EIPIP Meeting 7

Transcript

great alright it looks like we are live hi everyone and welcome to a IP IP meeting number seven the agenda I posted in the group chat and we'll start with item number one the e IP centric model subgroup I think that was something James brought up a meeting or two ago and I forgot what that meant I think that's probably related to the thing that Jamie also had talked about of having like a group of people who are administrating the EIP repo that aren't

EIP editors and having a role for them okay interesting that's at least what I remember it is if someone else other remembers otherwise yeah I think you're right I don't know if I was at that meeting but that sounds like a good idea so I guess what that would mean is like if you are something else besides any IP editor you can still make and push changes to stuff like if you are like your role like the hard floor coordinator or if you are what else we could like the EIP centric in the IP

centric model a IP rather than spelling out a bunch of names of people in this group you could say this group is allowed to make edits to the CIT and then have a living IP or an active VIP that specifies who that is and then we can give and remove permissions as it makes sense okay and then it could also fit like we we had the idea we talked about having at the bottom of any IP be like the in-house forum like if you go to the DMV there see behind there's like the notes that the that the other side of the tables taking and they're so certain changes in the EIP could be made by this group but there are things that they wouldn't have access to upgrading processes I keep we could have

better tracking of the process of an EIP within the EIP itself if we had acts if we had people who had access to those pieces to make those changes would we be able to make granular enough permission sets within github to do that or would that be risking people being able to do what they want in the repo i've granular enough you just use the EIP auto merge pot to make sure they only touch sections that are laid out specifically for them they have the permissions when they have to get like right access to the repo though know that if the EIP auto murderer verified that it came from someone in the group and was in a place that they're able to edit the auto

merger can do it so this thing I don't I don't have righty I don't have write access to a repo but as an author if I push if I make a change and the on me and the the bot determines that it fits rules that are okay at merge it merges that automatically okay what does other people think of this ooh what's that Brent you were muted than unmuted and then muted can you hear me now yeah yeah sounds like a cool idea yeah as we start to update the bot let's let's look into doing that for sure I'd

say anybody else have comments on that one all right if I admin update and process documentation I don't know I think that might have been you too James or maybe pooja I think I have I haven't been here for the last two so if it was something recent than him it would have been something brought up to someone else from the one of the Encore dev calls in which it was suggested that for this efi process they might it might be helpful to have a documentation of that length how does it work properly and also there can be some more admins added

to the efi laying then it would be you know more updated frequently so it was coming up from the conversation on telegram maybe a couple of weeks back I guess James initiated the conversation so yeah that's why it it is added in the agenda here okay um what does everyone think of that I mean when to just be adding it the EIP one that's kind of my first question is I don't know which do we want it any IP

one or do we want it in its own place because I've it goes back and forth yeah I think we need it in its own place I think a IP one should be having a level of brevity about it so my understanding here is like here for itself is an EIP so if we would want to process the documented process we could go ahead and do that and about the EFI a I P itself sometimes path we discuss that it should not be a meta it should be some kind of informational piece and that should be referred to be IP one so I'm not sure what the process is agreed upon but that was the initial proposal I like the idea

of EFI being it's an e IP and then it being mentioned an EIP one and the status of Y the EFI e IP to active so the same status that the EFI e IP one is which would mean that it can be changed through whatever process is the same as the IP one being changed which I think we determined last time we're not entirely sure about yeah that was the discussion about like it should be an active e IP which is live and if in future we would want to change that can that's not what can be changed okay yeah so let's make it and make it live that's

a good thing that we can like do today to define the rules of the FI as it relates to Cori IPS so let me say define the rules that means specify what is required to be met to be EFI for a b2b EFI yes and it can be very loose if we if we want it to be or the EIP author of the EFI EIP if they want that to be a looser thing and I guess James would be the best person to eat do it or advise on it because you had a big role in coming up with the EFI process and I can help too so bait so for instance it would just

say EFI stands for eligible for inclusion in order to attain EFI status the core developers have to come to consensus that an EIP is eligible has a greater than 50% chance of going into a hard fork something like that whatever rough criteria we have defined because it's still a little loose right now we don't have a hard number of like X amount of clients have to say this is a good idea or or even like what it means to be blessed by an editor or not an editor like by a core dev or stuff like that so if I'm not mistaken James I

