►
From YouTube: Delegate Office Hours | MKR & DAI COMP DISCUSSION
Description
The Delegate Office Hours call is hosted by the Governance Communications Core Unit in collaboration with Recognized Delegates of MakerDAO.
The call aims to bring together all delegates and discuss recent events, governance activity, and other domains relative to governance and delegation.
https://forum.makerdao.com/t/delegate-office-hours-11/17878
A
All
right,
everyone
hi
welcome
to
this
week's
delegate
office
hours,
Thomasville
govcoms,
and
thank
you
for
joining
us
this
week.
Just
as
a
friendly
reminder
we
put
out,
we
didn't
put
out
a
poll
necessarily
just
for
the
topics
this
week.
We
just
wanted
some
comments
it
made
in
the
Forum
and
we
did
get
a
response
back
from
Raphael
who
was
talking
about
the
maker
mkr.
A
Excuse
me
mkr
conversation,
so
Raphael
I'll,
let
you
can
kind
of
kick
us
off
and
if
others
got
some
great
topics,
they
want
to
talk
about
us
and
a
lot
of
activities
been
going
on.
We
can
kind
of
go
in
your
direction,
so
Raphael
I'll.
Let
you
go
ahead
and
start
with
the
comment
that
you
had.
Then
we
go
from
there.
Raphael
you
have
the
floor.
B
C
And
and
basically
you
know,
my
my
strategy
was
to
sit
back
and
kind
of
wait
for,
for
you
know
the
one
that's
most
Equitable,
the
one
that
fits
with
the
long
longer
term
strategy
for
incentives
of
my
teammates,
like
I,
was
kind
of
looking
for
something
that
was
simpler.
That
didn't
have
like
a
ton
of
like
really
complex
stuff
that
I
had
to
keep
track
of,
and
so
yeah
like
I
I.
C
It's
like
we're
gonna
have
never
ending
debates
about
which
ones
make
sense
which
one
doesn't
from
inside
of
our
stakeholder
groups,
so
I
think
it
was
Robert
from
CS
who's
advocating
for
either
the
delegates
or
whoever
else
to
to
Really
seek
out
a
declaration
of
intent
to
find
a
third
party
that
can
that
can
do
this.
That
has
you
know,
visibility
into
you
know,
industry,
comp,
four,
like
tokens
and
all
that
stuff.
So
so
that's
some
of
the
stuff.
A
Thank
you
David,
that's
great
or
really
appreciate
that,
especially
given
that
I
think
we
actually
got
comment
too
about
that
from
code
night
and
then
Raphael.
You
got
your
hand
raised
I'm
gonna,
get
right
to
you,
but
I
just
wanted
to
mention
that
in
the
chat.
While
you
were
talking
David
that
could
not
put
that
up
after
the
standardization
mkr
investing
so.
B
Yeah
I
think
could
not
put
father
a
very
good
proposal
and
then
adjusting
just
in
case
me
and
a
couple
of
other
delegates
met
with
Tina
Ferguson
from
a16z
to
ask
about
Equity
compensation
because
they
they
changed
like
they.
They
have
deep
insights
into
like
startup
Equity
compensation
and
he
referred
us
to
a
portfolio
company
of
theirs.
It's
called
pave
that
has
like
a
large
database
of
compensation
structures
and
we're
currently
in
the
process
of
querying
that.
So
we
are
thinking
about
that,
but
we
haven't.
B
We
haven't
had
the
time
to
to
really
get
to
the
bottom
of
the
data
here.
So
I
hope
that
this
will
be
conclusive,
but
I
think
just
in
general,
I
wondered
if
mkr
besting
is
is
seen
as
like
an
additional
pay
or
more
like
you,
long-term.
Investing
kind
of
incentivizing
launch
fund
value
accrual
for
the
protocol.
Now.
A
C
I
mean
I
I,
think,
like
18
months
ago,
like
we
didn't,
have
delegates
right,
like
we
didn't
have
as
Rich
of
a
delegate,
community
and
I
think
between
all
of
the
core
units,
the
responsibility
for
you
know
putting
together
or
like
pursuing.
This
was
kind
of
diffused,
and
so
it
was
kind
of
like
a
tragedy
of
the
commons
that
that
a
real
standard
never
got
picked
up
and
like
nobody
did
like
an
SPF
or
or
whatever
so
I.
