path: root/21/89f18184fcc3803e4e55c8b0839c4596869e1b

Return-Path: <jlrubin@mit.edu>
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A4F1C0001
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 15 Mar 2021 20:59:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70F506F584
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 15 Mar 2021 20:59:27 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.219
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3,
 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
 SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id wy5QkqtVnE8w
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 15 Mar 2021 20:59:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11])
 by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6B2660642
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 15 Mar 2021 20:59:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-io1-f52.google.com (mail-io1-f52.google.com
 [209.85.166.52]) (authenticated bits=0)
 (User authenticated as jlrubin@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
 by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 12FKxM5L007343
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT)
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 16:59:23 -0400
Received: by mail-io1-f52.google.com with SMTP id 81so34897782iou.11
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 15 Mar 2021 13:59:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531jzOVDgy+6h8wTmBetbpLl9GWHCPzaeUtFiHhW7aznc5w6Bhv0
 BozSO6S9WhfEXhklO8a9h6GGguf735/fITQaG7Y=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwh+D1K3INpCzQjWo/m9Qqv8ATJ4Lmw9At1GpwG7Ln/JPyam4ysNT0E6FKQj8wt2LIbYW2fyPjhdOsfkQdk5Go=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:1592:: with SMTP id
 e18mr1011741iow.49.1615841962695; 
 Mon, 15 Mar 2021 13:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <202103151720.04687.luke@dashjr.org>
 <CAD5xwhginOaKomLnFML77JpGyd3hMRe2+Ep=ZGbVaa2yRj_eKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <202103151937.38260.luke@dashjr.org>
In-Reply-To: <202103151937.38260.luke@dashjr.org>
From: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 13:59:11 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAD5xwhg7-KXysYb4sT+uvnPBZm+LanERsgyOiZOyEDjo=kRjRA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD5xwhg7-KXysYb4sT+uvnPBZm+LanERsgyOiZOyEDjo=kRjRA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003320d305bd9986f2"
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot activation meeting on IRC - Tuesday 16th
 March 19:00 UTC
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 20:59:27 -0000

--0000000000003320d305bd9986f2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Can you expand on the timeline issue? Which timelines are incompatible and
why?

It does seem like a release done *today* cannot happen anyways, so it
sounds like it's already too late... or do you mean beginning the release
process today?
--
@JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>


On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 12:38 PM Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:

> 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@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
>
>