guess you are the author of that div I'm Ben Joe adding notes about making it more clear it's the MU it's the going back a little bit to the I initially wrote it as being a separate thing and then the EIP was blocked from being merged to draft because Alex wanted it as part of AI p1 so then I started kind of making that change but that's why it's been exist it's been in draft for a long time or it wasn't even merged as draft for a long time because of that the prerequisite was it shouldn't have any information it should only contain

the the registry of e IPS and then the rest should be in the IP one and I I guess I'm saying that as a I don't know or a point of frustration when working with a IP editors I don't really know what to do with all of ya those what the non consensus among the IP editors on pretty much whatever is going on and you know if it was everyone wants it to be an EIP one like i'm it's not a deal breaker for me as long as it doesn't get too crowded or like like how long it look can you link to the EIP James so I can see how long it is because if it's like to me the the succinct 'no sin the length of it is

gonna be what what would make it better to go any IP one versus not better to go to e IP one yeah i can i can update i can send that okay so i yeah my my main point on that is if it and i guess ii IP one can be pretty long does that do other people have different opinions or complimentary opinions i think if we keep adding tea yeah if you want it'll get pretty crowded and isn't it where someone be introduced the first time to the IP process goes to yeah yeah that it is and especially because efi doesn't

relate to 99% of people who are visiting the IP one that's another argument against it i think yeah i i had thought of it so i don't i had originally thought of it as e IP one being the center of like the center of truth for things related to aetherium like the IP process or just like the governance in general being as the place that people can reference as the single source of truth and then we the way to you can make it usable by adding in like a table of contents and organizing it very well so even if it gets long people can find the information they need quickly it doesn't really matter how long it gets

because you don't need to read the whole thing you just need to be able to get to what you're need to quickly that's a good point yeah no i also so then but a point against that is it's VIP one has a really high friction to get anything done on it and so me being able to update it would be difficult so having it be separate actually would make it easier to keep up to date with the process yeah i feel like people would also be able to monitor the changes so say i care just about if I process and it's an informational eat that's linked in VIP one then I can

just kind of keep track of that EEP right and then the link in the EIP one will just always point to that uh Tariq and it might be easier you have to make that make changes that way now that sounds good as long as there's a link to it that AIP one says the definition for what's required for yeah if I status is defined over there so people know there's still a single source of truth yeah okay so oh also just as a point would it be an informational a IP or a meta a I P because the IP one is a meta EIP I just found out it would be in meta Yeti okay

I think I think anything related to that the governance of stuff should be meta yeah lots of processes should be meta like self-referential AIP processes got it let's see I did I did have some other thoughts on things that the EIP center that the EFI list could be used for or like the process of EFI could be useful for other things if you look at it from the general the core devs have consensus to say this is a good idea to move forward with as long as it continues to

make sense edits to like for example yesterday when it came up the PR for changing the Tim's PR for changing the names from hard Forks to network upgrades like that's a PR it's not an EIP I don't think it should be an EIP but it should be some there should be some way of I like that the core dev said they're ok with it then could be added as part of its eligible for inclusion go done quotes kind of expanding the definition a little bit but then could be a way to then make that into draft and then have it be last call and then use that as a like these are lists of PRS and things that are

governance that are like process related that have gone through the system yeah ok I like that I almost want to just push EIP one through the changes and then have part of the IP one saying editors have to be this active and they have to be involved this they have to be involved with the IP one updates you know because like we've gotten hardly any editor involvement and like I I'm guessing they're going to not be happy if we push the IP 1 changes through just without consulting them even though they haven't been here yeah so I don't know how to tackle that one yet I'll have to

think about it but yeah we could start by at least recording that it's been blessed quote-unquote by the Corps to have call my in the core devs they're on it yeah for the network for the network upgrade thing I think that's one thing where it's got enough coverage that it and so few detractors that we can go forward with it I disagree with that one though because like I posted it on Twitter and I think a hundred percent of the reaction from the community has been negative so yeah I guess you're right I didn't look closely at your Twitter post yeah so anyways it's kind of a sidetrack but I yeah I wouldn't be comfortable pushing it through this cool sorry we

were on I think we got on some tangents James what was the main point for the EIP II yeah we're it's it's the way process and functionally and then adding people to it I think we kind of got to be into the discussion yeah I think next steps on that would be it's kind of up to you since you're writing it if you wanted an EIP one or if you want to try to push it separately so I if I I think that's kind of your decision but it's good that you're getting input from everyone and it could go either way I'm leaning more toward it being separately

