FOCIL Breakout #24

Transcript

Loading developers...

[music] water.

Okay. Heat. Heat. [music] >> [music] >> Heat up here.

up here. [music] >> Heat. Heat. >> Maybe we can start the call. Cash, are

FOCIL Breakout Introduction

we ready? Great. Thank you. All right. Hello everyone and welcome to Fossil Breakout number 24. Today's agenda is checking out development updates as usual if any and sharing our thoughts on SFI fossil for HEKA. At last CDC fossils did get SF5 for Heekka but it turned into CFI 5 minutes before the call ends. The reason is there was a request that we should listen to quote unquote client team's opinions not individual not individuals.

So the plan is we listen to EL team's opinions in the upcoming ACD call and I thought that we were going to make a final decision but it seems I was wrong. So we were going to make a final call at uh the next ACDC call which is on the 11th. So the upcoming ACDE call will be a temperature check. So I just wanted to use this breakout for a temperature check for the temperature check in ACDE. Um yeah that's it for our agenda. As always let's start with development updates. Does anyone have anything to share or anything to discuss?

Development Updates and Challenges

>> Yes. >> Yeah, I can go real quick. uh Reth has been all the metrics have been merged into the main fossil branch and then it's also been uh rebased onto some updates from Reth. So everything on that side's good and then I've also been working on the sidecar transaction censorship um counter so we can get some more metrics on it. But um I have some other stuff I'm working on right now. So it's probably going to take a backseat for a little bit. But pretty good progress on that.

That's great. I guess that would be it as many people were in de connect or >> I guess sorry. >> Yeah, please go ahead. I I I I don't know why it doesn't show the raise hand uh for me. >> It's fine. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I was um so I was implementing uh Fossil for uh the Aragon client and um um yeah, pretty much like uh uh the base implementation has been done like two week two or 3 weeks ago. So there were some bugs which I was resolving and um yeah I was I was mainly testing it with

Red um and Loadar. So uh last night I also came across like a little bug for the encoding size which for so for for that reason like loadar was um rejecting due to the IL size uh issue. So yeah have I have like worked around have made some work around for that. So yeah, right now it seems to be working uh fine and uh yeah, there were like some issues which I also f found for the um load star uh related to availability uh errors. So I I stopped spamming with blobs then it seemed to be working fine.

So I'm I'm not sure if that is some issue. Um yeah, but um yeah, that's that's that's on my side at the moment. Right. So um using low star the interrupt between red and argon is working right or no argon is both CL and E. So did you implement fossil in both CL and E? >> No I I implement I mean I have implemented like 70% of the changes for the CL but the EO part is yeah almost completed. Yeah, like yeah, it was just um they're mostly like testing stuff at the moment to see like uh what's the progress, but right now Yeah, it seems

to be since last night uh that it's it's following the chain pretty uh correctly at the moment. Yeah. >> Nice. As Nikico said, there might be some um flu bugs in lowar uh stable. Nik, would you able to spend some time to update Fossil, I guess? >> Yeah, let me re rebase our branch. I'm not sure what's the current state of it cuz last rebase was like two months ago or something and we did so many fulu fixes. So, might be due to that the availability errors.

>> Makes sense. >> Yeah, but yeah. Yeah, I I was uh like um I I um sort of paused spamming with the blobs and it it it uh stopped Yeah. causing the issue. So I think it might be related to like some blob thing. I don't know. But yeah, that that's from my site mainly. Yeah. >> Got it. Could you also share the link to the the your branch your GitHub branch? >> Yeah, I can. Yeah, I can share the >> Yeah. and um and the curtosis config you're using if you're using one.

>> Yeah. Yeah, I can. >> Okay, cool. Thank you. >> Does anyone have any other updates? All right, I guess that's it for our development updates. Um, yeah, I think we can jump into the next topic. Um, before we begin, I'd like to sorry, [clears throat] I'd like to kindly ask to tell us if it's individual or team's opinion.

Um, yeah. So, let's start it. Um, which you want to go first? Yes, Medic. >> Yeah. Um, I can start with my personal opinion on the magma. Um, so yeah, I personally think that um I I agree to SFI fossil for hacker. Um, I mean uh we already agreed to to include it in Glamsterdam. uh we were even uh okay like to to delay the glimpsed drum fork uh for a little bit to include fossil. Uh so I definitely

support the idea of committing to SFI8 uh for hacker and uh from our team perspective the deco team uh there is only um uh a little point bothering us a little bit which is uh the fact that sfying uh foster for hacker from now feels a little bit early and um could be seen as um flowing the process. I know we've already done that for peer death in Fulu and it turned out to be okay. Uh but some of my teammates uh could be bothered if something really urgent uh comes up uh in the way uh between now

and then and we could end up like in a delicate position where we'd have to to review uh our priorities again and maybe do some uh weird decisions. So that's the only point really bothering some uh some of my teammates otherwise yeah I mean we already have a working implementation of uh fossil and uh we support like committing to to to ship it as soon as possible. So it is safe to say that Pekko's opinion is um

still not settled yet or is that a settled opinion? >> I'd say it's a settled opinion to be honest. We we there is a diverging opinion on on the way of how we are we'd want to commit to to ship foster in hacker. Uh that the only diverging point in the team to be honest we we don't we don't have an alternative to propose uh on how to do it. Uh I mean if if if the majority agrees to to justify it for hacker, we'd

be okay with that. Uh we just like we'd like to be um uh to be sure that we won't be in a in a in a delicate position where we have something really urgent that we need to prior prioritize and we end up not doing it before uh because we committed to uh to ship fossil. So yeah, >> got it. So, uh, um, uh, yeah. Um, yeah, maybe Thomas, you want to say something?

Concerns About Prioritizing Urgent Tasks

>> Uh, yeah. I mean, Eton was first, but it was very quick. I think that's totally fair. >> Um, I I do think like Yeah. I mean if if something urgent comes up um you know like right now like EPBS has been speified for a while and there are like some people that seem it that think it's very urgent to remove the trustless payment part of EPBS >> and I think there's going to push for it and everything. So I I don't think anything is like set in stone per se and I I feel like in any case if something very urgent was to come up um like I don't know it it would also feel pretty

obvious I think uh that you know things should be prioritized accordingly. Um but yeah, I'm just thinking the SFI CFI status sorry uh has become quite confusing to me at least. Uh cuz Fosil was already CFI for Glamsterdam. And we saw how little that meant in a way. It was just like yeah, let's have it there and try not to speak too much about it until we are actually forced to speak about it. And now um now how do we deal with it? Maybe we delay it from glamor time and we we include it. Okay, let's say we delay it but we credibly commit to include it and now I feel like it's

shifted again into like I know we don't even need to credibly commit anymore to the next fork. Now it's a it's whether like we need to ensure there is a fair process for the h fork not considering what happened for glamdom and for and and so like the whole thing starts again. So I basically I think the the situation is very exhausting for everyone. Um and one way to resolve it for me would be to you know make a decision as soon as possible just like actually go for a decision stop discussing it every single ICD call um SFI it because I I don't think CFI means much um and you know if there is like another like very cool EIP some people

are very enthusiastic to ship then uh try to make it work and and and ship both but uh Yeah. Okay. That wasn't that short. Sorry, Ethan. >> Great. Yeah, makes sense. I think given that the sentiment around fossil hasn't that much changed, it makes sense to make a decision and you know just yeah move on and maybe we can revisit it later. But like just delaying it after delaying it is uh uh it just not it just not productive I think. Um yeah. Uh >> yeah just one thing is like I just think we want to avoid so the whole like fossil went through the whole process of glamsterdam he went through the