--0000000000003320d305bd9986f2
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,he=
lvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000">Can you expand on the tim=
eline issue? Which timelines are incompatible and why?</div><div class=3D"g=
mail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:sma=
ll;color:#000000"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-fami=
ly:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000">It does seem l=
ike a release done *today* cannot happen anyways, so it sounds like it&#39;=
s already too late... or do you mean beginning the release process today?<b=
r clear=3D"all"></div><div><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_signature" data-=
smartmail=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr">--<br><a href=3D"https://twi=
tter.com/JeremyRubin" target=3D"_blank">@JeremyRubin</a><a href=3D"https://=
twitter.com/JeremyRubin" target=3D"_blank"></a></div></div></div><br></div>=
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Mon=
, Mar 15, 2021 at 12:38 PM Luke Dashjr &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:luke@dashjr.or=
g">luke@dashjr.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote=
" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);=
padding-left:1ex">While I agree 24 hours is too short notice, if someone wi=
shes to insist on <br>
keeping the current timeline, software supporting it should be released <br=
>
_today_. Putting the meeting off a week would almost necessarily imply <br>
rejection of any desires to stick to the original plan.<br>
<br>
So for that reason, I think we need to at least try to have a meeting <br>
tomorrow, at least to give anyone who won&#39;t agree to such a delay a cha=
nce to <br>
speak up before it&#39;s too late, and have his argument fairly considered.=
<br>
<br>
We can still have a meeting next week. The idea of having one every other w=
eek <br>
seems like a good idea to avoid this in the future, too.<br>
<br>
Luke<br>
<br>
<br>
On Monday 15 March 2021 19:14:02 Jeremy wrote:<br>
&gt; Please announce such meetings with more than ~24 hours notice -- this =
has<br>
&gt; happened several times and while I recognize the pace of development o=
n<br>
&gt; this issue I think that slotting a consensus meeting with less than 24=
<br>
&gt; hours is inappropriate.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I think we should proactively postpone it a week so that there isn&#39=
;t an<br>
&gt; arbitrary &quot;too low turnout&quot; measure and instead anyone who r=
eally wants to<br>
&gt; be present for the meeting can plan to be.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; So as not to lose momentum on having a discussion, I propose to plan t=
o<br>
&gt; hold a general discussion tomorrow at that time and a meeting (with th=
e<br>
&gt; intent of resolving issues in a more binding way) next week. It may be=
 a<br>
&gt; good idea to hold the time slot every other week for the next while so=
 that<br>
&gt; we can avoid this 24 hour thing altogether.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; It sucks to lose another week but a precedent of 24 hour notice meetin=
gs<br>
&gt; for non urgent changes is very negative.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; (This isn&#39;t any comment on if ST is OK or not -- the schedules pro=
posed for<br>
&gt; ST thus far seem acceptable to me)<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Best,<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Jeremy<br>
&gt; --<br>
&gt; @JeremyRubin &lt;<a href=3D"https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin" rel=3D"no=
referrer" target=3D"_blank">https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin</a>&gt;<br>
&gt; &lt;<a href=3D"https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin" rel=3D"noreferrer" tar=
get=3D"_blank">https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin</a>&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:20 AM Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev &lt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_bl=
ank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; &gt; At the previous meeting, there was consensus for BIP8 activation<=
br>
&gt; &gt; parameters<br>
&gt; &gt; except for LOT, assuming a release around this time. Since then, =
a<br>
&gt; &gt; release has not occurred, and the new idea of Speedy Trial has be=
en<br>
&gt; &gt; proposed to preempt the original/main activation plan.<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; It&#39;s probably a good idea to meet up again to discuss these t=
hings and<br>
&gt; &gt; adjust<br>
&gt; &gt; accordingly.<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; Agenda:<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; - Speedy Trial: Can we get a comparable consensus on the proposal=
?<br>
&gt; &gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0(Note: current draft conflicts with original plan tim=
eline)<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; - Main activation, post ST: Moving startheight (and timeoutheight=
?) later<br>
&gt; &gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0is probably a good idea at this point, both because t=
oo little progress<br>
&gt; &gt; has<br>
&gt; &gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0been made on it, and to avoid the conflict with the c=
urrent ST draft.<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; - Making progress: To date, too few people have been involved in<=
br>
&gt; &gt; materialising<br>
&gt; &gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0the main activation plan. If it&#39;s going to move f=
orward, more people<br>
&gt; &gt; need to<br>
&gt; &gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0get actively involved. This should not wait for ST to=
 complete, unless<br>
&gt; &gt; we want another 4-5 month slip of the timeline.<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; This meeting is tentatively scheduled for *tomorrow*, March 16th =
at the<br>
&gt; &gt; usual<br>
&gt; &gt; time of 19:00 UTC, in freenode&#39;s ##Taproot-activation IRC cha=
nnel. If<br>
&gt; &gt; turnout<br>
&gt; &gt; is too low, we can postpone it a week, but it&#39;d be nice to ge=
t things<br>
&gt; &gt; resolved and moving sooner.<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; As a reminder, the channel is also open for ongoing discussion 24=
/7, and<br>
&gt; &gt; there<br>
&gt; &gt; is a web chat client here:<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; <a href=3D"https://webchat.freenode.net/?channel=3D#%23taproot-ac=
tivation" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://webchat.freenode.net=
/?channel=3D##taproot-activation</a><br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; Luke<br>
&gt; &gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt; &gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt; &gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=
=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt; &gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bit=
coin-dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundatio=
n.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>

--0000000000003320d305bd9986f2--