
okay,
if
there's
transparency
in
the
operation,
so
it's
like
hold
on
is
a
in
this
case.
E
Hold
on
as
a
notary,
but
also
an
sp
operation
hold
on
should
be
minimizing
their
activity
on,
like
the
ldns
that
are,
you
know,
being
stored
with
hold
on
for
short,
but
on
average
that
project
should
be
distributing
data
cap
across
multiple
sps.
This
should
be
completely
transparent.
The
community
should
feel
that
they
know
what's
happening
and
if
they
don't,
I
think
it's
totally
reasonable
to
highlight
this
flag.
This
and
say
hey.
This
doesn't
seem
to
be
good.
H
Yeah,
I
do
understand
this
kind
of
situation
you're
talking
about
but
like
the
requirements
for
lg
is
like
four
notaries
right.
If
there's
one
notaries
plus
sp,
they
involved
in
the
project
directly,
so
it
would
only
require
like
like
three
notaries
right,
so
I
think
the
bar
is
a
little
bit
too
low.
I
don't
know
how
you
guys
think
about
it
like.
If
you
compare
this
to
the
v
two
period,
I
think
it
was
like
twenty
five
percent
of
the
whole
notary
in
the
scale,
but
right
now,
foreign.
G
H
Want
to
share
it,
I
actually
share
some.
I
actually
share
some
of
my
opinions
in
the
issue
increasing
the
numbers
of
notaries.
I
think
sun
is
coming
proposed,
that
I
think
it
literally
makes
sense,
literally
from
every
single
angle
that
I
could
possibly
think
of
it
makes
sense.
I
literally
suggest
to
everyone
to
have
a
look
and
share
your
opinions
on
that.
I
think
it
will
improve
the
transparency
theory
from
a
very
good
point
and
perspective.
E
Yeah,
I
think
that
makes
sense
so
the
reason
the
four
existed
as
a
requirement
originally
was
because
we
wanted
to
have
consecutive
allocations
signed
by
different
notaries,
but
we
can
definitely
adjust
the
tooling,
and
I
think
that
overall,
the
the
idea
is
good.
The
proposal
makes
sense.
We
should
seriously
consider
it.
I
think
we
can
follow
up
on
the
issue,
originally
posted
by
sunnis.
Coming,
let's
continue
the
conversation.
Thank
you.
So
much
for
sharing
this
today.
E
A
One
of
the
issues
that
came
up
in
chat
just
to
have
this
for
the
record:
anybody
watching
it
was
the
fourth
round
of
elections,
so
to
kind
of
put
some
dates
on
that.
These
are
very
tentative
with
the
election
process,
it's
quite
significant
on
the
prep
to
get
ready
for
it
actually
doing
it,
scoring
it
and
setting
everybody
up
so
we're
in
the
process
of
gearing
up
for
that
right
now.
G
I
Oh
yeah,
I'm
irma
from
underlabs
and
I
want
to
say
something
about
the
proposal
for
us,
the
proposal
of
the
tracking
and
I'm
sure
that
you
have
all
seen
the
proposal
and
we
want
to
the
online
trees
or
no
matter
the
community.
The
guys
from
the
community
can
join
us,
make
some
comments.
No
matter
you
support
or
have
some
ideas.
B
A
Yeah,
that's
a
that's
a
rare
thing.
Anybody
who
joined
the
line
late,
you
might
have
missed
this
error
table
link,
so
we're
going
to
put
it
one
more
time.
This
is
really
important.
You
might
have
got
a
dm
from
me
saying
like
hey.
These
were
the
sessions
that
I
had
you
attending
and
what
we
do
is
I
I
pull
off
this
link.
I
also
take
screenshots
for
everybody.
That's
on
the
call!
So
please
fill
this
out.
We
will
definitely
be
putting
this
in
the
sla
that
we
go
through.
A
It's
it's
just
your
way
to
document
your
participation
in
this.
So
if
you
haven't
done
so,
this
is
very
important.
Thank
you
for
doing
it
and
we'll
get
you
registered
in
one
thing
that
I'm
going
to
leave
for
offline
and
not
take
the
time
is
we
had
an
ldn
submit
a
video
to
try
to
get
movement
on
their
project,
so
essentially
the
link
here
that
you'll
see
for
ipolovers,
it's
ldn538.
A
It
was
opened
about
two
weeks
ago
and
they
made
a
five
minute
video
to
answer
any
of
the
basic
questions
that
you
may
have
for
reviewing
their
application.
It's
been
reviewed
by
the
bot
and
it's
now
waiting
for
triage,
so
I'll
also
point
this
link
into
the
application
review
and
share
this
in
the
notary
channel.
But
this
is
just
an
application.
A
Well,
welcome
welcome
to
this
new
time
slot
two
hours
later,
we'll
be
asking
for
some
feedback
on
this
later
in
the
call,
but
this
is
the
15th
notary
governance
call
of
2022
wow
and
august
9th,
and
let's
kind
of
take
a
look
at
what
we're
going
to
talk
about.