B
Yeah,
it
can
be
achieved,
I
mean
I.
Think,
ideally
because
mkr
testing
for
delegates
was
also
proposed
in
that
kind
of
suggested,
that
we
have
like
a
really
long
term
investing,
but
maybe
even
four
years
or
something
so
that
there's
a
very
clear
incentive
that
in
the
end,
we
want
to
make
the
decisions
that
that
benefit
the
protocol
and
that
benefit
the
token
holders,
because
I
think
that's
that's
it,
but
but
at
the
same
time
I
think
we
can't
put
token
holders
before
the
The
House
of
the
protocol
right.
B
D
Is
there?
Is
there
any
way
to
get
some
background
color
on
how
we
got
here
feel
like
the
the
original,
not
the
original,
but
obviously
the
maker
Foundation
probably
had
some
kind
of
scheme
which
I
have
no
idea.
What
that
was,
but
I
would
imagine
some
of
the
proposals
that
came
on
early
on
by
protocol
engineering
and
the
early
core
units
was
similar
to
that.
But
then
I
remember
correctly.
I.
F
Yeah
I
I
mean
I
I,
know
specifically
about
the
foundation
plan,
and
the
plan
was
designed
based
upon
rtu,
restricted
stock
unit
program,
but
it
was
a
token
right,
so
the
token
was
used
instead
of
in
lieu
of
a
stock,
there
were
grants
that
were
given.
There
were
vesting
schedules
and
then
there
were
different
amounts
that
were
given
based
upon
the
the
level
you
were
inside
of
the
organization
and
a
lot
of
times.
The
level
was
based
upon
the
type
of
position
and
the
responsibility.
F
So
to
me,
when
I
saw
that
plan
and
by
the
way
it
took
a
while
for
it
to
be
put
together,
they're
not
easy
to
do,
and
it
looked
like
a
pretty
much
a
typical
type
of
tech
company
rtu
program
that
I've
experienced
in
the
past
in
the
past.
When
we
made
the
transition
into
the
Dow
there
wasn't
there
were
a
lot
of
thoughts
in,
in
my,
at
least
in
my
opinion,
a
lot
of
thoughts
that
we
put
together
a
plan
and
and
I
know.
F
F
In
my
opinion,
the
shortcomings
were
is
that
the
vesting
periods
are
too
long
and
and
there
wasn't
the
ability
to
stack
grants
because
it
was
designed
as
a
one-time
program
and
then
as
the
as
we
had
the
independence
of
each
of
the
core
units
and
being
able
to
do
whatever
it
is
they
wanted
to
do
so.
They
had
the
ability
to
take
the
the
past
of
leaf
resistance
and
adopt
that
or
develop
their
own
and
because
there
was
familiarity
with
it,
because
PE
was
the
first
group
that
went
through
so
other
groups.
F
Just
looked
at
that
as
a
model
and
started
to
adopt
that
and
it
seemed
like
there
was
a
correlation
between
the
more
technical,
the
more
impactful.
The
group
was
the
more
it
made
sense
to
do
pretty
aggressive
mkr
grants
and
then
for
the
groups
that
maybe
were
less
the
perception
of
being
less
impactful,
that
the
grants
were
lower.
A
G
So
myself
and
long
ended
up
splitting
off
after
that
proposal
was
rejected
and
working
on
our
own
plan
simultaneously.
Scs
was
coming
up
with
their
own
plan,
and
you
know
the
community
was
basically
left
with
multiple
options
and
I
gradually
watered
down
my
proposal
over
time,
and
there
was
just
so
much.
G
So
that's
why
you
have
a
really
no
standard
model,
I
guess
probably
around
half
the
Dow,
maybe
some
more
use
the
SCS
model
and
then
everyone
else
just
uses
you
know
whatever
they
feel
like.
It's
like
gov,
Alpha,
p
e
growth.
You
know
my
Korean
SF
all
have
plans
that
are
unique
relative
to
scs's
model.
So
that's.
It's
just
been
a
super
divisive
and
complex
topic,
and
just
due
to
the
history
and
complexity
around
it,
a
lot
of
efforts
gone
into
it
without
any
results.
G
You
know
there
just
hasn't
been
an
appetite
from
anyone
else
in
the
community
to
pick
it
up
and
yeah.
Literally
when
I
started
on
the
committee,
I
was
like
we
should.
