Jeremy [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2021-03-15 📝 Original message:Please announce such ...
📅 Original date posted:2021-03-15
📝 Original message:Please announce such meetings with more than ~24 hours notice -- this has
happened several times and while I recognize the pace of development on
this issue I think that slotting a consensus meeting with less than 24
hours is inappropriate.
I think we should proactively postpone it a week so that there isn't an
arbitrary "too low turnout" measure and instead anyone who really wants to
be present for the meeting can plan to be.
So as not to lose momentum on having a discussion, I propose to plan to
hold a general discussion tomorrow at that time and a meeting (with the
intent of resolving issues in a more binding way) next week. It may be a
good idea to hold the time slot every other week for the next while so that
we can avoid this 24 hour thing altogether.
It sucks to lose another week but a precedent of 24 hour notice meetings
for non urgent changes is very negative.
(This isn't any comment on if ST is OK or not -- the schedules proposed for
ST thus far seem acceptable to me)
Best,
Jeremy
--
@JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>;
<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>;
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:20 AM Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> At the previous meeting, there was consensus for BIP8 activation
> parameters
> except for LOT, assuming a release around this time. Since then, a release
> has not occurred, and the new idea of Speedy Trial has been proposed to
> preempt the original/main activation plan.
>
> It's probably a good idea to meet up again to discuss these things and
> adjust
> accordingly.
>
> Agenda:
>
> - Speedy Trial: Can we get a comparable consensus on the proposal?
> (Note: current draft conflicts with original plan timeline)
>
> - Main activation, post ST: Moving startheight (and timeoutheight?) later
> is probably a good idea at this point, both because too little progress
> has
> been made on it, and to avoid the conflict with the current ST draft.
>
> - Making progress: To date, too few people have been involved in
> materialising
> the main activation plan. If it's going to move forward, more people
> need to
> get actively involved. This should not wait for ST to complete, unless we
> want another 4-5 month slip of the timeline.
>
> This meeting is tentatively scheduled for *tomorrow*, March 16th at the
> usual
> time of 19:00 UTC, in freenode's ##Taproot-activation IRC channel. If
> turnout
> is too low, we can postpone it a week, but it'd be nice to get things
> resolved and moving sooner.
>
> As a reminder, the channel is also open for ongoing discussion 24/7, and
> there
> is a web chat client here:
>
> https://webchat.freenode.net/?channel=##taproot-activation
>
> Luke
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210315/5ed0ac5d/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:Please announce such meetings with more than ~24 hours notice -- this has
happened several times and while I recognize the pace of development on
this issue I think that slotting a consensus meeting with less than 24
hours is inappropriate.
I think we should proactively postpone it a week so that there isn't an
arbitrary "too low turnout" measure and instead anyone who really wants to
be present for the meeting can plan to be.
So as not to lose momentum on having a discussion, I propose to plan to
hold a general discussion tomorrow at that time and a meeting (with the
intent of resolving issues in a more binding way) next week. It may be a
good idea to hold the time slot every other week for the next while so that
we can avoid this 24 hour thing altogether.
It sucks to lose another week but a precedent of 24 hour notice meetings
for non urgent changes is very negative.
(This isn't any comment on if ST is OK or not -- the schedules proposed for
ST thus far seem acceptable to me)
Best,
Jeremy
--
@JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>;
<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>;
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:20 AM Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> At the previous meeting, there was consensus for BIP8 activation
> parameters
> except for LOT, assuming a release around this time. Since then, a release
> has not occurred, and the new idea of Speedy Trial has been proposed to
> preempt the original/main activation plan.
>
> It's probably a good idea to meet up again to discuss these things and
> adjust
> accordingly.
>
> Agenda:
>
> - Speedy Trial: Can we get a comparable consensus on the proposal?
> (Note: current draft conflicts with original plan timeline)
>
> - Main activation, post ST: Moving startheight (and timeoutheight?) later
> is probably a good idea at this point, both because too little progress
> has
> been made on it, and to avoid the conflict with the current ST draft.
>
> - Making progress: To date, too few people have been involved in
> materialising
> the main activation plan. If it's going to move forward, more people
> need to
> get actively involved. This should not wait for ST to complete, unless we
> want another 4-5 month slip of the timeline.
>
> This meeting is tentatively scheduled for *tomorrow*, March 16th at the
> usual
> time of 19:00 UTC, in freenode's ##Taproot-activation IRC channel. If
> turnout
> is too low, we can postpone it a week, but it'd be nice to get things
> resolved and moving sooner.
>
> As a reminder, the channel is also open for ongoing discussion 24/7, and
> there
> is a web chat client here:
>
> https://webchat.freenode.net/?channel=##taproot-activation
>
> Luke
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210315/5ed0ac5d/attachment.html>;