So
just
like
the
call
this
morning,
and
just
like
kind
of
the
agendas
that
this
is
new
for
you,
we
try
to
break
this
call
into
four
segments.
The
first
is
just
a
hello,
intro,
quick
overview
of
some
people.
If
you
need
questions
or
help.
A
A
So
there's
anything
you'd
like
to
talk
about,
as
always,
we'll
incorporate
the
chat,
we're
raising
your
hands
on
this
call
as
we
go
so
with
that
very
friendly
hello.
My
name
is
kevin
and,
along
with
the
governance
team,
which
is
deep,
galen
and
jeff,
we
make
up
anything
that
you
may
need
for
support
and
help
throughout
the
fill
plus
program,
so
we're
active
in
the
slack
channels.
A
So,
if
you're
curious,
we
always
post
that
in
the
youtube
link
and
if
you
have
any
questions,
please
reach
out
to
us
via
github
or
slack,
we'll
be
happy
to
to
help
you
with
whatever
you
need,
if
you're
joining
the
call.
One
thing
that
we
do
ask
that
makes
it
really
really
helpful
for
communication
is
making
sure
that
you
adjust
your
name
and
adding
your
organization,
whether
it's
the
storage
provider,
the
notary
that
you
represent
or
just
the
organization.
A
That
way.
When
we're
asking
questions,
we
can
be
like.
Oh,
hey,
iphone,
13
or
hey
galen,
with
filecoin
foundation.
So
if
you
made
that
one
little
change,
it
goes
a
long
way
for
making
it
able
to
help
you
and
go
back
for
the
notaries
that
are
on
the
call
we're
about
to
drop
this
link.
This
is
just
linking
back
to
that
sla
for
your
input
and
time
on
this.
Thank
you
for
filling
this
out.
I've
been
sending
these
out
in
dms,
so
if
there's
any
sessions
that
you've
missed,
please
just
let
me
know
hey
kevin.
A
I
was
actually
on
that
june.
25Th
call,
I
usually
take
a
screenshot,
so
I'll
be
happy
to
go
back
and
just
say
yep.
I
see
you
on
the
call,
and
this
is
why
having
your
zoom
name
actually
linked
to
you
makes
it
so
much
easier.
Like
yep
got
you
out
the
call
so
as
always,
thank
you
for
filling
that
out.
Kayla's
got
that
chat
and
we'll
mark
it
down.
So
with
that,
let's
take
a
look
at
some
of
the
metrics.
A
This
comes
from
the
interplanetary
stats
page.
Those
of
you
that
have
been
on
15
of
the
last
15
calls.
This
will
look
very
familiar.
I
think
the
call
outs
that
we'd
like
to
make
on
this
one
is
that
we're
looking
at
three
big
caveats
as
we
start
to
work
towards
our
sprint,
which
gala
will
talk
about
and
the
first
one
is
the
average
time
to
data
cap,
we're
getting
a
lot
better
at
this
back
when
the
year
started.
A
This
was
hovering
around
five
or
six
days
and
now,
with
the
increase
in
notaries
and
the
increase
of
pings
we're
seeing
this
slowly
start
to
tick
down.
So
thank
you
very
much.
This
number,
the
average
time
to
date,
a
cap
for
ldns
we've
talked
about
this
on
the
last
two
calls,
and
we've
identified
some
of
the
reasons
why
this
is
unnaturally
high.
A
That
10
number
is
influenced
by
some
really
old
issues
that
are
still
hanging
around
and
we've
been
working
behind
the
scenes
to
kind
of
close
those
out
once
they
do
we'll
get
back
to
a
true
number,
which
is
still
around
that
four
five
six
days
we're
trying
to
keep
that
going.
The
average
time
to
first
response
we're
still
at
that
five
day
mark
we'll
talk
more
in
probably
the
next
call
about
some
ideas.
We
have
to
make
the
filterbot
more
actionable
to
make
the
more
pings
and
making
that
github
issue
a
little
bit
easier.
A
We'll
talk
about
that
on
this
call.
For
you
the
last
thing
I'd
kind
of
highlight
for
those
of
us
that
are
in
this
network
quite
a
bit
is
we
still
have
very
solid
growth.
So
if
you
look
at
the
total
data
cap
allocated
to
clients
two
weeks
over
two
weeks,
we're
still
chugging
along
at
that
point,
five
increase,
which
is
nice
not
too
rapid,
not
too
small,
just
kind
of
in
that
goldilocks
steady,
sustained
growth.
A
So
if
you
want
to
see
any
of
these
metrics,
this
slide
deck
is
linked
in
slack,
so
feel
free
to
grab
that
off
slack
and
come
through
or
if
you
want
any
of
the
links
they're
also
in
the
deck.
So
if
you
want
to
follow
along
with
anything
so
with
that,
we
have
a
lot
of
open
issues
to
kind
of
get
through.
