public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit.edu>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot activation meeting on IRC - Tuesday 16th March 19:00 UTC
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:14:02 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAD5xwhginOaKomLnFML77JpGyd3hMRe2+Ep=ZGbVaa2yRj_eKw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202103151720.04687.luke@dashjr.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2897 bytes --]

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@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@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5273 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2021-03-15 19:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-03-15 17:20 [bitcoin-dev] Taproot activation meeting on IRC - Tuesday 16th March 19:00 UTC Luke Dashjr
2021-03-15 19:14 ` Jeremy [this message]
2021-03-15 19:37   ` Luke Dashjr
2021-03-15 20:59     ` Jeremy
2021-03-15 21:46       ` Luke Dashjr
2021-03-16 17:42 ` Emil Pfeffer
2021-03-17  8:21 Prayank
2021-03-19 10:45 ` Emil Pfeffer
2021-03-19 16:55   ` Prayank

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAD5xwhginOaKomLnFML77JpGyd3hMRe2+Ep=ZGbVaa2yRj_eKw@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=jlrubin@mit.edu \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=luke@dashjr.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox