Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
  • Feb 28 19:45
    @Arachnid banned @merkle_tree_twitter
  • Feb 17 00:56
    @jpitts banned @Aquentson_twitter
  • Apr 09 2018 04:14
    @holiman banned @JennyJennywren_twitter
  • Oct 21 2017 19:12
    @Arachnid banned @Musk11
5chdn
@5chdn
I don't want to ban anything. Why should I? Just saying that if you want to have private working groups, that's finer and makes sense but you should be transparent and maybe start with a public announcement.
ledgerwatch
@AlexeyAkhunov
I don't want to announce things I am planning to do, I want to announce things that I have done
5chdn
@5chdn
That's two different things
In meetings you don't work on things
You discuss things and eventually make decisions

Are you prepared to start publicising all meetings that happen at Parity related to Ethereum?

At Parity we don't have meetings

Also, I don't see how this contributes to the discussion

and, of course, these meetings do not make any decision

There are action items on the document, they have been made by a decision

ledgerwatch
@AlexeyAkhunov
Ok, I am really glad you don't have meetings. But some people do have meetings, and I think they should be allowed to have them without public announcements
5chdn
@5chdn
Not if they are about a public, decentralized protocol!
And it's not about me, or Parity, I couldn't care less. It's about the whole community, developers, and potential contributors you are excluding here!
ledgerwatch
@AlexeyAkhunov
I am excluding people on initial phases, simply because my human cognitive limitations - I cannot interact with the whole community
5chdn
@5chdn
So how do you choose the people to exclude?
ledgerwatch
@AlexeyAkhunov
I do not choose. I cannot be fair to everyone. As I told you before, this was ad-hoc
I did not know we would be having this meeting a few hours before it happened
it will be opened up, when there is enough new material to share
someone has to start work by picking disparate EIPs, articles, and put them together
what I needed is a group that can support such work on initial stages, and that looked like a group that could provide that
Martin Holst Swende
@holiman
@5chdn we have daily geth-team standups. Sometimes, we even talk about Ethereum. Should we post minutes every day?
5chdn
@5chdn
If you make decisions about Ethereum's future in Geth standups, yes?
Not sure if you are trolling
I question two things here:
  • Who chooses who knows about these meetings
  • Why are the notes being kept secret
Micah Zoltu
@MicahZoltu
Just tuning in, but IIUC the problem that @5chdn has is not that people are meeting and discussing things, but that they are making decisions and choosing course of action for the Ethereum protocol.
jwasinger
@jwasinger

have to say I'm a bit disappointed to be seemingly-uninvited from subsequent meetings after the first even though I just want to listen in. The responses I get when talking to others who have attended said meetings range between "oh it was ad-hoc.. sorry", "sorry I didn't feel like it was appropriate to invite a +1 to the meeting".

My saltiness aside, I can understand that it is easier to iterate when the spotlight is not shining on your every movement. Godspeed with the research and I look forward to implementing the changes once they are made public and agreed upon!

Micah Zoltu
@MicahZoltu
Parity dev team meeting to discuss how to architect Parity, or Geth dev team meeting to discuss how to architect Geth is fine, no need to announce or publicize anything. The problem is when you get core developers meeting and deciding how to change/alter the protocol, concensus rules, etc. in private or without a mechanism for people to join/participate.
ledgerwatch
@AlexeyAkhunov
@5chdn Ok, it was probably by my request that the knowledge of this meeting was not shared widely, and I take responsibility for that. Now, how do you want to punish me for that? Call me bad names? :) My main reasoning is this - I find it frustrating, that on public call it is literally impossile to find out what people really think (as opposed to what they can say on record). It is even hard when you speak to them in small closed groups. Without this knowledge extraction, we will never get even at the stage where we have proposals to discuss with public!
Micah Zoltu
@MicahZoltu
That being said, if it is just a handful of people coordinating a plan to prototype something on their own dime/time, with no expectation that it will eventually make it into the protocol I don't think that is a problem and there is no need to publicize.
ledgerwatch
@AlexeyAkhunov
The goal of the working groups mentioned in the meetings is actually to produce something that will be publicly discussed - there is no way around that
Micah Zoltu
@MicahZoltu
Sure, but are you expecting that the public will agree to it once you propose it?
ledgerwatch
@AlexeyAkhunov
But actually producing higher-quality knowledge requires some work in more closed groups
5chdn
@5chdn
I'm no further commenting this. I made my points. I'm not interested in calling anyone names and feel offended you are proposing this.
ledgerwatch
@AlexeyAkhunov
@MicahZoltu Not necessarily - public can disagree
Micah Zoltu
@MicahZoltu
Or are you just wanting to get it more solidified before discussing it publicy, knowing full well you may be wasting your time?
ledgerwatch
@AlexeyAkhunov
Yes, I want to get things more solidified before proposing
Micah Zoltu
@MicahZoltu
I have no problem with that rationally. Though, I do worry that the people involved will be over-zealous about pushing through once they have sunk time into the project (whatever it is).
ledgerwatch
@AlexeyAkhunov
I found it in the past that otherwise, if the things are not solid enough, they are quickly whittled down by endless discussions and meandering. I can incorporate critique from 5-10 people and iterate quickly, but I cannot do it quickly with 100 people
Micah Zoltu
@MicahZoltu
It is easier to sway someone's decision before they have put a lot of their own time/energy into their opinion/view/belief.
ledgerwatch
@AlexeyAkhunov
@5chdn Sorry Afri, I meant calling me bad names as a joke, it was probably a bad joke
Micah Zoltu
@MicahZoltu
@AlexeyAkhunov It is unclear to me what you gain by keeping things private/close to your vest.
ledgerwatch
@AlexeyAkhunov
In fact, I even regret having this organised as a meeting with notes etc. All I wanted is to have a chat with 10 people about Ethereum :(
Micah Zoltu
@MicahZoltu
Why not just ask the questions in a public forum, and then filter out the noise yourself?
That seems simpler than trying to filter down to the right people and then accepting all noise from those people.
jwasinger
@jwasinger
that sounds exhausting
ledgerwatch
@AlexeyAkhunov
@MicahZoltu There is no gain to me in keeping it private
Micah Zoltu
@MicahZoltu
Is there gain to someone else?
ledgerwatch
@AlexeyAkhunov
I believe that we should try all different ways of organising ourselves in this can help Ethereum improve
Micah Zoltu
@MicahZoltu
:thumbsup:
So you aren't arguing that this mechanism is better, only that we shouldn't be opposed to trying various forms of collaboration?
ledgerwatch
@AlexeyAkhunov
Yes, public discussion should definitely take place all the time. But my personal observation is small groups can often move along faster to get to a goal, and I want to utilise that
and the goal is not to make secret changes in the protocol. The goal is to make high-quality proposals