The
big
seven
is
galen's
going
to
walk
us
through
a
six
week
recap
of
where
we
are
in
the
sprint,
what
we
kind
of
got
done.
A
What
are
we
looking
at
for
the
next
cycle?
We're
going
to
have
an
update
on
the
landing
page,
update
two
updates
in
one
sentence
that
doesn't
make
sense,
but
anyways
we'll
talk
more
about
that
landing
page
and
go
forward
on
it.
We'll
be
talking
a
little
bit
about
this
time,
making
sure
that
this
is
working
remember.
This
is
a
pilot
for
the
month
of
august
I'll
pull
the
numbers
and
see
if
we
have
a
lot
more
participation
or
a
lot
less
get
feedback.
Are
we
interrupting
dinner?
Are
we
making
this
easier
on
your
morning?
A
A
Now
it
says
it
on
the
screen,
but
we'll
take
a
lot
of
time
to
talk
about
that
between
galen
and
deep,
and
then
we
have
a
template
for
the
ldm
proposals
where
jeff
was
talking
about
that
one
and
then
the
ldn
ceiling.
So
it's
a
full
house
this
morning
we
used
all
but
five
minutes,
so
we'll
probably
kind
of
go
the
same
and
kind
of
get
you
what
you
need.
So
with
that
I'll
hand
it
over
to
you.
B
Thank
you.
Yes,
I
noticed
a
typo
on
that
previous
slide.
I
put
six
weeks
spring,
but
I
think
I
got
it
fixed
to
the
other
slide
deck.
Sorry
about
that,
so
believe
it
or
not.
It
is
now
august
we
have
had
a
phenomenal
six
week
sprint
running
through
these
the
system
status.
I
think
that
we
are
kind
of
mixed
I'll
talk
more
about
these
individually
on
the
next
slides,
but
I
think
volume
I
would
give
ourselves
a
pretty
good
check.
B
Speed
and
engagement
were
the
two
that
I
think
out
of
all
these
we
missed
the
most
and
then
governance
and
risk.
I
think
we
did
pretty
well
so
if
you
could
click
into
the
next
slide
for
me,
please
we
had
set
some
pretty
high
standards
for
ourselves
to
try
and
get
ldn
v3
implemented.
I
would
say
that
this
is
mixed
success.
It
is
functioning
with
over
90
clients.
B
There
have
been
a
couple
different
bugs
that
we
were
investigating
and
a
couple
different
extra
sort
of
tooling
features,
but
at
a
high
level
I
would
say
that
ldnv3
is
working
and
it
is
flowing.
We
also
set
some
some
ambitious
goals
for
ourselves
to
have
some
new
tooling
again.
That
was
mixed.
We
successfully
got
the
ldn
tooling
and
some
of
the
ldn
tracking
out,
if
you
go
to
the
interplanetary
dashboard
you'll,
see
a
new
large
data
set
kind
of
allocation.
B
I
had
kind
of
wanted
us
to
have
a
couple:
more
sort
of
screencasts
training
sessions
and
explainer
videos
and
those
just
hadn't
made
it
up
enough
to
the
priority
list.
That
said,
with
volume
we
did
have
it
pretty,
I
would
say,
over
ambitious,
200
piv
sealed
data
cap
goal.
We
missed
that
as
of
yesterday.
It
was
142.
B
B
In
another
section
as
well,
we
were
able
to
kind
of
launch
and
implement
the
ttd
tracking,
but
that
said,
we
kind
of
set
ourselves
as
targeted
from
when
a
application
gets
approved
by
sort
of
the
trusted
safety
and
governance
pass
to
when
it
gets
their
first
allocation.
We
would
like
that
to
be
down
to
three
days
currently
as
we're
reporting
it
we're
at
25
days.
B
I
think
this
stat
is
not
totally
accurate,
because
I
think
the
stat
that
we
are
reporting
as
25
days
is
from
when
the
application
is
submitted
to
when
it
gets
the
first
allocation,
but
still
longer
than
we
want
that
to
be,
and
then
days
without
data
cap.
We
wanted
this
to
be
zero.
We
don't
yet
have
a
great
tracking
mechanism
for
that
that
is
launched
in
public,
but
our
goal
there
was
once
a
client
has
gotten
data
cap.
They
do
not
run
out.
B
That
said,
I
think
that
we
have
done
better
with
that
compared
to
where
we
were
at
the
beginning
of
this
year,
with
large
data
set
clients
getting
closer
and
closer
to
running
out.
I
think
the
subsequent
allocation
bots
have
helped
and
I
think
the
increased
allocation
steps
the
tranche
calculations.
I
think
those
have
also
helped
so
next
slide.
Please.
B
On
engagement,
we
wanted
to
do
some
more
kind
of
content,
documentation
overhauls.
I
would
say
that
we
missed
this,
but
it
is
in
progress
I'll
talk
about
that.
In
a
second
governance.
We
have
these
working
group
proposals.
