►
Description
MakerDAO Forum Post: https://forum.makerdao.com/t/know-your-mip-kym-12-core-unit-offboarding-process-amendments/15700
For this series’ 12th session, we hosted Recognized Delegate Tim Black @twblack88 to explore MIP4c-2-SP15 2. This amendment addresses the gaps in the Core Unit Offboarding process for the Core Unit MIP set. Work on this amendment is near completion, but the final details need additional input to finalize the improvements to this process.
In this session:
-A review of the amendment’s changelog
-Discussion on the final component in progress; the interim facilitator process
A
Well,
hello,
everyone
and
thank
you
for
joining
this
session
of
know
your
myth.
Today
we
have
a
special
guest,
recognized
delegate
tim
black
joining
us
to
discuss
the
core
unit
off-boarding
process
amendments
that
he
has
been
working
on
collaboratively
collaboratively
with
many
members
across
the
dao
as
normal.
Please
feel
free
to
ask
any
questions
that
you
have
throughout
the
presentation
we'll
be
happy
to
take
breaks
in
the
action
to
have
them
addressed
in
real
time
for
reference
at
the
bottom
of
the
screen.
B
Gm
everybody
tim
black
here
from
the
black
loops
or
fbl.
For
short,
I'm
gonna
go
through
a
presentation
of
the
mip
amendments
for
core
unit
off-boarding
and
in
general,
just
revising
the
whole
core
unit,
mipset
around
everything,
except
for
mip
40,
which
we
recently
got.
So
I
have
a
presentation
prepared.
It's
essentially
just
a
nicer
formatting
of
everything
we
already
put
on
the
forum
so
for
this
call
I'll
set
some
context
and
then
that'll
also
be
great
for
the
viewing
audience
that
comes
to
youtube.
B
B
Slide
show
up
and
running.
Are
we
good
looks
like
we're?
Set,
looks
good
cool
all
right,
so
we
got
to
figure
out
a
better
naming
convention
for
things,
but
this
is
our
annoying
number
12.
I
guess
on
mip
4
component
2
sp
15,
which
is
the
core
unit
revisions
that,
frankly,
were
spearheaded
by
a
lot
of
smart
folks
and
then
taken
over
by
me.
B
I
guess,
but
really
a
lot
of
the
credit
goes
to
gov
alpha
for
collaborating
on
this,
specifically
for
blimpa
and
gala,
to
call
me
out
and
ask
really
great
questions.
So
here
we
go
tldr
for
this
whole
thing
is
the
theme
of
thankless
clarity,
thankless,
because
the
work
is
relatively
only
going
to
be
noticed
by
the
people
who
are
applying
for
core
units
revising
core
units,
off-boarding
them
and
hopefully,
at
the
end
of
it,
it's
a
much
clearer
and
smoother
process
for
everybody,
and
so
at
a
high
level.
B
We
also
took
the
framework
for
core
units,
which
was
both
the
definition
and
an
implementation
and
put
it
actually
in
mip
38,
which
was
all
about
defining
what
core
units
were
anyway,
and
that
came
from
doing
a
overhaul
to
mip
39,
which
is
the
coordinate
mandate
and
other
pieces.
There
were
a
bunch
of
mentions
to
requisite
mips
that
were
missing.
We
tied
those
back.
B
B
We
also
plugged
a
lot
of
holes
in
mid-41.
There
was
mentioned
of
different
processes,
but
they
weren't
really
defined,
and
we
also
realized
that
the
simulations
and
thinking
through
situations
for
losing
facilitators
or
if
they're,
interim
or
they're
moving
into
a
different
status
was
just
not
anywhere
and
so
we'd
find
those.
So
now
we
know
what
retirement
looks
like,
so
I
guess,
as
the
dow
we
got
that
going
for
us.
B
Hopefully
this
presentation-
I
timed-
it
is
only
about
15
or
20
minutes,
so
we
can
use
up
some
of
our
time
while
we're
here
to
take
the
latter
half
of
this
call
and
explore
some
solutions
for
the
fallback
process.
That
feels
like
the
last
piece
of
friction,
for
this
whole
myth
amendment
set,
it's
really
just
going
to
be
sourcing.
Some
ideas
here.
A
B
Then
putting
those
up
as
those
sort
of
last
pull
requests
so
diving
into
it.
One
of
the
first
places
we
found
ourselves
was
like
this
meme
here
on
the
right.
