►
From YouTube: W65 Softgov WG: Multisigs transparency, Update the decision making forum post and more!
Description
🙏 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/
C
A
Come
so
zap
to
miss
you,
you
wanted
to
start
with
a
question.
Let
me
share
my
screen
and
the
agenda.
D
Yeah,
actually,
I
would
like
to
do
a
you
know,
some
kind
of
bias
processing
that
in
that
question
I
need
like
how
transparent
we
want
to
be
with
the
addresses
on
the
on
the
multi-six.
Like
do
you
want,
you
know
just
put
the
addresses
and
the
names
we
want
to
put
who
is
who
for
the
funds,
management
and
yeah
like
since
this
is
like
non-profit?
D
You
know
we
like
it's
public.
I.
D
Do
we
want
names
to
be
public
or
not,
or
we
want
to
respect
privacy
of
the
people.
D
D
Yeah
yeah,
actually
from
the
you
know
when,
because
when
when
we
see
like
the
conviction
voting,
I
just
pulling
that
data
and
putting
it
to
dune.
But
then
yeah
I've
been
told
to
track
also
the
multi
six.
So
I'm
also
have
a
document
when
I
have
all
the
names
who's
who-
and
I
don't
know
if
that
should
be
public-
that
should
not
be
public
yeah.
A
F
A
F
A
F
We
were
thinking
that
I
love
so
much
your
nickname,
jeremiah,
it's
so
cool.
I
will
never
stop
saying
that
and
so
the
question,
so
I
feel
it
should
be
kept
private.
F
Mainly
it
can
private
the
the
names
and
publicly,
maybe
maybe
by
request
they
could
be
made
public,
but
mainly
because,
if
you're
in
a
multisig
for
a
working
group,
at
least
from
the
community
working
group,
it
means
you
are
the
person
in
in
charge
or
one
of
the
persons
who
it's
close
to
the
money,
and
I
felt
that
that's
all,
that's
that's
a
little
vulnerability
on
you
know
putting
yourself
in
the
spotlight
saying
hey.
I
have
this.
I
have
this
or
I
have
people
will
dig
more
into
your
account
and
that's
something.
F
I
don't
think
it's
necessarily
for
us
to
link
that
with
someone
at
the
identity
of
someone,
mainly
because
you
know,
even
if
it's
in
the
blockchain,
we
have
had
discussion
before
that.
All
information
is
there
and
it's
for
public,
it's
different.
When
you
pinpoint
in
a
direction
to
people,
you
know
it's
it's.
You
are
linking
identity
with
fund-managed
fund
management
to
project.
So
these
three
aspects
for
me
can
be
conflicted
for
personal
reasons.
F
For
some
people
I
don't
think
it's
necessary
for
people
to
know
unless
they
requested
and
they
requested.
We
can
create
a
forum
for
people
to
request
this
information
and
then
just
justify.
Why
do
you
need
to
know?
Who
is
the
person
handling
that
I
don't
know?
That's
my
two
cents.
Dudas
has
raised
his
hand,
so
I
will
pass
it
on
to
him.
D
I
want
to
say
one
thing:
pretty
quick
and
actually
like.
Oh
it
went
out
the
you
know
like
we
encouraged
to
use
different
addresses
like
that
are
not
linked
to
you
like.
We
only
want
to
be
transparent
regarding
tc
money
like
we
don't
care
about
edo's
money
or
accept
this
money
like
we
just
care
about
tc
money.
F
Oh,
but
that's
then,
if
you,
if
we,
if
everyone
is
giving
an
address
that
has
that
is
only
using
for
tdc,
I
mean
I
think
that
that
should
be
fine,
but
for
in
my
case,
for
example,
in
the
movie
sql
communities,
I
didn't
provide
a
new
address.
I
provide
my
own
address
so.
D
Yeah
and
that's
that
might
be
something
we're
failing,
but
on
transparency
we
are
encouraging,
like
we
even
make
a
post
and
we
we're
still
telling
it
weekly.
Like
you
know,
everyone
should
use
different
address
for
tc
payments,
because
otherwise
you
know
anyone
could
you
know.
Transparency
is
sending
money.
Oh
look,
septon
ivy,
oh
this
might
be
safe.
This
might
be
ivy
just
because
of
the
tokens
from
the
price.
F
Yeah,
I
think
I
think
we
could
add
this
to.
We
can
add
this
to
the
next
doors
or
to
the
agenda
of
the
working
groups,
just
like
make
sure
that
everyone
has
created
in
the
mood
in
their
multi-sticks
different
address
for
the
multisig.
I
think
that's
a
very
healthy
approach
except
yeah
accident
to
do
this.
G
So
I
pretty,
I
feel,
pretty
strongly
about
all
these
security
requirements
in
terms
of
so
there
are
two
two
kind
of
basic
layers
that
I
feel
like
we
miss
in
terms
of
security.