The
enterprise
working
group
is
making
progress.
We
have
heard
on
these
calls
from
that
team
we're
seeing
proposals
in
the
governance
repo,
so
work
is
being
done
in
that
direction
and
then
we
are
increasing
some
head
count
for
trust
and
safety
and
risk
roles
on
the
falcon
plus
side
of
the
house.
B
So
all
things
considered,
I
think
that
in
the
past
six
weeks
we
did
pretty
well
looking
ahead.
Okay
ray
if
you
could
click
for
me,
the
next
sprint
should
take
us
to
sort
of
the
end
of
september.
I
want
to
focus
on
the
previous
areas
where
we
missed
specifically
around
speed
and
then
some
of
the
tooling
and
bug
reports,
but
then
also
really
focusing
on
some
content.
Revamps,
we'll
hear
more
about
that.
Some
of
the
ldn
exceptions
we've
gotten
a
lot
of
new
kind
of
out
of
band
proof
of
concept.
B
Some
have
been
made,
you
know
a
long
time
ago
and
have
been
sitting
without
necessarily
getting
cleaned
up,
so
just
need
to
sort
of
tidy
up.
Some
of
our
open
proposals
go
through,
find
some
discussion
topics
and
see
what
we
can
kind
of
close
out
and
archive,
and
the
governance
team
will
be
prepping
for
another
summit.
B
Current
timeline,
for
that
is
mid-september.
We've
done
two
of
these
in
the
past.
These
are
for
the
governance
team
themselves
to
get
together,
but
that
said,
we
will
once
we
have
an
agenda.
We'll
have
a
couple
sessions
where
we
want
to
invite
various
like
stakeholder
groups.
So
this
is
not
the
same
thing
as
as
like
a
conference.
This
isn't
like
phil,
austin
or
or
a
conference
where
we
would
kind
of
publicly
announce
this
like
fat
coin
plus
day
and
include
everyone
for
the
whole
run
of
show.
B
This
is
more
for
the
governance
team
to
get
together
and
kind
of
work
on
q4
and
h1
tactical
and
strategic
work.
So
with
that
in
mind,
like
I
said
we
as
we
get
closer
to
it,
and
we
have
a
better
sense
of
the
agenda,
we
will
work
on
sending
some
invites
out.
That's
all
I've
got
on
this
sprint
recap
and
then
prepping
for
the
next
sprint.
If
there
are
no
questions-
and
I
don't
see
any
hands,
then
we
will
move
swiftly
on.
C
Yeah,
so
I
can
talk
about
this
so
right
now,
the
so
from
the
perspective
of
clients,
everything
stays
on
plus.org
and
what
we
want
to
do
is
create
a
landing
page
for
clients
new
to
build
plus,
who
want
to
use
fieldbus
to
onboard
data
on
development
network,
similar
to
web3r
storage
and
entertain
storage.
So
this
work
is
in
progress,
we're
in
the
early
stages
of
defining
the
content,
as
well
as
the
ui
of
what
that
would
look
like,
as
as
we're
coming
up
with
new
pilots
for
private
data.
C
This
will
also
clarify
for
new
clients
as
to
what
they
can
do
if
they
want
to
become
part
of
the
program,
as
well
as
there's
consideration
to
add
guidelines
and
existing
tools
that
exist
within
the
ecosystem,
on
finding
sps
and
some
of
the
strategies
around
that.
So
if
anyone
in
the
community
is
interested,
please
ping
me
on
slack
and
I
can
get
you
involved
and
yeah.
If
you
have
any
questions
as
well,
please
let
me
know
thank
you.
A
A
So
just
going
to
be
asking
for
feedback
for
those
of
you
that
are
on
the
call
it
looks
like
you
must
have
grabbed
this
calendar
from
slack
or
just
read
those
updates.
But
if
you
haven't
already
followed
the
filecoin
shared
calendar,
it's
a
shared
google
and
that
will
have
all
the
times
updated.
So
you
can
see
that
coming
through
and
then
after
every
election,
I'll
ask
if
you'd
like
to
have
your
email
added
to
that.
Have
the
direct
invite
sent
the
reason
we
don't
do
that
off
cycle
is
because
of
spam.
A
We're
trying
to
minimize
that
the
way
google
works
is
every
time
we
add
someone
to
the
calendar,
send
you
a
ping,
so
we
found
that
doing
that
off
cycle
was
just
a
kind
of
nightmare,
so
we
have
this
shared
calendar.
After
that
all
the
notaries
will
be
invited
if
you
want
to
have
that
on
your
direct
email,
so
stand
by
for
any
feedback
really
looking
forward
to
hearing.
If
this
time
works.
B
Yes,
I
will
talk
about
this
github
assignee
issue,
so
this
has
been
cropping
up
a
couple
times.
We've
gotten
reports
about
it,
I'm
pretty
sure
that
we've
tracked
down
the
root
cause
of
this.
This
is
for
direct
allocation
requests.