personally for the the reasons that we've talked about yeah because it could be updated easier because it can it doesn't have to it wouldn't clutter VIP one unnecessarily and a few other things okay any other comments on that anybody alright the next one is number three EIP best practices AI p 2565 i think this is a carryover from the last time but all this is all we're saying by this item if I recall is to say this is a really good example of an EIP that we should

reference in any IP one as like an ideal kori IP yeah that's about right like it's Acadia what I do mean is this is what was discussed and okay anybody else have comments on this okay the EIP migration to etherium org that kind of fizzled for the most part we have an EIP page on there now I think but I don't know I don't think we I think we ended up like basically coming to rough consensus over time that it's not a good idea to move things from AI

Pizzo theorem org to aetherium org slash AI peas because although there would be SEO benefits it would be what was the what was the reasoning they are planning to add the search button to it I have just added a link in the chat so it's about adding these so much put into the existing one and hopefully that would be helpful depending upon the results it would be decided or discuss further should we go ahead and my great danger data or should we keep it the way it is as of now so that's the PR open for a

comment feel free to add comments about it as long as we're not drastically changing the site adding search is great I just don't want that to come with like moving all the e IPS over to Sam's aetherium org implementation yet until it's agreed upon if it if it does get agreed upon but I don't think we're there yet right and it seems other scope for a theorem bell org like nothing is an ethereal org right it's all just pointers to other places so I think I think the way we have it now is actually pretty good yeah anybody else have caused the reason that this was rejected the last time you mean

the move to aetherium org slash e eyepiece or exactly so Sam showed us a example of what it would look like and it would actually have like it would if you've been to a theorem organ you go to like here I'll post an example link thia rhema.org and then you go to something like where is it individuals or maybe maybe they already have it set up oh here it is so yeah so aetherium don't work slushy ip's right now this is how it was what it looks like like what is he ip's what did the history of it etc but if we were to move

the e IPS to aetherium org slash a IPS to where they're searchable in here it would have that top frame of individuals developers enterprise and aetherium and it would feel more like a part of a website than a standards platform it would have a different feel to it and it would have a different it wouldn't feel as professional or technical is what some people were arguing including Alex Perez Ozzie and I think that we're also another SEO implications that's the only Haitians were actually in favor of moving it because we would get more traffic by having it be aetherium org /e ip's rather than what it is now also I suppose we could integrate e IPS into

the unified translation platform yeah if this has been considered yeah that was another argument for that they could help with translations we could do the translations without the integration though and it wouldn't I mean it's not like fitting like a glove when you do that as my understanding but I'm not super versed in the way they're doing translations right now also that would be a lot I think I don't think they would want to take that on for translating on the go every IP that comes in that is something we should strive for for sure but like I don't know if they're gonna want to take that on that would be a question for them

even just translating the Epione would be really hard yeah would be really like is and we don't even know what it all means and the wording is like overly technical not over technical for what it is but overly technical for a translator I would say whom who like would need to like how would you translate EFI I guess recently I discovered a script translator on Google oh I'm not sure if that would be helpful for this any if you want somebody can try that yeah I would say in general very careful

would they be automated because um like automatic translations are typically like the Holy Grail so we're not there yet just make your sense you're saying it's like a rough translation when that happens yeah I mean like basically the ability to translate effectively between languages is like the goal of like current research and in speech recognition stuff so it I find it probably unlikely you'd be able to find one it's actually like usable you probably Sofia you probably be better off funny - translator but maybe yeah or a combination do people do combinations

anybody heard of that like they do the auto translate and then have someone come in and clean it up the my my experience with Japanese is that it's really really doesn't work but that's probably because Japanese is really really different but the overall I would say the we if I was looking for a translator for EIP one I would probably want basically a lawyer like level of understanding of language but translating because a lot of weight is given to a lot of these words and like not knowing nuance or context to certain things especially technical ones like I

know if if you to be a patent attorney you have to have a dual degree of law and of engineering because like specifically because of this kind of stuff yeah so it would be I don't know anyway I feel like this a little bit of this direction but that would be a very high buried there crowdsourcing EIP one translations wouldn't really I would wouldn't be really comfortable the date is this team of translation led by Theon from Union Foundation and if people find it's worth having the translation of VIP one we can probably reach out to her and yeah we can definitely get her and put on that if we want to do that but that's