When
we
kept
reading
mitt
38,
we
were
like
pull
up
what
so
we
realized.
The
key
was
that
the
framework
was
there,
but
it
wasn't
really
defined
and
so
much
like
a
couple
of
other
mipsets
where
something
is
defined
in
one
reinstated
in
another
and
then
stated
again
in
another
one.
B
Just
is
much
easier
to
see
and
easier
to
use
and,
like
I
said
it's
also
in
bit,
39
and
one
slight
change
is
that
we
flipped
the
mid
38
title
from
a
state
to
a
list
because,
as
mip
editors
were
noting,
it
really
is
just
a
list
of
all
the
core
units.
There
isn't
really
much
state
change,
particularly
so
thing
there.
I
would
say
by
far
the
biggest
amount
of
effort,
all
the
way
back
going
back
to
like
january,
but
through
the
entire
sessions
of
thinking
all
these
revisions
through
zombip
39.
B
So
a
specific
shout
out
to
blimpa
and
gala
from
gov
alpha
for
volunteering
time
and
coming
in
and
being
helpful
and
frankly,
just
like
challenging
a
lot
of
assumptions
and
throwing
edits
back
and
forth.
It
was
like
a
ton
of,
like
I
said,
thankless
work
for
mip
39.
We
did
a
lot
for
clarifying
onboarding,
refreshing
and
offboarding,
especially,
which
is
the
original
inspiration
for
this
myth
revision.
B
Using
the
current
context
of
a
year
of
I
guess
you
could
say
operating
quote
unquote
as
a
dao,
we
removed
dimensions
of
the
foundation
we
kept
some
like.
I
said
we
move
those
definitions
to
mip
38
and
we
change
39
c1
to
be
more
explicitly
about
mandates
which
again,
hopefully
adds
to
that
clarity
theme.
We
added
some
modifications
to
the
second
component,
especially
around
refreshing,
core
unit
mandates
and
renaming
them,
which,
after
a
year,
seems
like
it
would
probably
be
pretty
useful.
B
B
We
also
made
specific
call-outs
to
permissions,
which,
especially
in
tech,
enabled
platforms,
is
actually
really
important.
If
people
miss
a
handoff,
then
you
could
be
stuck
with
no
keys
to
a
domain
as
an
example
which
is
particularly
not
the
best,
and
so
ideally
from
all
these
changes,
it
means
that
handing
over
assets
and
winding
down
work
is
just
less
messy,
which
means
less
drama.
It
means
less
time
on
the
forum
dealing
with
stuff
on
that.
A
B
Poll
and
then
boom,
you
have
created
your
core
unit.
We
also
added
something
for
revising
mandates
or
changing
names.
So
it's
much
clearer
to
just
see
how
you
can
change
your
core
unit,
which
is
super
helpful
for
me.
I'm
a
visual
learner,
but
again
like
this
is
now
in
the
actual
map.
That
will
be
part
of
that
thing.
That
will
display
the
portal,
which
is
really
great,
and
I
mentioned
more
flowcharts.
B
But
essentially,
we
now
have
a
little
bit
more
of
a
smooth
process
to
hand
things
off
to
unwind
a
team
to
understand,
if
there's
a
budget
up
front,
to
articulate
that
budget,
if
it
isn't
there
which
nip
goes
into
which
parts
of
those
and
it's
all
in
this
much
cleaner
source.
So
that's
that
whole
thing
one
big
shout
out
I
want
to
do-
is
for
paper
imperium
who
got
this
whole
ball
rolling
the
30,
the
mid
39
off
boarding
template
is
actually
much
the
same
as
as
january.
B
The
other
thing-
and
this
is
probably
the
most
important
part
of
having
this
be
on
a
public
call-
is
that
you
just
need
one
component
to
remove
a
core
unit.
Let
that
sink
in
this
is
all
you
need.
You
need
to
fill
out.
One
template
which
makes
things
much
simpler
in
a
bunch
of
different
ways,
but
the
upfront
trade-off
is
that
you
need
to
explain
why
what
explicit
work
is
fulfilled.
What
implicit
work
is
fulfilled
or
not
fulfilled?
B
B
As
I
mentioned
earlier,
we
split
unwinding
into
the
work
which
should
be
completed,
delegated
or
archived,
with
supplemental
documentation,
the
facilitator
and
specifically
their
powers.