This
is
nothing
to
do
with
large
data
set
requests.
Basically,
the
github
notary
accounts
need
to
be
added
into
the
client
onboarding
repo
at
the
triage
level,
and
so
I
last
week,
manually
went
through
all
of
the
notaries
and
the
github
accounts
that
you
had
provided
us
and
sent
an
invite
at
this
time.
B
There
are
16
invitations
that
are
either
pending
or
have
expired
because
they
went
out
and
were
not
accepted
last
week.
So
the
action
here
is
basically,
you
need
to
make
sure
in
this
client
onboarding
repo,
which
I
just
dropped
in
the
chat
that
you
have
triage
level
access
and
if
you
are
not
sure
if
this
relates
to
you
go
into
your
email,
where
you
receive
your
github
emails
and
look
for
some
kind
of
invite,
pending
or
client-on-boarding
invitation
to
collaborate,
type
of
email.
B
B
Does
it
make
sense
to
maintain
the
tooling
for
this
direct
allocation
process?
Do
we
want
to
kind
of
look
at
that
differently?
There's
also
an
opportunity.
You
know
james
charles
others,
on
the
call.
If
there
is
a
large
data
set,
that
you
have
some
questions
about
or
that
you
are
waiting
to
get
moved
through
the
pipeline
and
filled
you
could
reach
out
to
that
client
and
encourage
them
to
put
in
a
request
with
you
and
say:
hey
like
I
don't
know
what
you're
going
to
do
come.
B
Ask
me
for
50
tips
and
get
started,
so
there
there's
also
that
opportunity
for
notaries
to
do
that,
matchmaking
as
well,
but
moving
along,
I
don't
see
any
hands
about
this
github
assignee
issue
up
next
we've
got
conversation
about
data
cap
distribution,
so
this
one
got
a
little
bit
more
conversation
in
the
morning.
It
has
been
asked
a
few
times
in
regards
to
large
data
sets
what
the
specific
rules
are
of
the
program,
especially
around
how
much
data
cap
should
be
distributed
to
different
clients
at
this
time.
B
This
one
specifically
we've
seen
instances
where
we
have
a
specific
proof
of
concept
where
we
say
with
transparency.
This
client
is
going
to
work
with
this
storage
provider
and
this
minor
id
and
in
those
situations
their
distribution
is
going
to
be
greater
than
30,
but
that's
because
that
was
what
was
transparently
communicated
from
the
beginning.
We
have
also
seen
situations
where
a
client
gets
one
or
two
allocations
and
disproportionately
works
with
a
single
minor
id
or
storage
provider
and
the
notaries
before
signing
the
next
allocations
flag.
B
It
and
say:
hey,
what's
going
on
here,
you've
got
you
know
60
or
80,
with
a
single
minor
id
and
that's
what
we
want.
That's
an
example
of
the
process
working
because
then
the
client
has
the
opportunity
to
come
back
and
say:
well,
I've
just
really
struggled
finding
other
storage
providers
to
work
with,
and
then
we
can
say
great
well
we're
not
going
to
approve
this.
You
know
until
you
come
back
to
us
with
a
list
of
some
storage
providers.
There's
ton
out
there
that
want
to
work
with
you.
B
This
is
not
a
good
enough.
You
know
explanation
or
sure
we're
going
to
approve
this
allocation,
so
you
have
some
more,
but
we
really
need
to
see
in
this
next
allocation
round
that
you
add
some
new
minor
ids.
So
that's
where
the
notaries
have
the
power
to
engage
with
that
client
to
say
what's
going
on
here.
Additionally,
we
want
those
notaries
to
be
rotating
as
they
do
their
investigation
and
signing.
B
With
that
in
mind,
there's
a
couple
places
where
we
are
trying
to
notify
the
notaries
of
the
applications
that
are
ready
for
that
investigation.
We
keep
hearing
that
you
know
the
process
takes
too
long
that
25
days
to
get
an
allocation
is
too
long.
The
process
is
too
slow.
So
currently
we
have
a
slack
bot
that
posts
and
lists
out
the
open
applications
and
links
to
them.
B
As
of
yesterday,
there
were
50
and
I
spot
checked
some
of
them
and
a
number
of
them
had
maybe
one
proposal
but
we're
just
sitting
there.
There
was
no
question
they've
been
waiting
for
20
days.
The
notaries
haven't
looked
at
it
to
ask
anything
of
the
client.
So
to
me,
that's
kind
of
a
breakdown
where
the
client
is
just
waiting.
B
The
notaries
maybe
have
concerns,
but
have
not
asked
them,
so
the
client
doesn't
know
why
they're
waiting
it
has
all
the
right
labels
like
this
is
the
situation
where
all
the
bots
and
all
the
tooling
is
working
correctly,
and
yet
it's
not
getting
any
attention.
