Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Eth 1.x Proposal Sync 1 Agenda #65

Closed
lrettig opened this issue Nov 28, 2018 · 9 comments

Comments

@lrettig
Copy link
Member

commented Nov 28, 2018

Eth 1.x Proposal Sync 1 Agenda

Meeting Date/Time: Fri 30 November 2018 at 14:00 UTC

Meeting Duration 1-2 hours

Call will not be livestreamed or recorded, but unattributed notes will be published (Chatham House Rule).

Agenda

  1. Transparency, note taking, Chatham House rules
  2. Recap of Nov. 2 discussion
  3. Simulation working group proposal
  4. State rent working group proposal
  5. Ewasm working group proposal
  6. Chain pruning proposal
  7. January workshop update (Joseph Chow)
  8. Continuation of transparency discussion (if necessary)
@HershyatHatch

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Nov 28, 2018

@lrettig I asked on twitter, but I will do the old 'double-up' -

What is the thinking behind not recording this call?

@lrettig

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Nov 29, 2018

What is the thinking behind not recording this call?

That is my recollection of the consensus in the room when we decided to have this call, that it will be open to core devs only, that it will not be recorded or livestreamed, and that unattributed notes will be taken and (revision: may be) shared. This was at the request of several core devs who wanted to feel that they could speak openly.

To be clear, this is not my decision and I have no power to unilaterally change this.

@Souptacular if you (or others) have a different understanding please let me know.

@lrettig

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Nov 29, 2018

This was discussed among @AlexeyAkhunov, @Souptacular, @karalabe, @gcolvin, @5chdn and others on the core devs call last week. Notes here. Look for "Hudson: How do we handle the call on the 30th?":

Hudson:
For my purposes definition of core devs is working on low-level projects
There is a grey area including teams such as Infura working on low-level RPC
For now, meeting on 30th is not closed but may be closed to anyone but core devs
Notes may or may not be released

@HershyatHatch

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Nov 29, 2018

So that conversation starts off with Hudson saying.

Hudson: I'm having reservations on how open the meeting on the 30th should be, we said we wanted it to be private, but I think maybe it should be more open. Here are some options..." notes taken, published, livestreamed, etc.

After some further discussion, with no plausible reasons given for keeping it closed

(other than Alexy's concern about his research being used in bad faith, which he more recently said that he no longer has concerns about https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/ethereum-state-rent-for-eth-1-x-pre-eip-document/2018/6?u=hershy)

Greg and Alexy said this:

Greg: Once there are meetings across groups, it shouldn't be secret
Press will report whatever they can find, it won't be complete or accurate

Alexey: If no one else is arguing for it to be closed, let's make it open

After a little more discussion, Hudson sums up thusly:

Hudson: For now, meeting on 30th is not closed but may be closed to anyone but core devs
Notes may or may not be released

So, the consensus in the room, absolutely was not that the call should be closed. The conversation ends with a "for now it is open" (with the both-sides-of-the-fence caveat/disclaimer that it "may be closed".). And now we find out that it has in fact been changed to closed.

That reversal of the "for now it is open" must have come after the call last Friday. So, again I ask:

Being that the consensus on that all devs call was that the call should be 'open' (or at least recorded), what lead to the decision being reversed?

@HershyatHatch

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Nov 29, 2018

And @lrettig I appreciate that this wasn't your decision, nor is it your call to unilaterally change it. I'm really just inquiring as to the process of all this and hoping to get some light shine on that, if possible.

@lrettig

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Nov 29, 2018

@HershyatHatch You're asking important questions and I appreciate that. I'm all for shining light :)

@Souptacular said multiple times on the call last week that the meeting would be open only to core devs and researchers ("open" here means open to the usual attendees of the all core devs meetings, i.e., "core devs" somewhat loosely and subjectively defined), that it would not be livestreamed/recorded, and that notes will be taken and may or may not be shared.

I intend to respect his wishes, but I will bring this topic up at the start of the call for brief discussion to ensure we have consensus on this point.

@lrettig

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Nov 30, 2018

Confirmed with @Souptacular that we intend to publish unattributed notes.

@karalabe

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Nov 30, 2018

@lrettig

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Dec 3, 2018

@lrettig lrettig closed this Dec 3, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
3 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.