probably lower on the priority list overall we all understand that because we're trying to overhaul the system itself in English so any other comments on that and the migration to etherium dot org that isn't really happening right now except for added search functionality of the current Jekyll site doesn't there's still the an unsolved problem of their blockers to changes in the EIP zouri IP processes are on then being able to render it on the site and that's justice yeah to like to go into it but I'm just noting that that is still been a problem if we aren't having

resources and team four that's true yeah I'm moving it to aetherium org we're kind of less independent because or the EIP process and the EIP Jekyll integration is less independent because then you're relying on Crossley or links to aetherium org /e IPs and whatever they have set up whether it's Jekyll or an automatic like markdown grabbing thing that Sam set up rather than VIPs etherium org which is just a jekyll plugin so it's a little more transparent I was meeting the other direction because I what we don't have anyone looking at the eyepiece site or like if I wanted to have a change to the header

file that added in and the stat added in champion like to the header part where the square is like added in champion to that and then you could put one name like there isn't anyone who could make that change on the website got it okay and it would end with if it was the etherium team then there is a team of people that would be able to keep up with any of those changes or if the one we had just we talked about earlier of making it so the EIP side of theorem org is like a data availability like a anyway I don't want to go all the way back into it but if it was more raw like it's it's trying to do both things and it's and it's and it failing at both of

them so that's just it that's an ongoing problem then we should mark that we can talk about it next time yeah I don't know if we'll solve that one today but are there any comments on that and the others okay we'll think on this more for next time and it's not a pressing one because I don't know if Sam's working on the search integration it sounds like but not on any further efforts to move the EIP s there right now next up is survey on the EIP process a blog was released and I think Edson can talk about that yeah so a blog was

released there showed up patterns of all responses so I collected the patterns and rich statistics on it I can link the blog below and do you want to talk about the findings or should be say that sooo until all the final responses are received or we can start working on solutions um maybe wait til them are received I don't have a huge preference what do you what do you all think whatever Edson wants to do yeah it's your call I think we could start

figuring out a way of solutions or at least know what the current problems are and then so we can brainstorm solutions for next meeting okay sounds good so so the major ones are politics how can we keep the AIP process a political I can create a sense of finality and how can we how can controversial whose VIPs be introduced all these has to do with this decision-making so the overall question is of how to solve this is how can we former

formalize the decision-making process for a piece how can we how can we create a formal decision-making process for a piece that's a bigger question is from my understanding decision-making comes on with governance so we got to create some sort of formal governance structure for deciding what a piece go through but just some sort of formal decision-making process isn't one of the biggest we need to the survey I think related to that there's like another conversation about the Chordettes call and the value they have and potentially moving them a sink and I feel like maybe there would be a wait there like kill two birds with one

stone here like we already have you know a rough a rough threshold of what it means for EBEs to be implemented right it's basically all the client implementers kind of agree to them and they don't see major objections and I can I can imagine us doing that async I think there's like the political piece you're never gonna like make controversial eeap's on controversial right and I feel like if we move things a sink where client developers just said whether they're confident or not you know implementing this as part of an upgrade and you can kind of leave it the client developers

to decide whether or not they want to implement it which seems to have worked okay so far what prog Dow yeah I feel like you could probably move most of the process async and by by like not having the actual core devs called where the decisions get made you open it up the or people in the community to like voice their concerns and and be part of the conversation like this is obviously a pretty huge change but I feel like it's it's kind of the way we could kind of kill these two birds with one stone yeah I curse with others think one more thing about that one of the individual feedbacks was making less reliant on

like the EOP process less relying on live conversations like yeah yeah yeah I mean for example for our team at Pegasus half the team is in Australia so I mean half the people who are actually core devs have never been on a cordon of Scala because it's just like 2:00 in the morning for them and and the and we kind of lose their opinions on that and and Nick Johnson is another good example of like I think he's in New Zealand or something and he doesn't show up but he he would leave or any valuable feedback async so I yeah I think there's a lot of value there yeah I agree I wrote something really really really rough

draft of something a week ago that I just dropped off was I was called like etherium constellations and it was basically a series of chat rooms that were connected through telegram discord and get her and they were per topic and there would be kind of like moderate to strict rules on what chat rooms could be created and what their purpose were it was but it would be like one of them was for deciding when hard Forks would happen like scheduling and that would be completely separate from deciding what a ip's go into a hard fork which is completely separate from the subtopics on EF ie IPS so like 1559 is EFI right now so there'd be a topic room on that