So
my
my
challenge
to
the
notaries
on
this
call,
you
know,
is
go
check
that
large
dataset
repo
go
check
that
slackbot
and
go
check
the
front
end
and
look
at
a
application
that
you
don't
recognize
and
see
if
it
looks
safe
enough
to
try
to
say
like
yeah.
B
This
gives
me
enough
information
I
feel
like.
I
can
approve
this
request
or
ask
the
question:
if
you
read
it
and
you're
like,
I
really
don't
understand
what
they
are
trying
to
bring
to
file
coin.
Please
ask
that,
because
that
is
just
going
to
give
the
client
the
opportunity
to
know
they
are
getting
attention
and
that
there
are
questions
for
them
to
dig
into
some
of
the
conversation
this
morning
was
around.
B
Why
don't
we
have
a
rule
or
what
would
it
take
to
have
a
rule
that
says
you
know
no
more
than
30
distribution
and
really
it's
would
be
up
to
the
community.
So
if
a
notary
believes
that
that
is
the
direction
we
need
to
take,
they
can
write
that
proposal
and
then
the
community
can
say
in
order
to
you
know
present
it
in
a
governance.
Call
like
this
share.
It
talk
about
it.
B
We
our
our
goal
here,
is
that
we
have
an
open
community
where
everyone
can
ask
questions
and
voice
opinions,
but
that
the
ultimate
sort
of
decision
making
process
will
be
happening
by
the
notaries,
the
governance
team
and
the
root
key
holders,
and
so
if
a
group
of
notaries
believes
that
we
need
to
set
some
kind
of
firm,
you
know
more
than
a
guideline,
but
an
actual
rules
as
written,
we
encourage
the
notaries
to
draft
those
and
present
them
to
the
community
for
discussion.
So
that's
that
don't
know.
B
C
So
with
this
one,
one
of
the
challenges
has
been
that
we
don't
really
have
a
great
way
for
clients
who
have
private
data
or
encrypted
data
to
move
faster
in
the
application
process,
and
not
everyone
can
become
part
of
people
plus
and
the
pilot
that
we're
running.
So
what
we're
proposing
here
is
an
ldn
exceptions,
template
that
allows
to
capture
more
information
to
help
the
notaries,
assess
applications
and
move
those
applications
along
to
unplug
the
process.
C
Some
of
this
is
based
after
some
of
the
previous
examples
that
have
been
done
in
the
community,
and
so
things
like
you
know,
understanding
who's,
the
data
owner
and
who's.
The
onboarding
agent
would
help
the
notaries
to
make
a
more
informed
decision.
So
at
this
point
we
would
invite
you
to
please
go
to
this
issue
593.
J
E
E
E
B
I
think
that's,
I
think,
that's
accurate.
We
are
getting
something
like
two
to
four
new
ones
a
day
there
are
now
like
340,
open
large
data
set
applications,
and
so
just
the
pace
continues
to
balloon
faster
than
we
can.
Then
we
can
investigate
them,
and
I
think
I
also
want
to
like
flag
here
that
part
of
the
reason
we
added
this
step
of
the
governance
team.
B
Looking
at
them,
there
were
a
couple
things
that
we
were
seeing
where
applications
were
coming
in
missing
information,
and
you
know
an
idea
was
that
the
governance
team
could
like
catch
those
easy
early
checks.
There
were
also
a
couple
situations
where
we
only
started
to
notice
patterns
when
we
had
like
one
or
two
people
looking
at
everything
that
came
in
and
so
the
notaries
may
drop
in
and
a
notary
may
look
at
a
handful
of
applications.
B
But
by
me
looking
at
everything
that
was
coming
in
at
a
time,
I
started
to
see
like
suspicious
interesting
patterns
of
overlap,
and
I
also
started
to
see
gaps
in
some
of
the
questions.
So
there
was
that
reason
and
the
like
final
reason
is
we
were
seeing.
You
know
applications
that
would
get
approved,
but
then
be
you
know
similar
to
where
we
are
now,
which
is
they'd,
be
sitting
for
a
long
time.
Waiting
and
clients
were
not
sure
what
was
happening.
So
we
haven't
really
quite
solved
that
problem
and
we're
still
stuck
in
that
boat.
B
But
there
is
a
world
where
we
may
want
to
revise
and
remove
the
sort
of
step
of
the
governance
team
needing
to
review
these
at
all
and
make
that
a
purely
automated
process.
That
just
says
is
the
application
fully
filled
out.
Does
it
have
all
the
fields
capture
address
and
requested
amounts?
As
long
as
the
address
and
requested
amounts
match,
a
certain
set
of
parameters,
send
it
to
the
notaries,
because
the
other
change
that
we
have
made
with
v3
is
we
no
longer
need
to
take.
B
We
need
to
wait
for
a
root
key
holder
to
take
action
on
every
application
that
comes
in,
and
that
was
kind
of
the
other
barrier
to
this
level
of
automation
was,
in
the
previous
flow,
each
application
needed
to
get
a
double
root,
key
holder,
signature,
and
that
just
also
had
to
be
batched.
