An Open Invitation:
Towards a Fellowship of Ethereum Magicians
An Open Invitation:
- Why can’t “disinterested” people be involved in the Open Process? How do we engage and coordinate with key external stakeholders that may be “disinterested”?
- Who will listen to “technically incompetent input” and how do we determine the appropriate pathways they should take to achieve sufficient Technical Competence to be heard?
This goes to scope. I think the Magi’s scope is improvement of the technical parts of the Ethereum platform.
Today that is done through the EIP process and core dev process.
What did come up is that Working Groups would look to include non-code competence for assistance - design, economics, even legal.
How Working Groups function is in the process of being discussed.
Does that help?
My notes on this one (I made a bunch of notes so i better put them to work)
**Meeting notes - July 14th **
Fellowship of Ethereum Magicians
Defining processes, taking responsibility, openness.
Individual Participation - membership not formal
Technical responsibility - fellowship accepts responsibility for all aspects of the ethereum protocol specification - may take responsibility for related specs proposed to it in the future.
Technical competence: the fellowship seeks consensus on proposals where we have the competence
Rough consensus and running code - consensus is not unanimity or majority vote, rather, it is based on the combined technical judgement of our participants and our real world experience in implementing and deploying specs
Online presence: curated web pages, calendar, links / accesible discussion forums, threaded web interface and email integration
In-person work: triannual meetings, two coordinated with DEVCON and ETHCC and one in July
Meetups, dicussions, presentations, workshops, hackathons and other relevant activities. Organised by participants on an ad-hoc basis or with the sponsorship of the fellowship
Iterative workflow: participants do research, Gain experience, present their work and make proposals / proposals are discussed and reworked, online and in person, until consensus is reached.
Question from Australia - what’s the EF supposed to be, what it takes
Boris - challenges, reddit miscommunication (karma), communication & accessibility issues from Magicians to easily get the word across.
Matt Lockyer - if the technical competence isn’t there there needs to be a channel to not stonewall people that don’t have that knowledge
Addy - actively trying to educate
Boris - magicians need an education working group
Jarrad- authority comes with Education
Me & Boris - inclusion, active reach out and finding out that people feel these kinda initiatives are exclusionary - how we change this view and actively reach out to others
Nick - how to get consensus, the TAO, ITF processes / Boris - ITF weaknesses (financial support for volunteering and logistics)
Boris - how to run a working group
Voting is one small fraction of governance - that needs to be more defined
These particular meetings do not have finality / documentation in the forum is due to have such finality
Lane: suggestion of playbook as ETHGlobal to shard the process a bit
Review of the EIP process
Types of EIPs -Nick
Standard track: core, networking, interface, ERC
Informationl . Design issue, general guidelines or info to the community
Meta EIP - Procedures, guidelines, changes to decision making process, and tool changes
Your EIP draft should contain a discussion round
Trying to move to a process where an EIP doesn’t become a discussion forum - magicians is a forum for instance.
Any of the users w/any of the authors permission can propose changes - introduce LAST CALL
Keeping visibility of EIPs is a challenge - maybe we need working groups for this
Funding of EIPs and working groups for people that cannot afford volunteer work