One
is
some
basic
sysadmin
stuff
like,
for
example,
edu.
What
kind
of
antivirus
do
you
have
on
your
computer?
G
There
should
be
some
basic
standards
for
for
stewards
in
terms
of
you
know,
because
everyone's
using
their
personal
computers
and
all
this
stuff,
but
then
there's
this
other
kind
of
crypto
security
layer,
which
I
think
we
also
need
to
develop
standards
for
that
for
every
working
group
and
it's
not
optional,
all
stewards,
all
people
who
are
super
admins,
admins,
provisional
admins,
you
know
all
need
to
have
some
kind
of
set
of
things:
I've
I've
created
a
a
provisional
set
of
security
requirements
and
wrote
a
document
about
some
of
my
initial
recommendations
some
months
ago.
G
I
I
don't
feel
like
all
the
the
working
groups
should
a
have
a
choice
in
this
b,
so
there
should
just
be
standards
and
there
should
be
audits
by
people
who
are
whose
job
it
is
to.
Actually,
you
know
care
about
this
kind
of
thing.
So,
for
example,
I'm
a
really
good
system
administrator
and
can
help
people
with
setting
up.
G
You
know
basic
security
in
a
lot
of
different
ways
and
make
some
architectural
recommendations
and
stuff,
but
on
the
other
hand,
on
the
crypto
side
of
it,
I'm
not
nearly
as
good
at
that.
So
I
feel,
like
I'd,
want
a
little
group
like
griffin
company
who
are
much
better
looking
through
the
blockchain
and
trying
to
figure
out
what's
going
on
there.
So
I
do
kind
of
feel
like
it.
When
you
have
positions
of
of
power
and
you've
got
the
tec
money
in
your
hands.
G
There's
there
should
be
some
kind
of
standardization
and
security
protocols
and
expectations,
you
know
and
and
auditing
and
other
things
that
should
be
done.
I
don't
think
each
independent
working
group
should
be
making
those
choices,
so
that's
just
my
two
cents
and
I've
got
some
documentation
to
support
that
sort
of
thing,
and
actually
you
know
my
personal
story
from
this
last
week
actually
relates
somewhat
to
this
as
well.
So
you
know
there
are
just
some
other.
G
I'll
bring
up
about
that
later,
but
I
do
feel
pretty
strongly
that
all
of
these
basic
security
measures
should
be
mandatory
for
people
who
are
involved
in
any
access
to
things
and
and
there's
some
ideas
about
that.
I
do.
I
also
believe
that
the
like,
for
example,
one
of
the
things
we're
doing
in
the
security
side
for
for
coms
is
to
to
set
up
a
given
email.
G
So
not
only
do
we
have
control
of
the
the
the
the
password
manager,
but
also
the
the
email
that
is
related
to
that
password
manager.
So
at
any
point
I've
got
the
ability
to
shut
the
person's
access
down
at
a
couple
of
different
levels
of
abstraction,
and
I
feel,
like
you
know
in
some
sense
that
we
should
have
that.
G
I
feel
it
is
a
bit
of
a
mistake
to
put
your
personal
address
on
any
multisig
having
to
do
with
community
money
so,
but
we
should
just
have
a
group
that
gets
together
of
sysadmins
and
crypto
admins
and
and
tries
to
decide
what
these
are
and
and
then
work
on
them
together.
So
that's
just
my
feeling.
So
thanks.
E
I
agree,
I
think,
if
we're,
if
you're
dealing
with
tec
funds
and
you're
on
on
a
multi-sig,
I
I'm
a
big
fan
of
being
public
with
who
you
are
and
what
your
address
is.
I
think
it's.
It
brings
accountability
to
everybody
who's
in
those
positions
of
power
who
have
access
to
it,
and
I
think
we
should
also
catalog
every
you
know
every
multisig
transaction
and
who
approved
each
each
transaction.
I
think
that
those
things
should
be
very
public
if
people
who
want
to
have
anonymity
or
change
their
wallet.
E
I
think
we
should
go
through
that
process
immediately,
but
I
mean
if,
if
you're,
if
you're
on
a
multi-sig,
that's
managing
over,
you
know
five
thousand
dollars
worth
of
tec
tokens.
You
need
to
have
your
name
out
there.
We
have
to
have
some
type
of
reputation
and
accountability
structure
there.
That's
just
my
opinion
and.
H
G
Yeah
and
there
should
be
there's
a
way
to
set
that
up,
so
that
there's
privacy
on
the
one
hand,
but
accountability
on
the
other,
so
we
can
have.
Let's
say
I
give
out
an
email
address
of,
like
you
know:
crypto
security,
number,
five
at
tec,
commons,
dot,
org
and,
and
so
I've
got
an
email
address
and
I've
got
an
associated.