So
now
that
we
don't
have
that
world
with
the
with
the
v3
process,
we
can
move
to
more
automation
to
get
the
number
from
when
they
come
in
to
when
they're
in
front
of
a
notary
as
a
much
tighter
turnaround.
E
Cool,
I
can.
I
can
speak
to
this
one,
so
the
just
a
little
bit
of
background.
A
lot
of
you
know
that
when
you
apply
for
a
data
cap
today
via
the
ldn
process,
there's
a
limit
of
five
pebbly
bytes
and
a
lot
of
people
actually,
especially
in
this
call
today,
but
of
course
also
the
one
in
the
morning
like
more
active
participants,
sb's
doing
substantive
amount
of
business
development
or
those
of
you
working
on
large-scale
enterprise.
E
Even
though
that
sort
of
works
it
comes
with
significant
additional
overhead,
so
specifically
number
one
there's
like
just
the
operational
like
even
what
we
just
talked
about
with
james
right,
there's
like
oh,
you
need
to
loop
in
a
different
kind
of
stakeholder
just
to
get
this
thing.
Progressing
number
two
is
like
the
tranche
allocation
logic
doesn't
really
end
up
working
out
if
you're
like
coming
in
with
a
new
application.
E
E
E
E
But
personally,
I
think
it's
still
worth
pitching
and
like
considering
seriously
to
unblock
a
lot
of
the
large-scale
projects
that
are
coming
along
and
so
yeah
put
you
into
the
community
would
love
to
hear
your
reactions
if
you're
here
live,
and
you
have
any
thoughts.
You
know
please
share
them
now,
if
you
are
watching
this
recording
head
over
to
issue
594
and
please
drop
your
thoughts
in
the
github
issue
itself.
E
J
J
E
What
we're
hoping
to
do
is
say:
let's
make
the
data
collection
way
easier
for
the
enterprise
filter,
the
fill
plus
working
group
to
go
and
easily
scrape
through
this
and
say:
oh
yeah,
like
we
had
to
deal
with
like
10
of
these
kinds
of
exceptions
in
the
month
of
august
and
september.
Let's
say,
and
you
know,
8
out
of
10
were
because
they
were
private
4
out
of
10
required
in
nda
and
10
out
of
10
were
coming
via
a
proxy
or
like
an
agent
and
like
that.
E
Should
just
help
with
some
of
the
program
design
as
well,
and
so
this
isn't
changing
the
process.
This
isn't
doing
anything
instead
of
e4
plus,
all
it's
doing
is
standardizing
sort
of
the
ad
hoc.
Maybe
I
can
even
say
this
is
like
the
v
0.5
right,
which
is
like
the
pattern
that
we've
fallen
into,
so
why
don't
we
standardize
that
into
the
v
0.9,
while
the
e
fill
plus
working
group
puts
together
the
the
v1.
E
Yeah,
the
the
all
the
ones
that
seals
opened
up
like
project
beacon.
There
was
like
that
one
from
dss,
victor
chang
data
sets
in
australia,
there's
already
been
like
well
like
five
of
these
we're
probably
gonna
get.
We
definitely
have
seen
several
more
actually
it's
just
that
we're
still
waiting
for
confirmations
from
those
clients
to
confirm
the
questions
that
are
being
asked
by
like
sunny
and
by
the
rest
of
us
on
the
team,
and
so
once
they're
able
to
actually
validate
that.
C
G
C
A
K
K
K
E
Yeah,
I
think,
by
default,
everything
in
the
fall
coin.
Community
should
adhere
to
the
falcon
community
code
of
conduct,
which
is
like
a
default
sort
of
moderation.
Guideline
that
applies
to
slack
applies
to
github
and
applies
to
all
the
different
places.
I
think
from
a
fill
plus
governance
standpoint.
E
We
want
to
make
sure
that
people
do
feel
included
and
have
the
opportunity
to
voice
their
frustration
as
well,
but
yeah,
I
mean
definitely
open
to
formalizing
the
process
a
little
bit
more
or
like,
maybe
even
reviewing
the
code
of
conduct
together
or
making
that
part
of
like
the
onboarding
process
for
notaries
or
for
part
of
like
the
client
applications
or
something
like
that
where
we
link
off
to
it.
I
think
it's
a
good
idea
to
just
have
it
as
a
helpful
reminder.
E
Yeah,
I
see
something
from
gail
and
saying
good
to
reader
of
those
guidelines
in
the
repo
yeah.
It
makes
sense,
I
think
it'd
be
good
to
just
even
have
them
at
the
bottom
of
the
readme.
We
could
make
them
part
of
like
disclosure
agreement
so
like
when
you
sign
up
to
do
something
in
the
community.
Just
like
be
reminded
that
you
know
this
is
what
you're
signing
up
to
comply
with.
