►
Description
Timecodes:
00:00 - Agenda
01:18 - Sourcecred bots
03:40 - Praise Back & Front end
04:22 - Allocation, distribution analysis
20:00 - Identity management
22:36 - Break up the first quant
23:48 - Rewards board or Rewards WG
🙏 Thank you for watching! Hit 👍 and subscribe 🚩 to support this work
🌱Join the Community🌱
on Discord https://discord.gg/uM4ZWDjNfK
or say hello on Telegram https://t.me/tecommons
Join the conversation https://forum.tecommons.org/
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/tecmns
Learn more http://tecommons.org/
A
A
B
So
primarily,
the
meeting
tracker
board
has
been
it's
usable,
but
we're
gonna
make
it
work
with
the
calendar
right
now.
It's
using
the
google
calendar
api,
but
we're
gonna
be
switching
to
using
the
calendar
feed.
So
it's
easier
to
fork
for
everyone.
They
don't
need
any
credentials
and
yeah.
The
plan
is
that
we,
like
sync,
just
extend
the
spot
to
send
like
a
message
in
the
server
telling
us
like
who
attended
the
meeting
and
if
we
are
able
to
this
should
write
data
to
the
to
source
grid.
A
A
A
And
for
the
front
end
the
same
status
for
the
front
end
as
last
week.
We
haven't
really
been
doing
a
lots
of
work
on
the
front
end
for
for
the
past
seven
days,
which
is
okay,
because
there's
not
a
huge
amount
of
work
to
be
done,
and
we
are
also
sort
of
a
little
bit
waiting
on
rudolph
to
finish
some
api
back-end
endpoints
before
we
push
forward
more
faster
with
the
front
end,
but
no
real
blockers,
except
for
that
big
blocker
and
yeah.
A
C
I
can
take
it
if
that's
okay,
yeah,
we
just
we
opened
a
repo
this
this
week
and
have
some
basic
python
script
running.
That
yeah
takes
the
example.
Data
puts
it
together
and
does
some
basic
analysis
yeah.
The
thing
is
that
this
kind
of
brought
up
some
questions
which
we
wanted
to
address
this
meeting,
like
you
wrote
the
message
there
and
yeah.
Maybe
we
can.
We
can
take
a
moment
to
talk
about
it
after
the
after
the
updates.
A
C
Yeah
well,
the
the
first
thing
we
kind
of
notice
is
that
we
need
some
like
in
the
example
data
right
now
and
for
source
thread,
and
the
praise
doesn't
have
a
single
id
which
can
be
used
in
in
both
so
is
there
is.
How
is
that
going
right
now?
Do
we
do?
We
did
we
agree
on
some
numerical
id
that
gets
assigned
automatically,
or
is
this
a
bit
more
in
the
future,
with
this
whole
idx
ceramic
stuff?
C
A
The
ceramic
stuff
is
in
the
future.
It
would
won't
be
a
thing
for
the
mvp
version
or
when,
for
the
first
few
quants,
there's
no
no
telling
when
when
that
and
if
that
will
be
ready,
so
that
is
still
in
early
research
phrase,
but
but
but
the
user
identity,
the
the
identity.
I
I
the
identifier
we
use
for
praise,
is
ethereum
mattress
and
so
so
that
I
think
I
posted
a
question
about
that.
C
Sorry
you
you
asked
me,
like
the
I
didn't
see
anything
matters
in
the
in
the
example
data.
But
if,
if
there's
one
that
should
be
enough,
but
the
thing
is,
maybe
the
user
can't
change
the
ethereum
address
like
if,
once
you
receive
payment
somewhere
else,
so
maybe
it
could
make
sense
to
have
some
just
one
numerical
id
that
gets
shared
across
source
grid
and
and
and
praise
that
doesn't
get
changed
as
much
which
you
can.
So
you
can
update
all
your
usernames
and
all
your
addresses,
but
have
some
unique
identifier
that
is
permanent.
D
And
I
just
had
a
quick
question
to
ride.