G
You
know
crypto
and
we've
got
a
database
that
keeps
track
of
who
is
assigned
that
email
and
those
those
management
of
those
keys
during
what
time
so,
there's
accountability,
but
also
privacy.
There
are
ways
to
to
break
those
things
up
so
that
you
end
up
with
the
best
of
both
worlds.
So
that's
part
of
you
know,
setting
up
those
layers
of
abstraction
that
I
was
talking
about
so
that
you
get
you
get
everything
that
you
need.
A
Yeah,
sorry,
I
don't
want
to
turn
into
it,
doesn't
show
a
discussion
just
because
we
have
more
things
to
go
through,
but
we
can
get
like
a
first
set
of
impressions
and
then
from
this
I
think
transparency
could
propose
a
way
to
move
forward.
A
Yeah,
so
we
can.
We
can
continue
to
hear
everyone
in
the
room.
If
there
are
different
opinions,
maybe
juanka
do
you
want
to
go
next.
I
Yeah,
I
am
also
not
a
security
expert
and
I
use
like
my
account
for
everything,
but
I
feel
I
shouldn't
so
if,
if
there
are
some
processes
that
are
designed,
I
will
for
sure
follow
them.
I
But
until
now
I
haven't
been
really
cautious
with
that,
and
the
other
thing
I
wanted
to
share
is
that
small
parenthesis.
After
after
the
gravity
call,
we
will
have
an
event
libby
and
I
are
invited
in
to
talk
about
conflict
management
and
to
the
in
the
bitcoin
community.
J
I'm
so
sorry
other
than
just
saying
I
don't
have
any
thoughts
on
the
topic
we
were
talking
about
before.
Are
we
just
saying
kind
of
how
we're
feeling
things
like
that.
J
Okay,
I'm
quite
new
to
tc,
so
I
feel
like
it's
potentially
not
my
position
to
to
speak
to
it
yet
check
in
feeling
good
hoping
that
the
days
get
longer
faster.
So
we
have
more
sunshine.
That's
it.
A
Thank
you,
and
do
you
want
to
go
next.
H
Yeah,
likewise
sorry,
I'm
still
new
to
the
tc
trying
to
figure
out
how
things
work
here.
So
I
don't
have
anything
to
contribute
at
this
point.
A
Do
you
want
to
just
share
briefly
how
you're
arriving
here
today.
H
Oh
I'm
well
yeah,
I'm
not
distracted!
I'm
looking
forward
to
going
to
eat
denver
this
week,
so
yeah.
A
Cool,
oh,
be
nice:
to
see
you
there
pence
do
you
want
to
go
next,
so
just
maybe
a
context
for
people
who
are
new
in
the
community.
I
think
it's
not
so
much
like
how
should
we
do
things
in
the
tc
specifically,
but
if
you
have
ideas
of
how
transparency
should
be
dealt
especially
when
dealing
with
common
funds,
so
we
have
one
multi-sig
in
the
community
right
now
called
laser
tag
that
it's
managing
the
funds
of
this
initial
buy.
A
So
when
the
bonding
curve
opened,
we
were
the
first
ones
to
buy
tc
tokens.
So
we
have
a
treasury
of
tech
tokens
to
use
in
the
best
way
possible
and
then
what
is
the
what
the
best
way
possible?
So
this
is
what
this
multi-sig
is
executing
based
on
the
decisions
of
the
community,
so
the
multi-stake
is
not
taking
these
decisions.
It's
just
executing
these
decisions
and
I
think
zapdim's
question
was
for
it
does
multisay
again
for
any
other
multisig
that
we
happen
to
have
in
the
community.
A
If
it's
needed
at
any
point
should
the
addresses
be
publicly
shown
or
people
should
have
the
choice
of
some
type
of
privacy
and
then
some
of
the
things
that
were
shared
were
like?
A
Oh,
if,
if
it's,
if
it's
funds
of
like,
if
it's
communal
funds,
maybe
we
need
this
accountability
for
people's
reputation
should
be
at
stake
or
we
need
some
type
of
security
protocol.
Or
if
people
want
to
have
privacy,
they
should
be
advised
to
create
an
address
just
for
the
tc,
so
it
doesn't
compromise
any
of
their
other
holdings
and
and
things
like
that,
those
are
some
of
the
opinions
we
heard
so
far
and
I
just
passed
to.
D
A
K
Okay,
great
I'm
just
testing
out
a
new
layout
here
to
join
calls
yeah.
I
I
have
a
question
about
about
all
of
these
privacy
issues
or
or
or
or
yeah
things
that
people
are
worried
about
like.
Why
is
it
an
issue
like
to
to
have
somebody
see
your
address
like
if
you're
voting
or,
if
you're
like
participating?
Why
I'm
not
sure
why
people
have
expressed
that
is
an
issue
to
to
them,
can
like
just?