K
D
F
F
That
other
companies
can
integrate
with
and
play
the
role
of
at
least
some
part
of
what
the
governance
team
is
doing,
similar
to
what
certifications
or
compliancy
compliance
consulting
companies
do
today.
So
we
would
have
to
figure
out,
like
the
business
business
model
model
for
that,
because
it
can
be
like
free,
but
because
I
think
we
are
running,
we
want
the
governance
team
and
the
not
tourists
to
do
too
much,
at
least
that's
what
what
I
think
yeah
it's
just
just
too
much.
F
We
gotta,
like
figure
out
ways
of
offloading
that
outsourcing
and
like
maybe
creating
new
markets
for
those
kinds
of
companies
like
certifications
or
yeah,
analyzing
applications
and
and
whatnot,
because
otherwise,
if
you
think,
if,
if
if
you
happen
to
go
to
to
grow
from
the
number
of
notaries
and
applications,
we
have
now
for
to
like
two
thousand
one
thousand
two
thousand
lotteries
or
applications.
How
can
we
deal
with
that
with
in-house
staffing?
That's
just
it's
just
too
much
true
that
I
figure
out
some
way
of
offloading
that.
E
I
think
for
what
it's
worth,
it's
unlikely
that
the
process
will
stay
this
way
long
term.
I
think
that
a
lot
of
these
are
like,
while
we're
still
bootstrapping
a
little
bit
learning
a
little
bit
about
like
making
sure
things
happen
in
a
safe
way,
gathering
more
information
about
the
different
use
cases
and
building
almost
like
ad
hoc,
like
reactive
processes,
to
ensure
that,
like
we're,
covering
as
many
cases
as
possible,
I
mean
this
comment
in
the
morning.
Calls
I
may
as
well
stated
here
too.
E
But
maybe
there's
like
a
flip
in
the
future
of
like
removing
quality
adjustment
from
a
sealed
sector.
Like
things
like
that,
we
can
start
to
get
much
lighter
weight
with
the
upfront
human
interaction
required
to
get
somebody
moving
and
get
somebody
that
data
cap
and
then
over
time,
based
on
the
information
being
collected
on
their
behavior
on
shane
and
their
deal.
Making
patterns
and
stuff
bring
in
bring
in
that
involvement.
And,
like
you
know,
do
more
of
a
a
push
notification
based
thing
where
it's
like
hey
this.
E
This
application
requires
like
a
like
additional,
like
notary
involvement
like
would
you
be
able
to
do
that
kind
of
thing,
as
opposed
to
the
default
model
today,
which
is
like
okay,
goes
into
a
massive
stack
eventually
like
somebody
from
the
governor's
team,
like
validates
that
it's
in
english
and
the
questions
have
been
answered
then
goes
into
another
massive
stack
eventually
like
some
notary
comes
along
and
signs
a
bunch
of
like
proposals,
and
so
I
think
we
have
a.
We
have
a
lot
of
changes
to
come
to
the
process.
E
Still,
I
I
share
your
concern
that
if
the
process
doesn't
evolve,
this
will
be
hell
and
we'll
have
to
find
more
scalable
patterns
to
do
it,
but
I
think,
as
a
result
of
us
scaling
up
the
operation
as
a
result
of
more
people
getting
involved,
I
think
that
the
the
design
of
the
system
itself
will
also
involve
drastically,
and
so
hopefully
this
will
actually
not
be
a
challenge.
You
know
a
year
or
two
from
now.
G
A
Sweet
well,
it
feels
like
we're
reaching
kind
of
a
natural
pause,
so
feel
free
to
stick
a
hand
up
chat
or
just
unbeat
your
mic.
Otherwise
I
just
posted
the
link
in
chat.
If
you
joined
a
few
minutes
late,
please
fill
out
that
air
table
we'll
get
you
all
pinned
up
if
you're
new
and
you
want
someone
to
reach
out
that'd,
be
the
way
to
do
it.
On
that
form.
A
We
had
one
applicant.
This
was
an
ldn
that
wanted
to
be
on
the
radar
for
any
of
the
notaries.
So
it's
ipolovers
and
the
ldn
is
538.
I'll
link
this
in
the
application
review,
as
well
as
post
in
the
notary
channel
later
this
evening,
and
essentially
what
they're
looking
for
is
their
bot
sign
their
suite
notary
review.
They
prepared
a
short
five
minute
video
to
answer
any,
maybe
high
level
questions
you
have
about
their
project,
so
I'll
link
that
again
in
the
application
review.
But
if
you
were
looking.
F
G
E
G
A
A
All
right
with
that,
I
think
this
is
going
to
be
one
of
those
rare
governance
sinks
where
we
we
have
a
few
minutes
left
on
the
agenda.
If
you
want
to
message
any
of
us
offline
feel
free
to
ping
us
on
slack
and
if
there's
anything
that
came
up,
they
didn't
want
to
talk
about,
we'll,
be
happy
to
discuss
in
more
detail.
Otherwise
appreciate
you
guys
all
dialing
in
thank
you
for
coming.