and then it would move through the through the different rooms as it goes through why not use something like each Magicians though I'm a bit skeptical of chat for that because it's just so hard to search and to record decisions but if we had like somebody's background noises ready down I a suggestion here you know there's rust language team core development team that divides the rust language and they had this problem where they also have the old process called request for comments RFC's so basically before implementing a change in the language it should first

be adopted as and as what they call an RFC and we call this CIP in the etherium community so basically they used to they have github as their primary like communications platform on various policies and github didn't really scale as far as I know but what they did was they tried out do it and this will it helped them a lot so I am also trying it out for for participating in the language development and also we are piloting it for open etherium as an alternative to this court so basically

it allows you to manage your conversations much more smoothly than you can discourse and it's also very easy to search through the various topics in the history as compared to telegram or to discord especially discord so it's a lot it seems a lot more organized I think there's maybe two different things here right like one is like the conversational database chat rooms but I feel we probably also want something a bit more permanent and that's why I'm kind of I kind of liked each magicians for that because it's been there for a long time and it's more of like a long form a long form forum

then like chat but like because if we have to record say you know say there's a thread about the EIP and we have to record you know open the theory on stylus I feel like yeah like you want a permanent thread rather than like yeah all right Arnim what's how do you spell Zeile it zuly yeah I'd be interested in looking at that tool for sure have you

all other consumers use slack I've got experience with it I don't know I mean it seemed just feel really well at Regis I minocycline 50,000 members and it works perfectly because it's close source and cost money to store messages that's that's kind of the deal breaker because someone would have to pay for it the loop is actually slack on steroids in many respects so it's it's it looks very much like like but it's open source and more than that it allows us to have a more fluid threading model that basically divided

into where you have channels but they can also easily be divided into sub streams so basically streams divided into topics and you can search you can list this topics are listed in the order of the history and basically you can basically have multiple conversations in the same chatroom but which will be subdivided into topics which are also listed in history and if some if for some reason the conversation goes off topic so like for example there was you have a general deaf cat room then you have a discussion about I don't know one a IP and then suddenly you start talking about another

aib then you can easily remove that conversation about novel EAP into its own separate topic and it will easily be searchable it's a it's very easy to reach it and it will not be lost that sounds very very very good a few thoughts on this the I I've been seeing some of this stuff about separating and doing async and stuff and I'm wondering if that's from the place of what I've what I have read it as is there there is a movement that people would like to see the EIP

standardisation process be separate from the deployment on web decides what is decided to go into a network upgrade and that I wonder how much of the try to make an async process is really actually trying to make that happen like that separation happen and there are there are some things that I think that we like the awkward have calls as using using strip for a IP standardization and then for something like EFI but you have the actual coordination and decisions about what gets deployed being separate or at least done separately I think would would still be good and having the

calls there's a couple of stuff like they having a cadence of the client developers coming together I is something I've seen as important in like cohesion among the clients about what actually is being developed like without some way of all the clients coming together and regularly talking about it I don't really see that like a synchronously really happening very well it because it it's already hard to keep everyone on the same page in like one kind of practical example for car for coordination or network upgrades like I actually have zero authority over any client team I have no way of making any of them do anything so a really useful thing that it's happened on the all core

dev calls and just to be really frank about it is if I if we identify something publicly and then have and say like hey this way if I ask what is the status of these implement of the implementation of this and they know every two weeks they have to report on it it's likely to get done if I don't have any way I could I could follow up all day and all night but without that like collective accountability I don't see clients really moving together so I think there's two bits here right one is like the implementation parts I feel like you could get that mostly AC right like so say we have I don't know VIP 23 15 there is an eighth magician thread if base you hasn't begun or

implementation you can kind of add us on that thread and and we can kind of comment but I think I I agree that there's around like the scheduling you know what not that's maybe harder to do I think but I don't know it feels like yeah we could probably take most decisions async and get more input from the community and and have the place where the decision is made be a sink and then use the calls of the kind of way to resolve these like tricky issues that are just you know hard to resolve a sink and that's already kind of half what happens right like half the conversation happens and like the github PR for AIT and and the only part we're kind of

missing there is like you know for clients adding like a plus-one that okay this should be accepted and that doesn't seem that hard to do I think but I agreed it's like the more fuzzy scheduling is hard one comment on that there has been a need from the survey Pro expressed in the survey for clarity on where the EAP process ends and where the hard for chlorination begins or at least how those two are separately clarifying that part I would agree to most of the part of you know