Alongside
of
that
who's,
the
best
representative
to
go
to
on
the
source,
cred
side-
I
know
lb
right
now
isn't
really
available.
I
do
have
an
open
conversation
with
aloysius,
so
I'm
I'm
connecting
with
them
about
a
couple
things,
so
I
planned
on
unasking,
but
I
didn't
know
if
there's
somebody
specifically
when
it
comes
to
source
craft
data,
that
we
should
speak
with.
B
E
F
F
I
don't
know
the
answer
that
question.
I
don't
I
I
think.
Like
the
answer
is
no,
it's
not
an
ether
address.
I
think
it
would
be
an
api,
wouldn't
it
either
way
like
it's,
not
an
eth
address
because
we're
basically
a
web
2
product.
So
I
can,
I
feel,
like
I
can
say
no
on
that
our
ether
address
is
like
our
treasury.
A
H
Yeah,
basically,
the
every
identity
has
a
number
on
the
json
database
that
source
code
implements
and
every
identity
has
this
number
at
the
end,
not
sure
if
they
are
unique
in
every
source
code
instance.
I
guess
not.
I
guess
they
are
only
unique
in
the
instance
that
we
are
talking
about
so
by
the
time
that
you
merge
any
identity
into
one.
You
keep
the
number
of
the
first
identity
that
you
choose.
H
A
H
F
That's
exactly
right,
and
I
just
want
to
say
that,
like
what
keeps
happening
and
barely
being
a
part
of
this
group
is
that
people
are
asking
questions
about
things
that
we're
trying
to
build
or
that
we're
noticing
our
issues
in
our
own
product
also
realize
that
the
people
who
built
this
have
left
our
project
and
have
left
the
people
who
are
now
working
on
it
with
like
a
lot
of
like
wow.
We
really
we
don't
really
like
this
product
like
how
it's
been
built.
F
If,
if
we
as
developers,
had
built
it
ourselves,
we
would
have
built
it
differently
in
order
to
work
on
it
more
properly
right.
So
that's
happening
right
now,
but
neo4j
is
the.
Is
the
software
that
we're
starting
to
use
to
get
our
data
like
visible
and
to
like
it
and
to
like
interact
with
it?
And
so
my
question
right
now
would
be:
can
the
praise
data
and
the
source
code
data
be,
and
both
be
in
neo4j
together?
F
A
A
B
H
B
A
Yeah
yeah,
I
guess
there
are
two
questions
regarding
source
credit
identities
and
how
we
can
merge
them
with
the
praise
identities,
and
the
first
question
would
be:
is
there
a
possibility
to
store
more
information
connected
to
a
source
credit
identity?
So
we
can
sort
of
store
the
right
type
of
information
to
make
it
easier
for
us,
and
and
also
can,
can
we
export
that
data
in
in
a
good
format
once
the
grain
is
calculated?
G
Yeah
a
couple
clarifying
questions:
one
praise
for
y'all
is
a
like
separate
stack
tech
stack
with
a
separate
oauth
system
attached:
okay,
cool
yeah,
so
we
you
can
definitely
especially
program
that
programmatically
there's
a
lot
of
options.
If
you're
like
trying
to
write
integrations,
our
ledger
has
an
ad
alias
event
type
in
it,
which
basically
is
for
the
purpose
of
taking
an
external
platform
identity
and
merging
it
into
a
source,
cred,
ledger,
identity
and
yeah.
G
If
you
know-
and
so
it's
it's
pretty
easy
to
do.
For
that
another
question,
a
clarifying
question
I
have
is:
are
you
wanting
to
import
data
from
praise
into
source
cred
to
affect
the
cred?
No
okay,
cool
yeah?
Then
it
should
be
pretty.
It
should
be
pretty
simple.
The
only
question
is:
how
do
you
verify
that,
like
x
user
maps,
to
why
discord
user
or
whatever,
but
if
you
can,
if
you
have
a
system
for
that,
then
like
putting
the
data
into
source
credits,
it's
supported,
yeah.
A
Currently,
we
don't
have
the
system
for
for
that.