This
was
back
when
I
was
a
Community
member
and
just
to
make
her
hold
there.
I
was
like
we
should
just
hire
an
independent
party
and
pay
them
to
do
this
analysis.
It's
super
common
to
do
that,
and
no
one
else
wanted
to
do
that.
G
D
Yeah
thanks
for
that
refresher,
Mark,
really
appreciate
it
and
Robert
as
well
for
the
input
from
the
maker
Foundation
days,
so
yeah
I
mean
I.
This
is
definitely
why
we're
here
right,
I,
think
long
for
wisdom
made
a
point
there
in
the
chat
about
the
standard
model
and
I
discussed
this
with
I.
Think
with
you
Raphael
that
I
don't
think
it
fits
everyone
right,
because
you
can't
pay
the
CEO
of
JP
Morgan
the
same
amount
of
vested
stock
JPM
stock.
D
C
I
mean
there's,
there's
different
kinds
of
standardization
right
like
maybe
there
could
like
if
we
were
to
hire
an
independent
party
or
if
somebody
was
to
just
create
a
really
really
awesome,
like
proposal,
maybe
like
the
standards
would
be
baked
into
not
just
levels
but
also
like
function
like
engineering
Ops,
like
whatever
the
Clusters
are
I
guess
I
mean
I,
don't
know,
I
can
kind
of
see
like
the
complex
standard
model.
Applying
you
know.
C
B
E
E
Yeah
but
like
right
now,
like
the
the
facilities,
are
not
like
they're,
not
employees,
of
the
Dow
they're
more
like
contractors.
So
it's
it's
going
to
get
messy.
If
you're
trying
to
like
go
to
your
contractor
and
Define
how
the
contractor
pays
its
employees
because
then
you're
going
to
have
to
then
we
would
have
to
like
actually
know
how
much
they're
paying
all
their
employees
and
we'd
have
to
be
involved
in
that
right
like
because
we're
not
involved
in
how
much
they.
E
E
Anything
like
that,
the
in-game
seems
to
go
the
opposite
direction
right.
It's
it's
pushing
out
to
metodels
where
the
Dow
has
even
less
oversight,
and
then
we
do
overseas
use
so
like
that
and
I
mean
beyond
that.
Part
of
the
end
game
is
like
we're:
gonna
have
all
Anon
employees
right,
everyone
goes
Anonymous
and
we
don't
even
know
who's
working
and
who's
getting
paid
for
what.
G
F
A
F
There
are
a
couple
of
things
that
were
said:
I
just
want
to
be
clear
on
a
couple
of
points
here.
First
off
is
that
yes,
so
my
structure
is:
is
that
there's
an
LLC
that
employs
my
contributors,
slash
contractors?
Each
one
has
a
contract,
each
one
has
a
commitment
that
that
the
LLC
has
made
to
them
and
that's
how
we
facilitate
the
hiring
and
and
and
and
management
of
the
people.
F
So
so
inside
of
that
commitments
have
already
been
made,
and
so
one
of
the
things
I
just
want
to
point
out
is
that,
if
we're
planning
to
retroactively
try
to
change
anything
you're
going
to
open
a
whole
can
of
worms
that
the
dial
does
not
want
to
get
into
so
I
I
would
encourage
us
all
to
make
sure
we
do
not
put
that
option
on
the
table,
because
commitments
have
been
made
and
I'm
sure
I'm,
not
the
only
poor
unit.
That's
made
those
commitments,
so
that's
that's
the
first
thing
I
want
I
want
to
mention.
F
Secondly,
is
that
as
someone
that
has
been
hiring
for
some
time
from
the
foundation
into
the
the
into
the
Dow
and
continues
to
try
to
hire
as
a
facilitator,
it's
tough
I've
got
a
guy
that
I'm
trying
to
hire
from
consensus,
and
let
me
tell
you
nothing:
that's
going
on
in
makerdale
right
now
is
helping
out
with
that
effort.
Compensation
levels
are
a
lot
higher
than
what
everyone
else
believes
or
may
believe,
and
incentives
are
there
as
well
I.
F
Need
some
mkr,
because,
oh
by
the
way,
my
initial
estimate
was
X
but
I
didn't
anticipate
this
dramatic
of
a
price
decline
and
if
I
use
my
old
model
for
setting
mkr
compensation,
I
need
a
heck
a
lot
more
than
than
what
I
initially
needed,
but
to
even
have
that
conversation
right
now
in
the
community.