James as well as time and I think like right now the process of a IP and the hard work is not actually separated but in my opinion the atomization is a very good forum what we can go ahead and do that in addition to James of ideas of collecting information from individual client we can also start referring to the point of discussion and if we kind of make it a preference of having it in etham egytian instead of the PR of that they would be having collective information at one place and even if it is a sink we are also getting a synched information during the oil corner of call so this is basically a

fine line between the heartful process and the EIP process in itself and I kind of try to document it sometimes back in one of the APIs it must be most somewhere else but yeah I find that this is it this may be a good way forward in which people will be getting the accurate information even about all the clients where they when they do stand at any point of time okay so we've kind of agreed that the process of hard fork management and E I P development should be separate our implementation should be

separate right the EIP standardization and the yeah and the network upgrade to deployment yeah should be separate okay so we're all there we're saying that there might need to be new tools in order to make that happen we're also saying there might need to be or that there's value in having some type of a synchronous coordination beyond the all core devs get or chat for people who are in different time zones and that there might be tools we need to bring up to do that I think I got that all right is there anything I got wrong probably we have tools existing they

just need to enforce the implements and implementation of that like we have a discussion board on the atomization where I in my in my understanding most of the EAP s are there and they are referred to be as a point of discussion but sometimes what happens the discussion shifts to the full request and there we lost the track so if we can make our standard process systemic place that this is it and this is where you need to go and we refer the link in all Cordell meetings that might bring all the information at one place and that would be a change to EIP one because any IP one we say you should probably do use these magicians but you can use reddit and issues and other stuff yeah it's a kind of recommendation

but I think to make it standardized enforcement would be required yeah and I don't think that's a bad thing yeah I agree with that this is Jamie I dropped in part way through the meeting but yeah I think that's actually a really good idea I've been thinking about that myself is to have a place where it links to all kinds of different related discussions but in a single URL and it could be / e IP or / meta EIP our pork the IP it's it's definitely I'm not sure where you'd put such a URL or such a resource but it's important because there's even get her chat links and you know there's just so many places where decisions are being made or discussions

are happening yes it can be for a IP in the beginning like because the meta ap for any upgrade would be like the next step so we can start with going individually IP vise and then we can also create a third form attorney and we can't well bring all those VIPs me I mean just a link over here and discussion should be at one place with the EITS only I mean that's my thought process I had a question in general previously we were talking about governance in a in the telegram and the consensus we got to was that thinking

about an entire governance overhaul would be a process that might take a few years and required funding for a research I had an idea of probably creating the president for having an upgradable governance structure um so we can make changes now and then I've heard them later with more formerly through research just like that what do you guys think about that that'd be in the form of an EIP or would that just be something we do so that would be in the form of an EFP I guess it might be either information or meta it just would be bozo for upgradeable

government structure then we can extend that with how frequently should should the government be reviewed to be upgraded I was thinking maybe 3 2 K so early on it would be more frequent and then later on it'd be less frequent did you say something about determining a president as in making an expectation that president yeah like an expectation that Oh precedent not the President of the United States or yeah okay no no no president like sorry like an expectation I wanted to say I mean if I might be aware of a lot of this but my figure is

that a lot of the currency stuff works on the idea of general like sovereignty right and like some decent utilization and I remember that we were talking before about the like the nodes the the node holders that make like decline to make the final push and decide whether or not a change is made have you considered giving them like more governance and say cordobes that we've talked about that before that's a really good point to bring up actually so we've talked about that before and the main are from my recollection the number one issue when I've had

conversations with people about that is getting participation and the fact that there are groups of like enterprise node operators like in fira who have multiple nodes like maybe hundreds of nodes they run and they can single-handedly Shiu discussion or decisions I mean I think I really like the way that the US government set up in a sense that you know you have like different I mean I guess it's more complex and so we get back this problem sometimes talking about as far as big overhaul but how they have a multiple different checks

and balances and then you have for example will be no no controllers and then you have like Accord ads that say have the opportunity to like veto or something like that yeah but what is that um it's up to them to organize and you know the people at the table now or the ones who are organized and and engaged and interested enough to to be a part of the governance process and you know if if a group wants to be a part of this system they could come to the table and I don't think there's anything