So
for
for
praise,
we
we
will
we'll
do
the
verification
we
use
the
ethereum
address
as
a
as
the
the
identity,
identifier
and
and
for
act.
Activating
a
a
an
account
for
praise
means
that
you
follow
a
link
from
discord,
a
unique
link
connected
to
your
username,
and
then
you
sign
a
message
using
metamask
and
thereby
connecting
your
discord
and
the
ethereum
address
in
it
like
a
rather
secure
way,
but
that
that
check
we.
A
We
cannot
do
before
inputting
information
into
source
cred
unless
we
we
make
that
into
sort
of
a
standalone
user
verification
system.
But
it's
good
to
know
that
that
we
can,
we
can
add
information
to
source
credit
identities.
That's
a
real
possibility
if
we
can
use
this
ad
alias
thing
and
and
add,
like
an
extra
piece
of
information
to
help
us
connect
the
identities
that
then
that's
great
and
yeah
and
sorry.
H
A
C
Something
else
sounds
like
like
a
good
start
and
definitely
something
good
to
know
and
keep
in
mind.
Probably
if
I
would
guess
that
when
we
do
some
onboarding
flow
that
we
just
kind
of
use
in
the
same
process,
the
alias
that
we're
generating
on
one
side
and
putting
it
all
to
the
source
grid,
but
it's
great
yeah.
I
think
it's
definitely
good
news
and
a
good
start.
A
Yeah
we
have,
we
have
been
maintaining
a
separate
system
on
the
side,
we're
connecting
user.
You
phrase
usernames
or
discord
usernames
with
ethereum
addresses
basically
like
a
google
sheet,
so
so
in
in
yeah.
That
would
be
the
sloppiest
solution
to
continue
doing
that.
Just
three
columns,
you
know
a
source,
credit
source
credit
id
place,
id
and
ethereum
address
and
we'll
have
to
match
them
manually
for
each
user
is.
G
A
H
A
D
H
G
Yeah,
I
reserve
some
of
my
time
just
to,
like
you
know,
do
tech
support
in
the
ecosystem.
Pro
bono,
you
know
so
like
usually
I'll
get
back
within
a
couple
days,
usually
same
day
but
yeah.
So
so
I
definitely.
I
have
some
amount
of
availability
to
just
do
tech
support
to
anyone
who's
using
us,
yeah
cool.
F
A
No
athena
and
writer.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
yeah,
helpful
answers
and,
and
let's
move
on
to
actually
a
related
topic,
which
is
the
the
the
identity
management
that
I'm
I'm
currently
investigating
with
to
persons
involved
in
source
credit,
the
top
account
and
mag
walk
and
so
just
a
short
status
up
there.
The
date
there
is
that
we,
like,
I
said
it
said
still
early
research.
Is
it
a
good
idea
to
to
try
to
create
a
separate
identity
management
system?
But
I
think
this
whole
discussion
shows
that
it's
for
the
long
term.
A
It's
it's
needed
both
for
source
credit
and
for
for
us,
so
it
may
we
concluded
that
it
makes
total
sense
to
try
to
do
it
somehow
together
and
what
together
means
that
will
time
will
tell,
or
we
try
to
figure
that
out
along
the
way,
but
currently
so
the
top
account
is
is
digging
into
the
technology
of
of
ceramic
and
and
looking
on.
How
would
our
our
proposed
solution
look
and
me,
and
mag
walkwix,
will
sort
of
try
to
poke
all
this
in
his
architecture
and
ask
stupid
questions
yes
and
yeah.
A
F
F
I'm
not
familiar
as
much
with
tec
funding,
but
I
know
we
were
going
to
do
a
stax
grant
and
if
you
want
to
talk
separately,
that's
fine,
but
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
you
all
are
cared
for,
because
there's
a
lot
of
financial
stress
on
on
the
source
code.
Side
that
I
know
just
like
affects
our
people.
Even
if
it's
not
top
of
mind
so
yeah.
A
F
A
A
Great
because
the
task
of
recruiting
like
a
hundred
quantifiers
would
be
quite
difficult,
I
think
so
it's
I
think
we
can
just
conclude
that
we
will
choose
that
we
will
break
up
the
first
quant
and
then
for
the
second
hot
topic.