If
you
guys
later
watching
this
video,
you
won't
really
see
the
chat
but
they're
talking
about
a
specific
problem
with
handing
over
a
domain's
access
which
to
their
cms,
which
would
have
been
handled
if
it
was
had
a
very
clear
template
for
offboarding
somebody.
B
We
also
included
a
special
shout
out
to
budgets
and
special
cases
for
budgets
that
haven't
quite
transitioned
to
the
new
mid-40
that
we
just
passed
a
couple
weeks
ago,
which
is,
I
think,
myth
4c2
sp19
or
the
the
new
mid-40.
So
that
makes
it
a
lot
easier
to
articulate
what
work
isn't
being
done.
How
should
it
like
proceed
to
be
not
done
anymore?
B
Ultimately,
it
means
there's
just
less
mess.
Overall,
there's
streamlined
work
up
front
for
removal
and,
as
a
bonus,
we
have
more
clarity.
I
figured
this
is
also
a
good
point
to
point
to
add
another
trade-off.
I
wouldn't
say
it's
a
trinity.
It's
just
another
one,
but
I
wanted
to
call
special
attention
to
say
that
you
know
mkr
holders,
especially
and
delegates
need
to
be
super
selective
with
more
core
units,
because
as
much
as
this
makes
things
simpler
being
one
component,
it
also
means
that
there
is
inherently
more
friction.
B
B
Thinking
through
how
those
wiley
facilitators
are
gonna,
go
and
do
crazy
things,
but
we
spend
a
lot
of
time,
cleaning
up
definitions
in
here
and
adding
language
and
fixing
component
by
component
and,
like
I
said,
tying
it
back
to
the
other
bits
that
we
revised
and
that's
really
where
the
complexity
and
the
time
it
took
to
make
all
of
these
changes.
That's
where
that
really
came
from.
So
it
wasn't
really
scope,
creeping.
A
B
That's
where
we
really
started
thrusting
in
a
lot
of
those
thoughts
we
learned
from
the
other
mips
where
we
defined
removing
of
powers,
we
defined
a
retiring
facilitator.
We
defined
the
interim
facilitator
earlier
in
the
whole
scope
of
what
a
facilitator
is
on
component
five.
We
also
introduced
what
interim
facilitators
are,
especially
within
the
context
of
like
an
off-boarding
core
unit,
which
is
where
we
just
came
from
in
this
call,
at
least
talking
that,
through
we
added
context
also
around
nominating
new
facilitators
if
a
facilitator
voluntarily
steps
down.
B
B
This
seemed
to
be
like
the
hardest
thing
to
think
through
is
when
a
core
unit
reaches
this
interstitial
state.
What
does
it
do
without
this?
Like
person,
who's
coordinating
it,
and
so
we
have
to
spend
a
lot
of
time,
as
you
guys
saw
earlier
thinking,
flowcharts
through
in
situations,
but
we
added
more
details
around
nominating
interim
facilitators.
B
B
We
also
added
two
things
that
I
feel
were
kind
of
missing
and
seemed
like
they
were
pretty
essential.
The
first
one
was
a
clause
for
the
interim
time
of
service
right.
We
don't
want
someone
being
an
interim
facilitator
for
a
long
period
of
time,
especially
if
they're
also
a
facilitator
on
another
core
unit.
That
seems
like
crazy,
so
we
put
that
in
there
and
we
also
added
in
the
incentives
to
be
an
interim
facilitator.
One
of
the
biggest
criticisms
and
sort
of
thoughtful
observations.
We
had
that's
what
I
was
putting
it
largest
thoughtful
observation.
A
B
Lanes
on
their
laptop
or
something
like
that,
where
there
was
this
process
for
an
interim
fallback
vote-
and
it's
like.
Oh
it's
exactly
like
water
in
this
in
this
meme
we
have
here
and
this
governance
dog
notices
that
there
isn't
actually
any
water
at
all,
and
so
this
is
a
silly
joke
that
I
put
in
here,
but
really
it's
realistically,
because
the
interim
fallback
vote
really
needs
a
little
bit
of
help,
which
is
why
we're
all
here?
And
it's
actually
what
I'm
going
to
ask
for.
B
So
I
would
love
for
us
to
use
the
chat
bar
to
come
up
with
some
solutions
or
if
people
can
sort
of
think
of
some
of
these
more
long
term.
We
can
rally
these
into
the
mips
final
revisions
and
I
kind
of
want
to
put
these
questions
and
next
steps
from
there
to
the
community.