L
K
D
D
G
G
G
I
get
dark
web
notifications
through
my
my
security
stuff,
saying
that
your
your
email
was
used
as
a
part
of
a
hack,
and
so
now
I've
got
to
change
all
of
my
passwords
associated
with
that.
So
there's
just
it's
we're
talking
about
a
threat
vector,
and
it
is
a
little
bit
confusing
to
me.
This
seems
like
a
place
for
real
expertise
at
the
at
the
levels
like
like
in
many
cases.
I
I'm.
I
feel
strongly
that
we
need,
like
an
expert
working
group
to
decide
and
enforce,
not
to
vote
on.
G
G
I
would
imagine
it's
the
job
of
the
expert
group
to
make
determinations
like
that,
so
you
end
up
with
the
best
of
both
of
those
worlds.
I
do
that
regularly
as
a
job
my
system
administration
job.
So
there
are
ways
to
architect
that
I'm
just
saying
that
if
we
vote
on
a
pro
working
group
basis,
then
we're
just
going
to
have
different
security
standards
all
the
way
across
the
board
and
then
it'll
be
more
difficult
to
audit
and
all
these
things.
So
you
know
it's
just
unless
you
have.
G
A
Okay
yeah.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
everyone
for
sharing,
and
I
think
this
is
a
topic
that
has
like
a
lot
of
room
for
discussion
and
and
maybe
zap
you
can
post
this
in
the
forum.
Like
you
said,
those
are
points
of
the
like.
You
can
use
this
from
what
everyone
shared
and
to
open
the
discussion.
A
You
yeah
thank
you.
I
just
want
to
move
to
a
few
other
things,
so
we
need
to
update
the
decision
making
forum
post.
A
Especially
on
conviction,
voting
and
tao
voting,
this
was
written
when
we
didn't
have
the
params
still
of
the
commons
upgrade,
and
now
we
have
them.
So
we
would
just
need
to
update
those
two
sections
with
the
problems
of
like
how
long
does
it
take
to
vote
on
conviction,
voting
how
this
conviction
grows
and
all
of
the
things
that
were
here
in
the
voter
pamphlet
so
I'll?
D
A
Yeah
on
conviction,
voting
and
tell
voting
just
putting
the
params
and
then
on
snapchat.
I
think
this
is
something
we
just.
We
just
need
to
discuss
a
little
bit
like
since
quadratic
voting
doesn't
really
make
sense
now,
because,
because
anyone
has
access
to
tc
token.
A
Unless
we
have,
unless
we
have
a.
A
An
id
solution
we
we
should
just
go
back
to
the
normal
voting,
not
the
quadratic
one.
A
D
M
L
Sure
you
would
you
be
cool,
just
like
a
google
doc
with
the
edits
for
that
section
and
just
share
that
with
you
and
then
you
can
make
the
edits
officially.
A
Yeah
I
mean
you
yeah,
you
could
do
all
the
steps
and
then
I
can
just
incorporate
the
edits
to
this,
and
then
we
just
make
you
can
even
make
a
comment
with
the
with
the
google
docs.
A
L
A
L
A
Yeah
awesome
that
would
be
really
great
okay,
so
I
have
an
issue
for.
Are
you
in
our
gift
book?
I
mean
github.
A
Do
you
guys
think
this
is
a
good
approach
that
would
just
make?
We
can
make
a
comment
in
this
post
to
say
why
we
can't
use
quadratic
voting
anymore
and
that
will
be
transitioning
to
the
other
vote.
I
don't
think
this
needs
to
be
voted
on.
It
sounds
silly
to
vote
on
this,
but
like
to
just
communicate
that
we
are
on
hold
for
having
another
decision
like
another
for
having
an
identity
system
that
we
can
use.
D
E
I
I
don't
think
it's
that
big
of
a
change
like
I
you
know,
I,
I
think
that
most
people
aren't
going
to
be
impacted
because
they
don't
have
access
to
quadratic
voting.
Now,
if
somebody
wants
to
use
quadratic
voting
for
a
specific
purpose,
maybe
information,
gathering
or
signaling
of
some
kind,
like
that's
cool,
but
I
I
just
don't
see
why
anybody
would
really
care.
E
I,
I
think,
that's
kind
of
like
a
group
decision
in
terms
of
like
which
ones
we
use
for
certain
types
of
votes,
but
stating
that
we
don't
have
we're
not
going
to
use
quadratic
voting.
I
don't
think
is
that
big
of
an
issue.
I
could
be
wrong,
but
you
know
that's
what
we're
talking
about
now,
but
so,
if
you,
if
you
guys
anybody
has
an
issue
with
it,
I
would
say
speak
now,
but
I
don't
know
if
we
need
to
vote
for
it.