I
had
a
discussion
with
tam
about
this
today
and
we're
like,
wouldn't
it
be
better
if,
if
the
the
rewards
committee
was
just
a
regular
working
group,
so
I
I'll
just
open
the
floor
with
that
question.
What
do
you
say.
E
A
A
B
B
It's
it's
not
like
a
separate
layer,
and
I
think,
especially,
if
someone's
handling
the
rewards
for
this,
we
need
to
audit
the
people
involved
more
heavily
comparatively
so
that's
gonna
be
beneficial
and
something
about
what
you
mentioned
like
splitting
up
the
place,
I'm
wondering,
could
we,
like
maybe
reduce
the
price
items
more,
I
think
500
per
quant
is
also
a
lot.
Could
you
like
maybe
bring
it
down
to
250,
then
just
distribute
that
over
a
period.
A
Yeah,
let's
have
a
discussion
about
that.
The
time
and
griff
I
think
was
like
it's
not
not
a
huge
thing.
Time
was
said
that
she
could
do
a
few
hundred
herself.
So
I
I
guess
many
of
the
many
of
the
praise
items
still
are
super
simple
things
and
and
with
an
interface
where
you
can
quantify
them
quite
quickly,
so
you
listen
this
person
from
doing
that
meeting
flip.
You
know
many
of
them
take
like
one
second,
each
so
and
then
the
bigger
ones.
You
have
to
give
some
some
deeper
consideration.
A
Yeah,
the
the
system
will
support
it.
Technically,
we
can
set
up
phrase
periods
and
open
them
for
quantification
and
more
than
one
period,
you
can
be
open
for
quantification
at
the
same
time.
So,
basically
we
could.
We
can
divide
up
the
the
whole
the
whole
period
from
from
june
to
until
present
time
we
can
divide
up
in
in
praise
periods
and
assigned
to
quantifiers.
E
A
I
A
C
A
I
B
A
B
My
questions
could
be
taking
like
the
two
thousand
items.
Are
there
and
being
like
divide
them
into
four
like
randomly
four
pieces
randomly
or
would
be
like
looking
at
the
like,
plays
and
looking
at
specific
place
per
user,
and
then
dividing
that
like
just
to
be
fair,
because
I
think,
like
the
amount
of
like
praise
you
get
also
like
affects
the
amount
of
reward
you
get
and
since
the
like,
the
price
is
dynamic,
it
would
make
sense
to
like
make
it
face
somehow
make
it
fair
by
distributing.
A
The
the
the
way
the
quantification
is
done
in
in
the
news
system
is
that
you
you.
You
set
a
praise
period,
so
it's
based
on
dates
not
not
on
on
the
persians
or
number
number
of
praise
items.
So
when
I
say
with,
let's
take
500
items,
we
would
have
to
see
like
okay
500
place
items
that
it's
roughly
the
first
week.
A
E
A
Yes,
not
only
access
to
the
whole
person
that
they
would
have
to
quantify
all.
So
if
that
that
situation
occurred
like
one
then
yeah,
one
person
would
have
to
quantify
a
hundred
appraised
and
another
person
would
have
to
quantify
30.,
but
but
the
algorithm
will
hopefully
will
be
smart
enough
to
see
that
if
it's,
if
it's
a
situation
where
there's
one
one
people
one
person
with
a
hundred
praise
and
then
there's
three
persons
with
30,
then
one
quantifier
would
will
get
the
three
times
30
the
90
and
the
other
person
would
get
hundred.
A
Talk
about
the
rewards
committee
or
the
ex
rewards
committee,
but
just
pointing
out
that
it's
still,
we
still
have
two
two
processes
or
we
have
the
the
rewards
upgrade
process
or
project
which
this
is
about
us.
Taking
us
to
the
point
where
we
can
do
the
first
quantification
and
then
there's
the
sort
of
the
daily
grind
of
the
the
bi-weekly
quantifications,
etc.