That's
on
this
call
and
to
our
extended
community
who
may
be
watching
this
later
and
to
anybody
who
decides
to
go
back
to
the
forum.
B
The
interim
fallback
vote
process
in
case
you
guys
aren't
really
aware,
was
simply
put
a
list
of
active
facilitators
together
and
vote
on
a
replacement
which
essentially
was
a
little
bit
like
drawing
straws
with
extra
steps.
There
was
no
sort
of
where
does
it
occur?
How
long
does
it
last
what
is
like,
who
who's
the
ideal
list?
B
How
do
you
serve
on
like
these
different
committees,
which
is
where
all
those
changes
to
mit
41
for
facilitators
came
from,
and
so
I'm
going
to
put
these
questions
out
and
then
we
can
sort
of
pick
them
apart,
but
ideally,
if
we're
replacing
a
facilitator,
it
should
be
relatively
quick.
Some
suggestions,
or
some
questions
are
also.
How
would
we
vote
on
this?
B
Do
we
want
to
include
them
as
a
veto?
There
also,
unfortunately,
is
the
because
of
that,
drawing
straws
dynamic
there
there's
the
looming
threat
of
having
gov
alpha
take
over
interim
duties,
which
is
not
particularly
ideal.
So
I'd
love
to
hear
some
opinions
on
that
and
when
we
recommended
compensation
for
an
interim
facilitator
as
the
incentive
to
quote-unquote
volunteer,
although
paid
volunteer,
I
guess
sometimes
those
compensation
numbers
are
private
and
so
one
suggestion
came
from
patrick,
which
was
to
use
gum,
alpha's
recommended
numbers,
I'm
curious.
B
A
While
you're
looking
at
a
question
that
popped
into
my
head,
if
you
can
google
and
talk
at
the
same
time,
would
be
related,
the
first
one,
which
is
what's
the
quickest
process,
to
formerly
pick
an
interim
facilitator
building
off
that
working
in
a
core
unit
and
understanding
that
you
know
it
is
a
business,
but
it's
a
unique
type
of
business.
What
do
have
you
put
any
thought
into
if
the
interim
facilitator?
A
B
B
B
B
As
written,
the
facilitator
replacement
process
is
more
of
a
core
unit
function.
So
you
know
you,
you
pick
someone
from
your
team
or
you
pick
someone
who
you
professionally,
what's
like
associated
like
someone
who
the
dow
knows,
ideally
so
that
when
it
does
become
this
transparent,
we're
voting
on
this
replacement
person
to
take
over
these
duties
that
are
now
vacated
by
this
retiring
facilitator.
B
B
You
know
that's
sort
of
one
of
the
things
that
feels
still
unsatisfied
right,
just
throw
all
the
facilitators
in
and
have
them
vote
on.
Some
poll
seems
a
little
bit
like
it'll,
be
messy,
but
there's
no
need
to
make
perfect
the
enemy
of
the
good.
I
was
really
more
curious
if
we
could
unpack
this
a
little
bit
more
and
maybe
perhaps
find
it,
but
it
might
just
tend
to
be
that
at
this
time
we
don't
really
need
that
process
perfectly
defined,
and
that
is
okay.
I
mean
that's.
B
The
point
to
mips
is
that
we
can
just
amend
them
in
the
future
as
well.
So
I
feel
like
that's
the
kind
of
thing
where
someone
will
have
an
insight
and
that
will
sort
of
be
the
last
piece
that
we
can
take
forward.
I
wasn't:
it
was
a
little
ambitious
to
hope
that
it
would
be
in
this
call,
but-
and
I
definitely
feel
that's
the
kind
of
thing
where
it
becomes
clear
when
that
case
is
there,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
we've
been
pretty
lucky
in
the
sense
that
having
facilitators
step
down
has
this.
B
You
know
this
cultural
piece
where
it's
it's
kind
of
like
the
term
of
service
or
the
tour
of
duty
has
like
ended
right
and
so
there's
a
clear
plan
of
handing
over
access
to
this
platform.
Or
this
thing
this
is
the
person
who's
going
to
be
taking
over
this.
This
person
needs
to
be
there.
I've
met
with
them
already
right,
relatively
speaking,
we've
done
that
quite
well.
B
On
the
flip
side,
there's
been
other
examples
where
it
hasn't
been
as
clean,
and
so
that
was
the
attempt
to
at
least
take
some
of
the
time
on.
