You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This is not exactly a "risk" in the sense of something to plan for, but it is a substantial cultural point as we plan for the next discussions around blocktransfer/SEC-publications#23
Note
I refer to Commission workers as "staff" because that's what they refer to themselves as in regulatory publications and private correspondence. I prefer the term "team members" for those in the company.
It seems clerical and like something that works into the boring docs, but the SEC identification could be a really big deal once operations start scaling up. We will find ourselves with a presumable mountain of issues and PRs to triage, and I believe regulator remarks should take working priority even if their challenges or suggestions are not on their source of high priority.
This is because they have a more comprehensive view of the industry than the layman or even the experienced team member.
I am pretty surethis account is actually the Commission. Though its status currently reads "Due to a lapse in appropriations a limited number of staff are available[,]" they actually have commits as recent as last week.
It would be stellar if they converted into an organization and had members with the member badge affirming their official governmental capacity.1
I think it would be best if the Commissions did this on their own, rather than us putting some alternative form of tracking in place for examiner-commentors. If it's done on our end, we need to keep track of their personnel status, and I've just had trouble doing that already in the Stellar ecosystem.
Footnotes
An alternative is for the existing individual account to comment on discussions or open issues as-is. But that would require credential-sharing pretty quickly, or at least delayed coordination as internal messages funnel down to a single account owner who opens the comments. That would make it very slow for feedback responses or back-and-forth conversations, which they are really good at in exams. ↩
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
This is not exactly a "risk" in the sense of something to plan for, but it is a substantial cultural point as we plan for the next discussions around blocktransfer/SEC-publications#23
Note
I refer to Commission workers as "staff" because that's what they refer to themselves as in regulatory publications and private correspondence. I prefer the term "team members" for those in the company.
It seems clerical and like something that works into the boring docs, but the SEC identification could be a really big deal once operations start scaling up. We will find ourselves with a presumable mountain of issues and PRs to triage, and I believe regulator remarks should take working priority even if their challenges or suggestions are not on their source of high priority.
This is because they have a more comprehensive view of the industry than the layman or even the experienced team member.
I am pretty sure this account is actually the Commission. Though its status currently reads "Due to a lapse in appropriations a limited number of staff are available[,]" they actually have commits as recent as last week.
It would be stellar if they converted into an organization and had members with the member badge affirming their official governmental capacity.1
I think it would be best if the Commissions did this on their own, rather than us putting some alternative form of tracking in place for examiner-commentors. If it's done on our end, we need to keep track of their personnel status, and I've just had trouble doing that already in the Stellar ecosystem.
Footnotes
An alternative is for the existing individual account to comment on discussions or open issues as-is. But that would require credential-sharing pretty quickly, or at least delayed coordination as internal messages funnel down to a single account owner who opens the comments. That would make it very slow for feedback responses or back-and-forth conversations, which they are really good at in exams. ↩
All reactions