That
will
be
handled
then
by
the
reward
board
committee.
Work
group.
C
So
maybe
now
is
the
time
before
we
move
on
to
to
something
else.
Okay,
sure
so
yeah,
mainly
the
the
thing
is
for
this
allocation
system.
Do
we
want
to
keep
it
50,
50,
praise
and
source
print,
or
do
we
want
to
rebalance
it
60
40
or
what
is
the
the
situation
there?
Is
there
a
consensus,
or
what
do
you
guys
think.
E
I
think
I
think
that's
something
that's
going
to
be
decided
by
the
committee,
so
maybe
we
should
get.
We
should
schedule
a
call
to
look
into
that,
because
we
would
have
to
look
into
the
data
we
have
from
source
credit.
So
far.
That
is
still
running
the
instance
and
then
see
like
maybe
the
analysis
from
our
last
quant
and
how
they
balance
out
like
what
types
of
work
is
being
rewarded
from
each
side
and
and
what
would
be
the
most
fair
from
the
balance.
I
It
would
it
make
sense
just
to
do
a
test,
praise,
quant
and
then
adjust
the
numbers
with
the
test.
Data
like
as
in
take
some
real
praise
in
in
it
for
a
real
period,
do
a
full
praise,
quant
and
then
adjust
that
parameter
based
off
of
what
makes
a
decent
like
a
reasonable
result,
according
to
the
reward
board
reward
board
and
and
then
make
just
pick
that
number
for
the
you
know
and
continue
to
tweak.
It.
B
I
A
That
we
make
the
the
the
first
quantification
we
we
make
that
into
the
not
not
the
dress
rehearsal,
but
it
will
be
the
the
first.
We
do
a
smaller,
a
smaller
first
quantification,
using
real
data
for
both
source
credit
and
praise,
and
then
we
can
evaluate
that
and
if
we
see
that
or
we
haven't,
we
haven't
decided
the
distribution
beforehand.
So
we
we
use
that
quantification
and
then
we
analyze
it
and
decide
the
distribution
or
between
place
and
source
credit.
After
we
have
done
that
quantification
and
use
that
going
forward,
then.
I
A
A
E
A
C
E
That's
kind
of
the
parameters
that
we
need
to
set
up
right
so
like
with
source
cred,
we're
going
to
see
in
the
parameters.
What
like
how
much
each
action
is
rewarded
and
then
that's
what
gives
us
the
grain.
The
grain
number
that
like.
If
we
give
a
total
amount
of
tokens
that
will
be
distributed,
then
I
will
be
distributed
according
to
the
grain
that
was
set
up
on
source
crime.
So
the
only
part
that
we
decide
is
how
much
we're
allocating
for
that
distribution.
D
So
I'm
just
thinking
procedurally,
so
what
we're
going
to
do
in
order
of
operations
is
a
sample
quant
and
then
there's
going
to
be
conversations
with
the
rewards
working
group
around
parameters
around
that
right,
so
kind
of
like
an
iterative
process
there
and
then
we'll
have
information
and
outputs.
We
expect
from
that.
That
would
help
with
the
analysis
side
is
that
kind
of
the
flow
we're
imagining.
A
Yeah,
but
this
also
is
like
the
would
be
the
dress
rehearsal
for
for
the
real
quant.
So
basically
everything
would
have
to
be
done
before
we're
doing
doing
this
step,
and
then
we
can
tweak.
If
something
is
something
seems
odd,
when
we
do
the
the
dry
run
or
the
dresser
rehearsal,
and
then
we
can
tweak
it
before
we
do
the
real
thing,
but
it's
it's
not
something
we
do
now
in
order
to
build
the
the
whole
thing
so.
D
A
H
E
A
E
So
maybe
we
could
just
merge
this
time
and
slot
that
we
have
into
a
working
group
session
and
then
slowly
tackled
tackle
all
of
the
things
and
if
there
are,
if
there
is
stuff
that
we
don't
have
time
to
cover
in
this
call,
then
separate
into
some
projects
and
have
sex
with
people
in
other
times.
How?