This
call
to
really
think
this
through
and
say:
okay,
we're
going
to
do
this
vote
on
this
platform
with
these
people
who
will
attend
and
they
will
share
the
results
in
this
way
right,
it
seems
like
putting
it
up
to
the
voting
portal
to
maker
holders
might
be
a
nice
check
if
we
need
it
if
it's
a
significant
core
unit
with
a
huge
budget.
B
Sit
down,
like
the
hive,
mind
comes
together,
so
if
anyone
wants
to
raise
their
hand
or
bring
up
any
thoughts
or
they
want
to
put
it
on
the
forum
thread,
it's
like
we
are
more
than
open
to
feedback.
I've
been
keeping
this
thing
open
for
months
to
try
and
really
make
sure
that
we've
got
all
these
processes
taken
care
of.
A
B
Part
of
the
reason
we
felt
like
detailing
the
fallback
process,
a
little
more
is
because,
if
we
run
into
a
situation
where
your
core
unit
is
being
off-boarded
by
someone
else,
because
it's
a
permissionless
thing,
anyone
can
put
up
a
myth
right.
You
may
not
want
to
participate,
which
is
why
we
need
to
have
someone
come
in
and
execute
this
unwinding
of
your
core
unit
and
that's
basically
what
this
flowchart
actually
covers.
The
the
gray
box
inside
of
like,
which
is
where
we
started
our
conversation
a
few
minutes
ago,
is
still
like.
B
I
said
a
little
bit
undefined
so
because
I
mean
realistically
like
if
anyone
else
has
ever
been
fired
before
you're,
not
exactly
in
the
best
mood
to
try
and
like
help.
The
dow
succeed
when,
like
you
just
got
ripped
out
from
what
you
were
doing
so
we
sort
of
anticipated
that
we
would
want
to
move
quickly
with
getting
someone
in
there
who
could
actually
execute
an
unwinding
in
a
relatively
smooth
way,
mostly
so
that
other
core
units
who
may
be
affected
by
that
off-boarding
of
something
else.
B
B
You
know
what
I'm
saying
and
that's
why
we
spend
so
much
time
thinking
about
these
unwinding
plans
and
how
they're
budgeted
and
then
what
does
the
work
look
like
as
well,
because
you
know
some
of
us
have
definitely
been
through
the
the
decentralization
grindstone
before
and
it's
like
pretty
hard
to
determine
whether
you're
handing
something
off
or
whether
you're
archiving
it.
You
know
that's
the
kind
of
thing
that
just
needs
like
a
guiding
hand
to
help
make
decisions.
B
B
We
assumed
it
would
be
mostly
core
units
and
facilitators
coming
together
to
take
a
new
one
and
we
assume
budgets
being
what
they
are,
that
there
will
be
compensation
for
that
facilitator
right,
so
we're
trying
to
stack
the
incentives
so
that
we
don't
end
up
on
the
left
part
of
this
flowchart.
We
end
up
more
on
the
right
side,
where
people
really
want
to
volunteer
like
there's
three
or
four
people
are
like
I'm
pretty.
I
can't
I
can
handle
this.
B
A
Yeah
just
to
throw
out
one
quick
idea,
the
the
mkr
holders
could
potentially
be
the
fact
checker
or
approval
of
the
vote
right,
and
that
could
be
done
through
the
the
compensation
one
way
to
like
increase.
The
compensation
could
be
like
providing
fifty
percent
up
front
and
fifty
percent
once
off
boarding's
delivered.
That's
then
executed
in
the
executive,
and
if
the
mkr
holders
don't
wanna
support
it,
then
they
don't
approve
it
signaling
back
and
speed
out
and
do
it
again
more
or
less.
B
Yeah
to
build
on
that,
actually,
that's
a
really
good
point.
We
have
these
flowcharts.
We
have
other
example
sentences
sort
of
littered
throughout
this
amendment.
It
might
be
really
good
to
actually
just
articulate
one
example
just
like
that.
I
think
that
would
be
super
helpful.
So
thank
you.
It's
a
wonderful
suggestion.
B
B
A
Okay,
it
looked
like
josh
had
his
hand
up
to
come
up
on
stage
if
you're
so
interested.
You
are
invited
so
feel
free
to
take
advantage
of
that
chatting
through
and
focusing
on
the
platform.
Then
what
were
your
thoughts
on
like
a
zoom
pole
or
the
forums
like?
Do
you
want
it
to
be
transparent,
to
show
who's,
supporting
it
or
keep
a
little
bit
more
obscured.