It's
just
something:
I'm
not
willing
to
tee
up
so
which
prevents
me
from
hiring
someone.
F
So
this
whole
concept
of
like
a
bunch
of
anon
showing
up
to
do
engineering
work.
We
got
to
get
a
clue.
That's
that's
not
the
reality
and
there
are
a
lot
of
very
competent
organizations
that
are
still
hiring
and
paying
a
great
wage
and
a
great
incentive
structure
that
we're
competing
against
and
if
maker
down
wants
the
best
and
the
brightest
which
I
do
then
we've
got
to
design
a
system
to
ensure
we
can
attract
those
people
into
our
ecosystem.
So
just
a
comment.
H
H
Obviously,
ideally,
that's
somebody
that
we
wanted,
but
I
think
it
was
kind
of
clear
that,
even
if
that's
not
the
case,
there's
no
really
way
to
punish
one
for
it,
but
you
can
also
imagine
that
if
for
more
traditional
or
even
other
default
protocols
that
have
companies
or
foundations,
unlike
us,
they
can't
really
enforce
that
right.
But
for
us
we
don't
really
have
a
means
to
enforce
it.
So
I
think
it's
kind
of
balanced.
H
It's
like
okay,
we
do
provide
more
flexibility,
which
we
might
be
lacking
to
be
frank,
like
compensation
with
others
compared
to
other
protocols,
but
on
the
flip
side
we
also
get
more.
You
know
flexibility,
so
that's
something
that
I
kind
of
thought
about
these
days
as
well.
It's
like
okay,
if,
let's
say
we
decided
to
get
really
attractive
compensation,
then
do
we
also
have
the
kind
of
rights
to
basically
restrict
what
they
can
do
outside?
G
G
You
know
it's
certainly
an
option
to
restrict
people
from
not
working
any
other
does.
But
if
we're
gonna,
you
know
lean
into
that
model
that
we're
basically
going
to
require
everyone
to
docks
themselves,
because
otherwise,
you're
never
gonna,
know
who's
contributing
anonymously
under
other
protocols
and
other
projects
and
I.
Don't
I,
don't
know
that.
That's
the
way
that
people
want
to
run
the
Dow.
D
Yeah
I,
don't
think
we
need
to
complicate
things
here
and
you
know
get
out
of
the
get
away
from
the
subject
at
hand,
which
is
trying
to
figure
out
the
right
structure
for
awarding
mkr
tokens
and
I
was
just
wondering.
Mark
I
wanted
to
follow
up
and
see
if
you
had
any
insight
any
insight
into
what
the
end
game
is
proposing
for
meta,
dials
or
metadal
team
members,
or
even
some
of
the
actors
that
vote
below
the
metadals
and
the
in
the
tribunals
Etc.
G
You
know
through
this
compensation
consultant,
but
that
might
be
a
good
question
for
us
to.
You
know
bring
up
to
him
on
the
call
today
to
see
across
the
community
and
the
delegates
kind
of
networked
through
that
or
if
he
wants
to
to
have
more
of
a
role
and
kind
of
be
proposing
stuff
relating
stuff
himself.
G
I'll
just
add
like
on
the
on,
like
the
die
side
like
what
runes
told
me
is
you
know
for
protector
Dao
he
wants
to
provide.
Basically,
you
know
what
he
thinks
is
a
reasonable
runway
for
two
years
and
then
you
know
the
protector
Dallas
basically
have
that
period
of
time
to
get
to
break
even
be
self-sufficient,
and
it's
all
like
you
know
on
them
to
decide
how
to
hire
their
team
and
build
their
team
out.
A
A
B
A
D
D
So
Brian
Frank,
your
brain,
is
also
fried
from
the
last
two
years.
Pretty
much
I
mean
that
was
super
interesting
I
mean
breaking
down
the
the
end
game
is
Mission
Impossible
very
hard
to
do
in
one
single
recording,
but
we
did
get
a
lot
of
the
the
input
that
can
possibly
be
verbally
used
by
long
for
wisdom,
and
so
I
really
appreciate.
I
appreciate
that
I
don't
know.
If
I
do
you
have
any
questions,
Tim
that
you
can
think
of
that
we
didn't
ask
that.