A
You
know,
because
there
are
a
lot
of
decisions
that
happen
just
on
working
groups
and
that's
something
we
promote
actually
with
our
decision
making
process
that,
like
not,
every
decision
needs
to
be
voted
on,
and
maybe,
if
we
start
tracking
some
of
the
decisions,
I
know
it's
hard
to
track,
but
if
to
the
best
of
our
ability,
if
we
start
tracking
decisions
that
come
from
advice
process,
we
would
have
some
data
on
that
and
then
we
would
be
able
to
like
see
the
validity
of
it
later,
like
maybe
for
something
that
was
decided
just
on
advice
process.
A
D
Yeah,
there's
actually
one
point
in
the
audit
for
all
these
you
know
decisions,
but
you
know
for,
for
example,
for
this
one.
I
just
type
it
here
in
the
agenda
for
transplants,
so
we
can
talk
on
it,
but
the
thing
is
like:
if
we
don't
have
a
clear
structure,
then
it
sometimes
can
be
harder
or
I
you
know
what,
if
you
know
I
miss
a
call
and
then
I
don't
see
it
or
will
someone
posted
it
somewhere?
So
yeah,
like
you
know,
I
can
miss
stuff
and
I
think
transparency
shouldn't
rely
on.
B
G
Yeah
I
mean
I'd
like
to
know
what
sort
of
protocols
we're
using
did.
Are
we?
What
methodology
do
we
look
at,
you
know,
did
if
we
were
using
liberating
structures?
Do
we
use
a
tris
thing?
Do
we
use?
You
know?
I
mean
a
lot
of
this
thing
that
we
call
advice
process
could
just
be.
You
know
there
are
multiple
aspects
from
liberating
structures
that
could
help.
You
know
improv
prototyping,
what
I
need
from
you.
G
You
know
I
mean
there's
just
a
bunch
of
different
aspects.
What
about
you
know
making
sure
we
understand
the
connection
thing?
Are
we
creating
a
an
enabling
constraint
or
a
governing
constraint?
I
mean
there
are
a
whole
bunch
of
decision-making
things
that
I'd
like
to
kind
of
know
about
in
terms
of
of
this,
so
you
know
just
from
a
protocol
standpoint,
not
only
what
the
decision
was,
but
what
was
the
process
we
used
to
to
kind
of
get
to
that
so
that
things
that
are
successful,
we
can
say,
oh.
E
G
A
Yeah,
my
my
my
thinking
on
that
sense
is
that
the
most
intuitive
the
better,
like
the
more
like
I
I
think,
there's
there's
a
lot
of
value
on
on
on
certain
frameworks
and
processes,
and
but
I
think.
A
I
think
the
less
we
use
like
the
less
people
need
to
learn
to
participate
in
a
process
and
the
more
they
can
relate
with
it
or
participate
in
it
in
a
way
that
that
is
somehow
spontaneous.
I
think
it's
it's
interesting.
I
like
of
this
concept
of
quality
consent
of
like
if
we
are
that
we
can
first
see
if
everyone
understands
what's
being
proposed,
and
then
this
is
like
the
first
re.
If
is
there
questions
about
this
and
then
after?
A
If,
if
the
question,
if
the
questions
are
solved
or
if
there
was
no
questions,
is
this
something
we
can
move
on
with?
Is
there
any
blockers
and
then,
if
there
is
any
blockers
like
understanding
the
risk
of
those
blockers,
and
if
this
is
something
that
creates
a
very
poor
consent
like
if
there
is
not
like?
G
Well,
I
mean
yeah,
I
hear
you're
saying
two
different
things
number
one
is
the
less
people
need
to
know
to
participate.
I
actually
think
that.
G
You
know
all
of
those
are
products
of
outsourcing,
our
our
sense
making
and
our
our
ability
to
to
you
know
to
to
be
inclusive.
You
you
have
to
have
educational
processes
that
kind
of
are
in
the
middle.
So
I
guess
the
question
is:
are
we
trying
to
include
as
many
people
as
possible
or
are
we
trying
to
get
things
done
and
so,
like
there's
just
all
this,
you
know.
G
So
that's
why
I
was
saying
you
know
suggesting
something
in
the
middle
like
a
liberating
structures
concept,
or
it's
also
true
that
just
poorly
constructed
narratives
can,
you
know,
create
a
whole
bunch
of
confusion
for
people.
So
if
we
do
a
poor
job
at
constructing
the
narrative
about
a
particular
proposal-
and
somebody
else
does
a
great
job,
the
proposal
may
be
less
valid,
but
the
narrative
is
constructed
better.
So
so
you
end
up
with
a
successful
proposal,
that's
worse
than
than
the
alternative,
just
because
the
narrative
was
constructed
differently.
G
So
I
mean
I,
there
are
just
numerous
issues
here
and
I,
when
we're
talking
about
soft
gov,
I
feel
like
plus
I've
just
got
all
this
stuff
to
like
bring
up
in
this
meeting
that
I'm
I'm
pregnant
with
all
of
which
has
to
do
with
the
the
structural
stuff
that
I've
observed
in
in
multiple
contexts
here.