headliner process then it was CFI so he wasn't DFI as a headliner and then considered uh as a normal EIP and then he went again through that process and there was support every time and now we are saying and and the only reason like we basically agreed to not ship it in Glamdam was for for scope and now we are sort of like going back on it and what on what we said and shifting the thing again where now Fossil somehow needs to rego through the whole process again which is also like exhausting for everyone um and collect support once again when it actually did everything like everything basically. So it was uh

it's a bit confusing for me that you will have to go through everything again. >> Yeah, fully agreed. It is not only exhausting but also not the best use of my time in my opinion. Um yeah, Ethan, sorry I thought it would be a question to embed it, but it was uh sorry I front on you. Um could you share your opinions? >> Yeah. Yeah, no worries. Um, yeah, my personal opinion is that we should SFI Fossil for HEKA. Um, if we're trying to um, uh, push our four cadences to these six-month cycles, um, then I think we need to SFI things sooner. Um, I heard there was concerns about Sifying Fossil

that we're changing the process, but I don't know how the existing process works for if we're trying to, you know, ship these forks faster. It seems like we have to change the process. um in general. Um and in terms of the lighthouse uh opinion, we don't have a official team opinion that tomorrow we're we're meeting to um discuss uh as like a group. Um but there is some um opin um um wanting to SFI Bossil uh for HEKA, but yeah, we don't we won't have a formal opinion until um the next ACD.

Discussion on SFI Process and FOCIL's Importance

Um, and just like one more thing, like seems like every client team wants Fossil. So, um, there's also like the just the reality of the situation that it's a popular EIP that everyone wants. Um and as we as these BO forks come along where uh the bandwidth requirements for local builders uh increases um that's going to further kill local building and fossil becomes like a pretty critical feature for Ethereum. Um so that's just one other aspect I guess.

>> Great. Thank you. Um before we move on to Nexo, does anyone you know want to ask any question to Ethan? Otherwise, I I think we can move on, right? Na, could you share could you please share yours? >> Yeah. Um, just to be to be clear, I I support Fossil and I think that it is um extremely necessary for Ethereum, but I think that the credibility of the governance process is also something to consider here. Um, and I think that if we SFI it now and then we surface some push back or some um, part of the

community pushing for something else and there's the question of whether to unsfi it, um, it it damages the credibility of this process and it makes people think like, oh, this process is super messy. They have no idea what they're doing. Um, so what I'd propose is is publish an official headliner process and because this is what people have come to expect after Glamsterdam and as part of that process I would propose as a credible as a stronger credible commitment to Fossil make that headliner process a two-parter which is the first part is deciding should Fossil be the headliner um and without collecting other headliner uh proposals the Next thing we move on to

is if it's SFI then what can go along with Fossil. Um, and that opens the the process to really the entire community because as much as all of the clients I think support Fossil being in Glamjam, we are in HEKA, we really haven't opened uh the conversation to the rest of the community and I think that they are expecting a headliner process and will feel bypassed by uh this the ACD process just saying actually we're just going to skip the headliner process. We're just going to go straight to to SFing this.

And I know that we did that in Peras, but I don't think that that should be enshrined because I don't think that's a good process. Got it. I think maybe we can discuss a bit more on it, but before uh we have any discussion, um maybe we can go with Casper. >> Yeah, I mean I just wanted to to respond to Nick. So I guess um I mean to me the biggest question this raises is that we've gone through an ACD process right now where possible had tremendous support for glamadam already and of

course there was contention and to move the discussion from glamadam to hacker was um dependent on finding a credible commitment to hacker and so I think personally like I've come to expect this from the ACD process and right now we're just shifting goalpost again and again and again which is exactly the failure case that um um that a lot of people are concerned about. So I'm not sure the process of basically we're just saying um decline for inclusion in Glamadam and uh let's just run through the normal process in Glamsterdam with everything.

I'm not quite sure that pipelining a headliner process where you first do fossil in this kind of awkward I don't know to me it seems a bit funny to kind of do a quote unquote normal headliner process but then somehow first do fossil. Um I'm not sure this makes sense to me >> to be um >> to be to be clear just to respond to this. Yes, I am saying that it should go through a whole um other headliner process because I do think that we cannot um if we want to if we want to say that the headliner process is perfork then we can't just say we already did it for Glamster so it should

be uh this it should be done for he >> and so basically we're deviating from what we said on ACDC um some weeks ago that as a way to um find a compromise and not include Fossil in Glamsterdam. Um we're we're not trying to find a credible commitment in Heka now, but instead just declining it and then see what happens. >> No, I think >> no, I think we should find a credible commitment, but I think that there's uh something between SFI um and making no commitment at all. And I think that we could work together to find that because SFIing it essentially

says we're going to do this. But if if any [snorts] part of the community comes and fights that again, then we lose we lose this trust in the process that people have because from the outside it's going to look like we scheduled something and then our then there's just a bunch of internal fighting about whether or not we're going to do it. And I think that if that fighting is going to happen, if if there's that conversation that's going to happen, we need to make room for it instead of try to avoid it. >> Right. I guess for me it's just not clear what exactly the process is. Like I think we're making up we made up the headline of process in Amsterdam. Uh then we had this whole fossil situation.

We're deviating from what we said on AC/DC also. So like what even is the process? I I'm not sure. I think [clears throat] in in my head the process is a headliner process that addresses what that headliner should be that includes everyone beyond uh just client teams. >> Okay. But then I think the fair summary is that we're declining a process for Glamadam and you're proposing to just run through the normal process for HKA. No, I'm I'm proposing that we make a we make a um headline a process that prioritizes fossil in this process that says basically [clears throat] we are going to SFI or not. Basically the the conversation that you want to have this

this Thursday to SFI it or not. I say that we schedule that over a period of time. Let the community know this is happening. If you have opposition to this, then you need to bring it because the other option is we do it on Thursday real quick and don't give everybody an opportunity to actually chime in. And that what that ends up in is in a few weeks when people have their headliner proposals, they go, "Oh, wait. There's already a headliner for HEKA. I didn't know this was going to happen. Why did the why did the headliner process not happen? I feel bypassed." And then it creates all of this feeling of controversy around Fossil and people then from like on crypto Twitter they're not really certain why they just feel

like Fossil is a really controversial uh headliner as opposed to we go through this process it has massive support which I think it will um and it's not seen as like this controversial thing that people are trying to kick out of the fork. All right. Maybe um before we go, Lucas, maybe Tom, you want to say something related to this discussion? >> Uh yeah, very quick. I think uh sorry I I missed the very last part but um the I do think you know the argument of having like a clear process is a good one but it's been so messy and the process has

been changing so much um that my my problem with it is like it seems like the process is always changing in a way that for some reason doesn't favor including uh fossil in any fork. And so it feels like every time we have a chance to basically include it or like make a credible commitment to include it, then there is a new process reason not to do it because you know we want to be clear and legible and everything. But like the fact is we've been discussing fossil and it and its inclusion for like 6 months and it's been extremely messy and and I think like poorly handled and

now like and and you know we have like new headliner processes. Um we want to ship way faster like so you have like all these things coming together but some somehow like you can't just like keep making up new processes and trying to be legible. um continuously like it's just like at some point like people also sort of like need to take into account what core devs support what the community has been supported what what things are said on on on a CD because otherwise like you I mean it I don't think it helps the process in in in any way really like I think it hurts it even Okay, can I can I say a few things? Uh,

Challenges with FOCIL Inclusion and Testing Complexity

so uh I will give you a bit of guys perspective from someone who is here from 2019. So 6 years in into Ethereum development process. So, uh, one one thing I would mention that I hear some people are potentially taking this quite personally and, uh, try not to. I know it's sometimes hard, but I think the only only reason why Fossil didn't make it to Glamsterdam is the testing complexity.

