Note: because I’m still a new account on the forum I’ve had to break this post up to comply with the “no more than two links” policy for new users - sorry for the weird formatting!
First, many thanks to those of you who have reached out to share your feedback and get more information. It is extremely helpful. I’m posting today to share a recap + meeting notes from a call we had with the proposed PGB group, which was announced on this thread.
There were a couple of goals for the call:
- Make sure all parties are on the same page about the objective of the project, and the role of the PGB
- Address some administrative recommendations based on feedback from conversations with members of the Ethereum community
- Identify next steps & action items
You can see the agenda & meeting notes here.
Very succinctly, the objective of the OASIS Ethereum Open Project is to:
Provide a neutral forum for the Ethereum Project to create high-quality specifications that enable platform longevity & compatibility with the involvement of a diverse group of stakeholders.
We are treating this as an exploratory project, meaning that we intend to start with pieces of work that will augment and strengthen, not replace, the EIP process or yellow paper for example. We will iterate and adapt the OASIS standards process as we learn what works for this community.
OASIS made several recommendations based on our initial discovery which were readily accepted:
- PGB meetings will be open by default; official meeting agendas will be posted online (TBD where) and meetings will be livestreamed/recorded (tooling TBD).
- The PGB’s role is procedural, not technical - their purpose is to verify a steering committee is equipped as needed and that process has been followed fairly & accurately.
- The PGB will work to create a balance of constituencies on the PGB itself - for example ensuring an equal number of company sponsored vs. community representatives, representatives from diverse geographies, etc.
Next Steps & Action Items
We have several next steps which we are going to try to get done before setting another PGB call (which will ideally be in a couple of weeks):
- Everyone to read the Open Project Rules and email Jory or Chet with questions
- If needed: send Individual or Entity CLA to your internal legal teams for review (PGB members must sign the CLA)
- Answering the questions: What are the criteria for TSC membership? Who else/what other stakeholder voices are missing from the PGB?
- Everyone to collaboratively edit/suggest edits to the Project Charter (a document OASIS maintains for all open projects).
- Determining first PGB Chairperson(s): tentatively the representative from the Ethereum Foundation & un-determined community representative, probably from the Magicians forum
- Need to propose a process & set of criteria for electing community participants
- Need to determine where the documents/assets of this effort should live in the short/medium term
what to expect next:
We are going to continue doing a lot of information and feedback-gathering, especially about the items that affect participation. We’re also going to make a determination about where the output of this work can live, so that folks can more easily make contributions. You should hear from me again on this and other issues within 2 weeks.
Question: Do the magicians (or EF) have a youtube or video channel already? I’m wondering if there’s an existing forum for broadcasting meetings we can use.
If you have questions about any of the OASIS documents I linked to above, feel free to ask them here, email me at email@example.com, or tweet me @jorydotcom. You can also schedule a time to chat at doodle.com/joryburson
Can you specify the current list of PGB representatives? It would be helpful to our names and faces to the roles.
Ah yes, good idea! The initial PGB members we have are: Charles Nevile (EEA), Nick Johnson (Ethereum Foundation, EIP editor), Jim Jaglieski (Consensys) and Virgil Griffith (Ethereum Foundation).
It should be noted that we expect this list of names to grow soon to include more magicians/community members.
There is no individual that “represents” this forum. Just individuals who collaborate using the forum and collect around the concept of EthMagicians. Perhaps “Ethereum Community” is a better alternative wording / way of thinking about this.
Maybe Ethereum Project could also be replaced with Ethereum Community. There is no singular project.
The EF has a YouTube channel.
This is a suggestion brought forward by Virgil that he has kicked off to explore. Jory presented at Core Devs Berlin https://en.ethereum.wiki/eth1/coredevsberlin#oasis-open-projects-for-eip-standards-management
The initial target is potentially making a group to standardize the JSON-RPC specification.
Can you expand on PGB vs TSC and process? Knowing the members is interesting. What they do is more important.