stopping them and when there's a problem a group coalesce you know converges around it like what's what happened with with the cat herders like there was there were some there needed to be more management of the releases and so they coalesced around it they formed a group and the same goes for if miners or node operators or any any group out there wants to participate in the process it's up to them to organize and we would help them organize I think all of us who are involved in the process would help them organize so rather than form a legal structure or any kind of ideal structure it's it's almost like just this let those parties be involved and encourage

them to do so and then then much like what's happening here formalize it a little bit but not don't go formal first is is basically what I'm saying just encourage people to organize if they want to be have agency in it or be a part of the process so I guess my suggestion was create say we're open to upgrading our governance structure but not necessarily going into like the details of what and like going through the entire overhaul right at once I was thinking of doing small changes now and then making larger changes later on what do you guys think I have to think about it more so

my take on the army slowed output would be that's definitely a good idea I think it would be good to always test things and also treat it like it's a financial transaction maybe in the sense that like Hudson was saying that you you can expect the worst and expect like an old you know a certain no group to coalesce and take over so going slowly would be beneficial because of the current system is stable then you don't want to jeopardize that that's my take on it and then also another thing I liked was the suggestion of like the the core like governance

structure as it exists right now if it exists at all unfortunately not too aware of it but it if it exists then they help like smaller groups coalesce as they want to get involved and I think that that's a good idea one thing might also be helpful is to define what governance means so the way I'm using it in this like for what I'm saying is just decision-making just the formal way of how decisions are made I mean so for us it would be for a hard for a coordination so if if I may I mean like this is a mostly relevant for the potentially

contentious a piece as far as I know as far as I understand like like prop Bo and so there's two things here first is that many almost VIPs are purely technical and do not carry any like social implications so there of me of little interest to the most of the community for the most stakeholders only to client developers but then there are social so to speak II IPS like prop out again which are of interest to everyone and the second I think that it's it's just important to get visibility to

social yeah beast basically and if we get enough visibility for them then there will be no more divisions or no more scandals like profile so that's my take I agree with like what you say about the bit of like most a IPS are not like that divisive I think the challenge there though is you want this system to be set up in advance and to handle all of the non-controversial eats so that when we have a controversial eat the system is already there because forefront pal for example if we introduce a new system now people just won't think it's legitimate because like say we introduced a new

system and the system results in Prague now going live on the network everybody who's against Frank pal says it's a bad system and vice versa if we introduce a new system and pal doesn't go live everybody that's prone pal says it's a bad system so this is why I think it would be it would be really valuable to come up with a more open system that works in these non-controversial cases that we can start using and yet you know some some actual traction on and then once the next controversial thing comes along you already have that system in place and you don't have to put it up as as you're dealing with the controversy I definitely agree with that second yeah that makes a lot of sense that

approach is be prepared for the for the crazy things by creating a process for the normal things and it looks like we have 30 seconds left so last thought visibility visit visibility is the is paramount here like we need to work on getting visibility to potentially controversial eaves I my read is the the core problem is that the theorem community doesn't feel like they have a say what goes into aetherium and I think a lot of this trying to figure out different ways of doing evidence is a long way of getting around to that and smaller smaller

changes to do smaller things like we're a small we're a group of 10 people on a call right now trying to get governance buy-in for any governance changes is like we could do whatever we could write whatever we want right now but then how in the world are we gonna get the entire network to agree with it and how are we gonna know when the entire network agrees with it right there maybe I'm just like a little more pessimistic than usually it's always gonna be rough I think it's always going to be rough like if you watch British Parliament on YouTube like you know it's it's it's difficult to form a government or a half governance but I think overall it's pretty I think it we should expect there to be conflict and when there is that's

it's a natural thing and you know we do we do we do our best to try to address it and I think I think those structures are existing and you know like like was said before just this slowly proceed with it so I have two things number one is that we shouldn't assume or we assume that every every sort of governance change will lead to catastrophic failure so you should only implement changes that we thought the failure wouldn't destroy the network like for example if somebody passing a IP that like devalued the entire currency and like that's sort of you know and that and as far as I can tell that is like a feasible thing if

they took over whatever and then number two is when you're like I personally don't understand how people can say that you can have a governance structure of any kind to make changes to something especially when asking money without political like without split Assizes on personally I don't see how that's possible as I understand Bitcoin they just don't make changes yeah Bitcoin is very stagnant so yeah we're a minute or two over and I have to get on another's name call which means I have to end this one for my account to do that so sorry about that everyone and let's take this back to the telegram chat and see you all in two weeks in Shenzhen thanks everyone for coming by

yeah everyone