How
does
that
sound
for
everyone,
especially
the
people
who
are
in
the
in
the
community,
the
board.
C
C
A
And
we
are
seeing
an
emerging
pattern
here
with
the
the
weekly
developer
calls,
and
that
is
that
most
of
the
developers
cannot
attend
this
meeting.
So
so
we
haven't
been
talking
so
much
development.
So
if
iv
is
here
but
but
mostly
I'm
reporting
from
the
praise,
development
and-
and
so
I
think
it's
fine
that
would,
I
think.
A
E
E
F
H
F
It's
on
our
list
at
source
cred
to
generalize
it,
but
it's
not
yet
so
that
will
be
like
just
extra
work
on
the
part
of
of
us
of
this
team
for
now,
but
I'm
definitely
interested
in
pairing
on
the
pollenbot,
so
just
putting
that
out
there
as
far
as
async
work
and
and
there's
also
the
thing
about
money
and
roles
like
I
just
feel
like.
I
haven't
even
gotten
to
work
with
anybody.
Yet
it's
hard
to
know
how
much
I'm
going
to
work.
F
E
Yeah,
thank
you,
yeah.
That's
what
I
felt
building
up
into
also
that's
why
I
think
it
will
be
great
to
have
this
proposal
for
compensation
coming
in
soon
we
have
the
pace
of
work
set
up
and
all
of
the
things
that
we're
starting
to
work
with.
So
we
can
plan
to
look
into
the
source
credit
parameters
for
next
week.
If
that
works
for
everyone,
and
I
think
that
should
be
the
next
step,
I'm
going
to
drop
for
the
people.
E
Cool
thank
you
and
who
are
the
people
that
are
going
to
be
involved
in
it.
So
I
think
for
the
first
process,
just
coming
up
with
the
with
the
data
then
mateo
and
writer,
and
and
then
for
looking
into
it.
It
should
be
everyone
in
the
committee
and
that's
the
the
point
that
we
can
have
this
critical
look
into
it,
and
and
do
you
think
christopher?
We
can
have
this
test
praise
quan
happening
until
next
week
or
that's
too
optimistic.
E
B
F
A
F
E
Gonna
become
the
quant
unless
you
want
to
double
task,
but
the
idea
is
that
the
committee
finds
people
who
are
keen
to
quantify
and
that
they
they
could
be
available
there
for
like
to
be
called
on
whenever
we
have
a
quant
process.
So
ideally
is
people
that
will
participate
in
one
but
also
be
willing
to
participate
in
other
quantifications
and
and
we
need
to
instruct
them
on
how
to
do
it.
E
I
want
to
be
learning
it's
a
great
opportunity
to
learn
of
what
is
happening
in
the
in
the
in
the
community,
because
you
get
to
read
everything
that
people
value,
so
that
is
like
a
great
incentive,
especially
for
newcomers
for
joining
and
and
people
that
are
more
experienced
too,
that
maybe
got
out
of
the
loop
for
a
minute
and
then
are
coming
back.
It
would
be
great
to
have
julie
involved
in
this
too,
if
you're,
if
you
will
chewie
just
to
help
on
like
the
comms
aspect
of
it,.
E
This
is
another
point.
We
need
well
there's
two
forum
posts
now,
one
explaining
where
we,
at
with
the
with
the
reward
system
development
another
one
with
the
praise
rules,
so
both
of
them
explain
a
little
bit
the
quantification
process,
but
we
should
write
another
one
that
explains
fully
what
a
quantum
quantifier
is
like.
What
is
this
role?
Why
do
I
want
them.
F
What
I
can
do
is
interview
a
couple
people
of
high
context,
like
you
and
another
person,
or
something
or
and
and
write
that
from
a
perspective
of
someone
who
would
be
the
kind
of
person
who
would
be
reading
it
and
learning
from
it
or
it
can
be.
You
know
a
high
context.
Person
can
be
tasked
with
it,
but
I'll
just
offer.
If
that,
if
that
sounds
valuable,
then
I
could
interview
one
or
two
people
or
talk
to
two
people
at
once.