So
I'm
not
sure
where
to
lay
all
that
down,
but
I
feel
like
we
really
need
to
to
think
quite
strongly
about
how
we
are
conducting
ourselves.
And
so
I
don't
know.
I
Yeah,
this
is
something
that
I
have
been
thinking
these
past
weeks
and
is
that
we
have
been
doing
a
very
good
job
on
the
onboarding
journey,
to
our
processes
and
to
the
culture
that
we
want
to
bring,
but
that
we
should
only
try
to
also
try
to
add
some
technical
focus
to
some
of
our
over
onboarding
calls,
because
we
like
there's
new
people
coming
and
there
are
different
backgrounds
and
familiarity
to
web3
and
like
this
is
a
very
big
and
broad
space.
A
I
think
maybe
a
big
part
of
maybe
a
maybe
something
that
we
might
be
missing
is
how
to
how
to
make
people
feel
like
they
have
a
voice
on
the
decisions
that
can
be
made
like
on
the
on
the
proposals
right,
and
this
has
been
coming
to
my
attention
that
maybe
people
are
not
so
comfortable
with
the
idea
of
democracy
and
that
we
could
and
that
we
could
open
the
space
more
and
and
and
talk
more
about
this
agency
that
that
it
would
be
really
great
that
every
member
feels
like
they
have
the
agency
to
propose
solutions
to
problems
that
they
see
and
to
share
this
this
problems
and
and
and
a
working
group
environment
or
directly
in
the
forum
or
with
individuals,
and
that
this
can
start
conversations.
A
So
I
don't
know
actually
if,
if
many
people
have
read
the
the
decision
making
framework,
because
I
like,
I
would
love
if
there
was
some
reactions
to
the
advice
process,
how
is
it
how
it's
laid
out
there
and
if
that's
not
working,
then
how
can
we
improve
that?
A
So
here,
there's
all
of
these
parts
of
like
first
step
to
an
advice
process
is
the
first
step
to
any
decision
and
that
you
can
read
more
about
advice,
process
and
like
what
is
this
here
and
then
that
we
divided
into
three
sections
of
small
impact
decisions,
medium
impact
decisions
and
large
impact
decisions.
A
And
here
I
just
try
to
create
a
boundary
for
when
each
one
of
this
are
used.
So
when
you
use
small
impact
decisions,
when
you
ask
a
subject
matter
expert,
when
you
ask
just
one
person
or
a
couple
of
people
so
doing
workflows
when
questions
arise
or
guidance
is
needed
and
when
to
use
medium
impact
decision,
when
the
advice
needed
is
related
to
a
work
stream
for
a
particular
working
group
when
to
use
the
large
impact
in
case,
the
number
of
people
who
could
offer
minimal,
meaningful
feedback
or
be
affected
by
the
proposal.
A
Is
the
entire
community
or
is
a
number
that
is
too
large
to
address
one
by
one.
And
then
there
is
some
examples
of
how
to
use
how
to
approach.
Why
are
they
useful?
I
would
love
some
direct
feedback
on
on
this
points
and
and
if
this
doesn't
seem
like
it's
gonna
work,
how
could
we
improve
it
so
like
like
you're
suggesting
durga
does
like?
Maybe
we
could
use
another
type
of
framework,
but
then
how
would
it
be?
A
H
Can
I
ask
a
question
like,
as.
A
F
I
cannot,
I
can
partially
answer
that,
if
you
feel
you
have
time
to
think,
I
think
one
of
the
blockers
that
we
found
along
the
way
it's
people
not
very
they're,
having
the
pathway
very
clear
for
them,
so
they
could
have
an
idea
or
they
want
to
propose
something,
but
they
don't
know
what
will
be
the
steps
to
do
so.
So,
basically,
accessibility
to
information
and
clarification
on
the
process
has
been
a
blocker
in
clarification
of
expectations.
F
I
think
people
don't
know
what
what
are
the
expectations
or
what
do
they
expect
from
us
and
vice
versa,
so
documentation
and
documentation
and
expectations
are
for
me
the
two
things
that
has
been
the
bigger
bloggers.
I
don't
know
how
about
you
libby.
G
So
the
situation
that
happened
with
me,
I
think,
highlights
the
problems
that
I
have
with
the
process
that
we
were
just
talking
about
here.
So
the
situation
that
happened
to
me
was
basically
the
most
prominent
memory
in
this
entire
community
kind
of
made.
A
judgment
call
about
a
certain
thing,
and
that
was.
E
G
Of
people
that
I
have
a
long
relationship
with,
and
so
there's
there's
numerous
problems
here
so
we've
got,
you
know,
we've
got
bystanders,
you
know,
so
I
had
this
conversation
with
nate
yesterday,
where
he
knew
about
it
for
a
long
time
and
probably
many
other
people
did
and
they
were
all
like.