D
A
C
D
D
I
Yeah
sort
of
just
if
the
Stillman
thing
is
you
try,
and
you
know
it's
going
to
use
when
you're
having
a
debate
right.
It's
where
you
sort
of
you
try
to
help
your
opponent
in
the
debate
construct
the
best
possible
version
of
their
argument
right
in
the
like.
Your
argument
is,
then,
all
the
stronger,
because
you
can
defeat
the
best
possible
counter
argument
right.
I
I
can
always
feel
just
like
whenever
someone's
sort
of
trying
to
sell
you
something
right,
and
then
you
talk
about
the
positives
of
it.
It's
not
like
suspicious
exactly
but
you're,
always
sort
of
just
asking
like
yeah,
but,
like
you
must
you've
thought
about
this
noise.
You
must
know
what
the
trade-offs
are,
but
like
you're,
not
talking
about
them
and
like
sure
I
can
like
you
know,
anyone
can
think
about
it
and
try
and
figure
them
out
right
but
like,
but
you
must
know
some
of
them
and
you
haven't
written
about
them.
I
J
Yeah
yeah,
so
Frank
I
mean
essentially
you
you
make
your
argument
more
convincing
by
being
very
transparent
about
what
the
downsides
could
be
and
to
Long's
point.
You
actually
articulate
what
your
plan
would
be
in
case.
That
goes
sideways.
So,
instead
of
making
things
just
simple
pros
and
cons,
you
actually
have
a
little
bit
more
of
like
a
decision
tree
and
like
some
path
forward.
D
I
F
Yeah
one
of
the
things
to
be
challenging
about
that
is
challenged
about
roon
when
talking
about
these
types
of
Concepts
is
that
roon
seems
to
always
have
an
answer
for
for
everything
and
and
and
it
would
be
nice
to
see
sometimes
where
we'd
ask
a
question,
and
you
know,
for
example,
in
the
transition
yeah,
the
the
devil's
in
the
details
with
all
of
this.
It's
like
these,
the
initial
mips,
don't
really
mean
too
much.
F
They
set
some
structure
up
at
a
high
level,
but
it's
like
you
know,
just
just
as
a
very
simple
example:
the
the
way
that
PE
is
being
presented
in
the
end
game
and
the
roles
and
responsibilities
and
in
my
past
having
a
close
working
relationship
with
that
team
and
understanding
the
Dynamics
there.
There
are
some
big
gaps
and
and
there's
this
mixing
of
current
state
and
future
state,
and
so
a
little
more
grounded
in
reality
is
where
I'd
love
to
see
these
conversations
go,
but
unfortunately
a
lot
of
times
it
doesn't
get
there.
G
Yeah
I'll
just
add
to
that
I
think
you
know
from
my
perspective,
I
agree
completely
that
you
know
in
this
proposal,
like
the
devil,
is
in
the
details
and
I
do
think
Ryan's
trying
to
shift
focus
a
little
bit
to
the
transition
and
kind
of
like
operational
plan.
That's
going
to
be
like
the
toughest
part,
because
there's
no
shortage
of
complexity.
It's
no
shortage
of
things
to
do,
and
you
know
a
lot
of
people
are
kind
of
like
at
limbo,
not
knowing
you
know
where
they
fit
in
if
they
fit
in
at
all.
G
In
this
new
end
game
structure-
and
even
you
know
if
there
are
places
for
people
to
go,
it's
not
necessarily
clear
100
like
what
they
should
be
working
on.
What
the
priorities
are
so
I
think
you
know,
definitely
needs
to
be
some
conversations
around.
Okay,
like
I,
think
everyone's
trying
to
work
on
this.
But
you
know
what
are
the
next
few
steps
and
like
how
do
we
like
red
team?
The
most
you
know
unclear
aspects
of
the
plan
to
try
and
get
to
something
that
you
know
would
be
successful.
G
G
G
Some
of
the
you
know
token
allocation
stuff,
which
is
to
find
like
a
high
level
but
I
think
the
value
accrual
between
the
mdao
token
and
the
maker
token
needs
to
be
like
super
clear
and
right
now,
it's
kind
of
obfuscated
a
little
bit,
because
the
value
flow
like
goes
like
frontmaker
to
the
metadatao,
then
back
to
maker
from
the
metadata
a
little
bit.