F
That
can
collaborate
with
me
and
I
can
do
the
documentation
for
what
a
quantifier
is
and
what
we're
looking
for
at
this
juncture,
maybe
a
little
bit
of
the
lineage
and
then
where
we
are
now
and
that
can
clarify
some
of
the
questions.
We're
asking
the
other
idea
I
had
was
that,
and
maybe
you
said
this
with
talking
to
chewie,
but
com
communitas
seems
like
a
good
place
to
recruit
people
for
this
position
and
maybe
omega
as
well.
E
H
E
A
Like
yeah,
those
are
the
the
the
quantification
that
that
is
one
one
of
the
goals
with
the
new
system
is
being
able
to
quantify,
should
be
able
to
work
at
their
own
pace
or
over
a
a
number
of
days
that
we
set
and
then,
after
the
wait.
So
we
said
sort
of
we
set
an
end
date
that
you
have
to
be
finished
with
your
your
your
quantifications
before
this
date,
and
then
we
do
a
group
session
after
that
date.
B
So
one
thing
that
I've
noticed
is
I've
ever
attended
a
few
of
those
of
the
previous
quantification
loans,
and
I
see
like
like
many
people,
would
not
actually
have
like
up-to-date
idea
about
what's
going
on.
So
how
do
we
like
bridge
that
information
to
them
like,
for
example,
what
a
praise
can
be
about
yeah
this
someone
did
xyz
work
but
like
how
do
we
actually
convey
the
impact
of
xyz
work
to
them?
Like
usually
in
the
previous
conflict?
There
was
a
call
and
griff
was
there.
B
A
Let
me
just
reflect
shortly
on
that.
The
hopes
are,
of
course,
that
the
quantifiers
will
be
active
members
of
the
community
and
that
they
have
a
fairly
good
grasp
of
what
what
is
what
is
happening.
But
the
the
intention
here
is
to
if
each
phrase
is,
is
quantified
by
three
people
and
and
then
then
we're
doing
a
session
after
the
the
quantifications
is
done.
A
And
you
look
through
the
the
total
amount
of
data,
and
you
see
that
two
people
have
a
valued
one
one
contribution
they
have
given
it
a
really
high
number
and
the
third
person
has
given
it
a
really
low
number.
Then
that
would
be
a
signal
telling
us
that
maybe
that
person,
the
third
person,
was
not
aware
that
this
was
a
huge
contribution
and
then
that
could
be
corrected
by
the
group
in
in
that's
at
that
stage.
A
But
of
course,
if
all
three
quantifiers
had
given
that
praise
item
that
contribution
a
really
low
number,
meaning
that
all
three
of
the
quantifiers
didn't
know
what
was
happening
in
the
community
and
gave
therefore
gave
that
contribution
a
really
low
score.
That,
then,
that
that
is
a
more
more
difficult
problem
to
solve.
Of
course,
if
the
people
quantifying
or
don't
know
what
what
is
happening
and
then
maybe
the
solution
would
be
to
have
for
the
next
quantification,
we
say
no,
no.
A
No,
I
I
just,
I
think
we
need
to
do
some
kind
of
session
where
we
before
we
do
the
the
dry
run.
We
also
need
to
do
a
session
where
we
do
a
dry
run
of
the
process,
just
to
get
everyone
up
to
to
speed
on
or
up
up
to
data.
This
is
how
we
see
the
whole
process
running
so
so
we'll
do
do
a
session
focus
on
just
discussing
all
these
these
things
in
in
more
depth,
because
now
we're
starting
to
run
out
of
time
and.
B
A
Yeah,
a
lot
of
things
came
up
today,
I
will
listen.
I
will
look
at
the
the
video
if,
except
you,
made
a
recording
and
I'll
try
to
identify
all
the
different
items
and
add
them
to
the
to
the
notes
afterwards,
so
we
we
don't
lose
any
any
good
ideas.
Thank
you
everyone
for
for
coming
today.
This
is
messy
just
now
and
it's
noisy,
but
it
will
become
clear
once
we
will
become
clear.
It.