Well,
I
thought
gravity
was
dealing
with
it
or
this
and
that
and
and
so
everyone's
a
bystander.
So
here
I
am
suffering
from
a
thing
that
I
don't
even
know
about.
That
is
in
direct
opposition.
G
With
all
of
my
stated
involvement
and
literally
my
entire.
You
know
involvement
in
this
community
and
so
really
it's
just
it's
just
a
thing
where
one
person,
with
with
a
giant
about
of
power
and
a
bunch
of
bystanders
you
know.
So
what
I'm
seeing
is
is
that
that
the
peer-to-peer
advice
process
can
override
all
of
the
other
processes
and
the
working
group
process
can
override.
You
know
the
impact
for
a
large
number
of
people
and
vice
versa.
G
So
you
know
so
what
we
end
up
with
here
is
not
a
dow
but
a
central
semi-centralized
bureaucracy
instead
of
a
dao
right.
So
are
we
measuring
how
decentralized
we
are
you
know
in
terms
of
so
when
we're
making
decisions?
Are
we?
How
are
we?
How
are
we
measuring
that
right?
G
So
there
are
certain
decisions,
like
I'm
going
to
recommend
that
that
you
know
expertise
needs
to
be
involved,
but
at
the
same
time
we
should
be
letting
people
know
that
that's
what's
needed
here
and
what
the
the
decisions
and
the
results
are.
You
know
that's
a
basic
part
of
transparency
when
I
talk
to
the
transparency
group
about
my
situation,
they're
talking
extremely
passively
and
for
me
the
transparent
c
group
is
very
much
like
a
free
press.
In
a
democracy,
you
have
to
have
an
active,
almost
combative
group
of
transparency.
G
You
know
people
who
are
working
in
this
situation,
and
so
you
know
so
here
I
am,
I
more
than
a
year
went
by
where
I
was
suffering
under
this
unknown
thing,
and-
and
so
I
just
see
that
there
are
some
structural
issues
where
anybody
in
the
working
groups
their
their
their.
G
Are
overly
rewarded
in
comparison
to
subject
matter,
experts
or
other
people
who
are
supporting.
E
G
I
mean
there
are
numerous
sort
of
structural
problems
that
I'm
observing.
I
I
just
see
that
that
we
largely
ignore
this
stuff
when
it
doesn't
suit
us
these.
G
All
of
these
all
of
these
structures,
you
know
so
and
and
what
we
do
is
we
we
instead
choose
the
previous,
centralized
hierarchical
and
when
we
unconsciously
give
up
our
power
and
outsource,
you
know
our
responsibility
for
things
to
other
people
that
are
higher
in
the
perceived
hierarchy
rather
than
acting
like
a
dao,
and
it
is
it's
bothersome
to
me,
because
I
think
it's
structurally,
you
know
having
an
impact
here.
So
even
now,
wonka's
mailing
me
saying
hey.
G
Maybe
you
know
this
isn't
the
place
for
that,
but
if
this
isn't
the
place
for
it,
I
don't
know.
Where
is
the
place
for
it?
I
I'm
it's
just
in
you
know,
even
with
voting.
It's
like
hey,
let's
vote
on
everything.
Well,
if
we
roll
up
all
the
votes
into
five
different
sections,
all
of
which
have
very
different
kinds
of
things,
then
we're
doing
the
same
exact
thing
as
we're
doing
in
in
congress
with
giant
omnibus
bill.
G
So
you
know
they're,
just
I'd
just
like
to
to
surface
the
fact
that
I
think
we're
we're
we're
not
conducting
ourselves
in
in
the
kind
of
way
that
we're
telling
ourselves
or
conducting
ourselves
and
I'm
a
little
emotional
about
it
and
a
little
bit
strong
feeling
about
it.
But
you
know
I
apologize
for
taking
up
all
that
space,
but
you
know
I
just
feel
like.
Maybe
you
know
there's
some
things.
We
need
to
look
at
so
I'll
talk
in
the
stuart's
channel
about
this
too,
but
I
I
don't
know.
G
I
just
feel
strongly
that
if
somebody
like
me,
who's
as
prominent
in
this
group
can
run
into
these
kinds
of
issues
what's
happening
to
other
people
who
aren't
do
you
know
what
I
mean?
Are
we
leaving
them?
You
know
by
the
wayside
and
that's
why
I'm
I'm
sort
of
suggesting
that
we
put
in
other
structural
things
like
liberating
structures
that
actively
subvert
the
potential
for
this
type
of
thing
to
happen,
and
so
that's
kind
of
my
perspective
on
dealing
with
all
of
these
things.
In
terms
of
you
know,
voting
is
just
not
enough.
G
There
are
a
lot
of
ways
you
can
break
voting
and
doing
omnibus
things
is
one
way
to
do
that.