B
B
You
know,
I
think,
in
the
auspices
of
transparency.
It's
it's
great
to,
like
I
said
earlier,
tell
people
that
this
vote
is
coming
up.
Here's
how
it's
going,
here's
where
it'll
be
conducted
and
then
open
that
call
personally
like
it
doesn't
have
to
be
perfect.
I
think
a
zoom
poll
with
you
know
20
facilitators,
all
voting
and
quorum
on
someone
who
came
from
the
list.
It
seems
to
be
like
pretty
reasonable,
because
then
there's
broad
consensus
and
it's
recorded
and
anyone
can
see
it.
I
would
prefer
that
that
call
is
open.
B
B
Like
it
still
ends
up
falling
on
gov
alpha
to
assemble
the
list
of
facilitators,
who
would
be
like
recognized
for
the
role
and
assemble
volunteers,
from
whichever
one
that
has
to
go,
but
that's
the
kind
of
organization
you
can
pull
together
on
a
pretty
short
notice,
especially
if
it's
something
tragic
like
someone
goes
missing
or
they
get
hurt
or
they
get
sick,
which
is
really
what
we're.
Actually
thinking
will
be
the
majority
case,
in
addition
to
nominating
someone
else
like
I
said,
I
really
want
to
see
the
culture
of
maker
down.
A
A
Up
the
that
concept
of
being
sick-
or
you
know,
let's
just
say-
win
the
lottery
and
take
a
year
off-
would
that
this
process
would
support
that
then,
and
would
an
off-boarding
pursue
a
different
path
than
say
like
a
planned
interim
facilitator?
Would
this
would
this
be
applicable
for
for
that
situation?.
B
It
would
be
ideally
an
off-boarding
if
it
you
know
we're
talking
about
one
that
was
unplanned
right,
yeah,
no
entire
team
off
you
yeah,
I
mean
there's
a
couple
checks
in
there.
So
obviously,
when
you're
upboarding
someone
when
you're
talking
about
the
work
that
is
implicit
or
explicit,
it
will
become
obvious
who's
going
to
take
that
work
over.
B
So
this
process
definitely
works
for
for
that
as
well.
It
really
comes
down
to
does
the
facilitator
want
to
cooperate
right?
You
know,
we've
set
it
up
again.
It's
another
aligned
incentive
where,
if
you
want
to
off-board
the
unit,
you
can't
just
lazily,
throw
out
vague
statements
and
then
just
wait
for
the
governance
cycle
and
then
just
throw
it.
You
have
to
actually
go
and
figure
out
what
they're
doing
which
shout
out
to
ses.
B
B
In
it's
actually
like
relatively
clean,
you
know
they
they
say
like
this
team
isn't
performing
like
we've
talked
with
them.
We've
gone
through
this
thing.
This
is
how
this
is
going
and
they're
like.
Yes,
we're
going
to
nominate
this
person
to
be
a
facilitator
or
they're
like
no
we're
going
to
shut
down
the
team.
A
Yeah,
and
so
much
of
that
is
so
hard
to
plan
for
developing
the
core
unit
mipset
and
then
seeing
how
it's
evolved
over
the
past
year
of
use,
using
that
as
kind
of
a
a
segway
to
wrap
up
this
segment.
Since
the
questions
seem
to
have
dried
up,
you
mentioned
also
that
the
dow
will
need
to
be
more
selective
due
to
the
people
friction
of
onboarding
and
off
boarding
until
more
robust
processes
in
place.
A
B
Yeah,
I
think
that
was
a
specific
call
out.
I
tend
to
sort
of
throw
darts
out
there
every
once
in
a
while
on
my
delegate
platform.
So
that's
definitely
where
that
language
came
from.
You
know
we
shouldn't
kid
ourselves
that
on
boarding
a
core
unit
is
difficult,
both
creating
one
and
going
through
any
program.
B
You
might
grow
to
do
it
or
just
yellowing
it
in
on
the
forums
and,
on
the
other
hand,
off-boarding
one
is
also
difficult,
and
so
the
reason
I
wanted
to
do
a
specific
call
out
is
for
folks
who
might
not
be
as
ingrained
in
this
ecosystem
as
we
all
are.
Who
are
you
know
the
12
or
15
people
who
are
on
this
call
right
now,
so
you
know
I
figured
it
would
be
good
for
us
to
really
just
be
thoughtful.
We
already
are.
By
and
large
I
mean
you
see
how
delegates
are
voting.