I'm,
definitely
curious
about
Governor
Dow's
and
everyone
Spent
A,
Little,
More,
Time,
On
them
recently,
but
I
think
yeah
I'd
love
to
hear
your
perspective.
I
E
G
I
Because
I
mute,
it
then
I
think
I
was
talking,
but
perhaps
that
was
not
yeah
I
mean
I,
think
they
capture
value
well,
in
theory,
they
capture
value
in
the
same
way
as
the
others
right
like
they
can.
They
can
still
adopt
faults,
I
believe
and
they
can
still
like
duplicate
the
things
that
Creator
doubts
do
I.
Think
that,
because.
I
G
Yeah
because
kind
of,
like
my
head,
the
Creator
Dows,
are
kind
of
you
know
similar
to
d3m
implementations,
where
they're
doing
a
lot
of
like
on
chain
collateral
through
like
new
products
essentially
and
then
protector
Dows
are
more
focused
on
the
off
chain.
You
know
real
world
assets
so
I'm
guessing
this
sounds
like
you
know.
The
governor
now
is
kind
of
in
the
former
category.
Naturally,.
I
So
like
yeah,
I,
don't
know
what
that
looks
like
in
practice.
I,
it's
still
a
little
oven.
There
I
think,
like
Green's,
obviously
wrote
about
councils
and
tribunals
and
and
all
this
stuff
and
how
they
interact,
but
I
think
even
he
admits
it's
still
a
little
unclear
how
it's
going
to
work
in
practice,
how
it's
gonna
like
evolve,
as
as
we
try
and
implement
it,.
F
But
this
was
a
key
area
when
I
talked
to
Ren
last,
as
far
as
you
know,
trying
to
understand
the
difference
between
the
Creator
and
the
protector,
and
that
seems
to
be
at
least
cleared
out
for
me
where
it's
like
you
adopt
a
vault
and
if
you
adopt
a
decentralized
fault,
basically
you're
a
Creator
and
you
use
a
front
end
in
your
community
to
to
drive
revenue.
And
you
get
that
25.
That
comes
back
to
you.
F
It's
a
little
less
clear,
exactly
the
compensation
model
as
it
relates
to
the
protector
metadals
and
the
rwas,
and
there's
the
junior
trons
of
capital
and
such
that
go
along
with
it.
But
then,
when
he
started
talking
about
the
governor
metadals,
it
got
a
little
confusing
for
me
because
it
was
you
know
there
is
this,
this
body
that
does
certain
functions
and
that's
also
responsible
for
Scopes,
as
well
as
responsible
for
accountability
and
allowing
more
more
funds
to
flow
or
less
funds
to
flow
into
some
of
these
metadals.
A
A
A
C
G
When
they
have
to
run
all
their
replies
through
legal,
they
just
posted
a
big
reply
on
the
thread,
so
I'd
highly
recommend
checking
that
out.
I
think
it
answers
the
most
common
questions,
so
yeah
I
don't
know
how
much
time
we
should
spend
on
it,
especially
relative
to
the
End
Game
maps,
which
are
a
much
more
massive
Paradigm
change
and
how
you
know
the
org's,
gonna,
look
and
I
think
you
know.
Long's
summary
is
a
great
place
to
kind
of
kick
off
that
discussion
personally.
D
A
J
Yeah
so
last
week
we
had
a
good
DBC
comments,
sort
of
fig
Jam
session,
which
I
think
was
pretty
helpful
for
providing
feedback
on
the
forums.
So
tomorrow,
I'm
going
to
try
and
focus
our
time
on
bringing
the
feedback
to
the
actual
DVC
call,
with
roon
kind
of
get
a
little
bit
of
a
structured
set
of
q,
a
you
could
call
it
light
red
teaming.
You
can
label
it.
However,
you
want,
but
ideally
whomever
shows
up
tomorrow.
J
We
can
all
put
our
heads
together
and
start
to
refine
some
of
the
weaker
points
in
Ruins
plan.
One
that
comes
to
mind
for
me
is
just
why
everything
all
at
once
and
why
not
a
phase
rollout.
It
still
hasn't
been
answered,
and
then
long
has
a
bunch
of
other
things
on
his
thread
as
as
Mark
pointed
out,
it's
a
great
place
to
start
so
it'd
be
nice
to
concisely.
Go
over
that
in
a
DVC
when
we
come
back
with
the
proposal
author.