There's
there's
ways
to
break
participation
and
working
groups
and
all
these
things
and
we're
kind
of
falling
for
a
bunch
of
them
in
the
exact
same
way
that
many
of
the
things
that
we're
trying
to
construct
our
way
out
of
are
have
already
done
so
anyway,
I'm
just
I'll
I'll
stop
there
thanks.
E
A
A
It
yeah,
so
there
was
an
issue
with
durgada's
trusted
seed
application.
So
to
be
a
part
of
the
tc
hatch,
you
had
to
be
a
part
of
the
trusted
seed
and
the
trusted
seed
is
part
of
the
common
stack
project
and
and
to
be
a
part
of
the
trusted
seed.
You
need
to
fulfill
an
application
and,
in
this
application,
you're
basically
showing
that
you're
a
value-aligned
person
that
is
trusted
to
start
new
economies.
A
So
the
tc
was
this
new
economy
that
was
about
to
start,
and
we
chose
the
trusted
seed
as
the
strategy
to
initialize
this
this
economy
and
more
than
a
year
ago,
when
durga
does
apply
to
the
trusted
seed
when,
when
his
information
was
being
validated
by
like
this
is
done
manually
by
by
the
team
by
the
common
stack
team,
griff
saw
that
there
was
something
like
a
weird
activity
attached
to
durgada's
addresses,
address
and,
and
he
flagged
his
application
just
in
the
sense
of
like
this
has
a
low
score
and
in
the
trusted
seed.
A
And
there
are
many
types
of
scores
and
there's
the
max
score
that
you
can
have
and
then
this
course
it's
basically
a
reputation
type
of
mechanism
and
when,
when
his
membership,
when
his
address
was
flagged,
this
wasn't
communicated
to
him.
And
this
was
probably
the
the
biggest
mistake
that
durga
does
wasn't
aware
that
his
address
was
flagged
and
and
then
this
inhibited
his
participation
in
the
community.
Somehow
because
we
have
a
whole
process
for
credentials
management.
So
some
people
can
like.
A
We
have
votes
to
allow
people
to
be
part
of
to
receive
certain
credentials
for
certain
platforms
and-
and
there
was
this
instance
that
durgados
wanted
to
have
credentials
to
manage
hubspot
and
that
credential
was
denied.
And
then
this
came
up.
And
then
I
got
to
his
knowledge
that
more
than
just
the
trusted
c
team
knew
about
this.
A
That
more
people
knew
about
this
information,
and
then
I
just
raised
the
issues
that
we
need
to
be
very
careful
with
privacy,
transparency,
how
we
share
people's
personal
information
and
how
we
communicate
this
to
trustee
members
or
to
anyone
in
the
community
so
yeah.
This
was
a
very
unfortunate
issue
and,
of
course,
it
affected
durgada's
feelings
of
belonging
in
this
community
and
of
trust
with
the
transparency
processes
that
we
have
and
yeah.
A
I
think
it's
important
to
assume
best
intentions
and
and
that
there
is
always
ways
that
we
can
improve,
and
I
think
we
totally
need
to
look
at
this
in
a
way
of
like
how
to
grab
the
learnings
from
this
and
and
one
of
the
learnings
might
be
exactly
what
you're
saying
of
like
our
peer-to-peer
advice.
Overriding
the
overriding
all
types
of
advice
process
and
how
are
those
information
that
are
being
shared
in
private
are
affecting
the
community
and
they're
affecting
people.
A
But
this
is
only
something
that
we
can
change
on
a
personal
level
and
I
think
that's
why
it's
important
to
have
this
conversation
to
have.
As
working
groups
of
gov
transparency
to
everyone
talking
about
this
gravity
just
for
us
to
find
ways
to
improve,
but
I
I
don't
think
that
this
shows.
E
Yeah,
I
agree-
and
I
talked
to
durgados
about
this
because
I
was
notified
and
it's
one
of
those
individual
things
where
it's
I
should
have
said
something
I
should
have
done
something
when
I
first
heard
about
it
and
traditionally
you
get
in
that
situation
and
you
think
of
you
know
how
you
deal
with
this
in
other
situations,
and
so
it's
you
know,
I
went
back
to
my
standard.
You
know
working
in
a
centralized
job
forever,
like
okay,
you
have
the
power,
you
guys
know.
E
What's
going
on
and
I'll
leave
it
alone,
and
so
I
become
a
bystander
and
that's
process
when
I
really
should
have
taken
action-
and
these
are
just
things
that
we
just
have
to
learn
about
as
individuals
and
to
address
it.
E
B
Lord
learning
in
real
life
sucks
right,
it's
painful,
and
that
sounds
like
a
painful
experience
for
dergados.
So
I
mean
and
we're
all
still
here,
so
maybe
a
tad
bit
of
normalization
at
the
same
time,
and
I
really
appreciate
nate
that
sentiment
of
wanting
to
learn
from
the
the
sort
of
ourness
anybody
else.