Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2021-03-15 📝 Original message:While I agree 24 hours is ...
📅 Original date posted:2021-03-15
📝 Original message:While I agree 24 hours is too short notice, if someone wishes to insist on
keeping the current timeline, software supporting it should be released
_today_. Putting the meeting off a week would almost necessarily imply
rejection of any desires to stick to the original plan.
So for that reason, I think we need to at least try to have a meeting
tomorrow, at least to give anyone who won't agree to such a delay a chance to
speak up before it's too late, and have his argument fairly considered.
We can still have a meeting next week. The idea of having one every other week
seems like a good idea to avoid this in the future, too.
Luke
On Monday 15 March 2021 19:14:02 Jeremy wrote:
> 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
📝 Original message:While I agree 24 hours is too short notice, if someone wishes to insist on
keeping the current timeline, software supporting it should be released
_today_. Putting the meeting off a week would almost necessarily imply
rejection of any desires to stick to the original plan.
So for that reason, I think we need to at least try to have a meeting
tomorrow, at least to give anyone who won't agree to such a delay a chance to
speak up before it's too late, and have his argument fairly considered.
We can still have a meeting next week. The idea of having one every other week
seems like a good idea to avoid this in the future, too.
Luke
On Monday 15 March 2021 19:14:02 Jeremy wrote:
> 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