And I'm on the team for for us, it's manageable both implementation as well as I think testing. I'm not sure how how it's on CL so I'm not trying not to like judge here. Uh it's more for the judge to the testing team and and CL teams. Uh and we have made in the past two big commitments that we had then issues to to deliver. So like uh trying to minimize that kind of risk is understandable.

So that's one thing. Second thing um I do agree and this is something that never mind team is uh is was trying to to push for to have better kind of pipelining. So in my opinion we are currently discussing uh finalizing lamsterdam scope. I think we should be at this moment having Glamsterdam co scope finalized. Um we should have uh headliner for Heekka already picked and we should be discussing headliner for

AR. uh starting the discussion and then after that focusing on pinpointing slowly the hacker hard fork uh but pinpointing all the EAPs is uh much less urgent than discussing some headliners just to pipeline the work. So I do agree that um in my opinion that's uh uncertainty into the future uh is kind of wrong and we should be able to plan for a bit longer in terms of artworks at least headliners.

Planning and Inclusion Challenges

Okay. So maybe people do agree that um we need to be able to pip plan better and like I don't know plan ahead um regardless of like the actual fossil situation. Um how would that play out? like it it's just hard for me to sort of like try to come up with a way to accommodate like both sides meaning um you know people that have been sort of like waiting for credible commitment to ship fossil in Heeka um as a reason uh to exclude it from from Glamsterdam and

people that don't want to like frontr run the headliner process for HEKA Like is there like sort of like a middle ground we can reach or should we just like literally spend time um trying to figure out what the pipelining should be generally and then like uh still have a decision on on fossil like I don't know everything seems a bit uh unclear to me. Does anyone from client team um want to

Discussion on FOCIL and Heka Inclusion

share their opinions or um we also started talking about like what would be the process we want to have uh not just for fossil for either Ethereum in general. Um yes, Cena. >> Right. Hey. Um so, uh G is notoriously not the client who issues official uh position on all EIPs.

This is my personal opinion. I do think that that there is a lot of support for fossil. I agree that it should be included as soon as possible and I think given the road map that we have um I'm specifically thinking about uh ZKVM and the scaling efforts. I think we better have fossil and And it also goes well with the so I'm I work as part of EF and

and um the the values that um that uh we have is is crops and censorship resistance being the the first value and I think that um that I want to stay true to those values. is and so yeah, I do think that um it should be as a fight for Heekka. I'm not sure if I'm not sure about the timing. I it feels a bit premature to me personally because uh Faka hasn't shipped yet. I know it's going to happen tomorrow, but literally in this moment, we're still uh not

there. And so yeah, just just a question on timing, but I do think that it should be eventually SFI for HEKA, >> right? Thanks for sharing. And that's uh um individual opinion, a G team's opinion, right? Exactly. Got it. Yes, >> yeah, I was wondering um if Okay, so first I I do want to say I'm Yeah, I apologize if I it seems like I'm taking

it personally. I'm also quite sick. Uh but um I want to know from Nixo's suggestion like is there a reason why you think it should be it should take like from December 4th to December 18th for example to discuss for soul or or can we just play with like shorter somehow timelines? Um, one of the reason is like, yeah, I don't think we should spend like a long time or like a lot of cycles uh rehashing the discussions about fossils. So, I also want to be

mindful of like, you know, it not being like a a topic agenda on like the four or six next ACD goals. Uh, so I was wondering how would people think about this? Okay. Right. So,

there's a dis So and we are discussing whether to CFI or SFI fossil for HEKA because of the testing complexity if you were to ship it with a PBS in coldam that's why we are started talking about credible commandment And that makes it a new headliner process kick started for HEKA

which itself is to be fair. So uh on one side of the argument is that it's been like many months going through lots of discussions and then the other part of the argument is in terms of our um governance process and to in to help the community to make the informed decisions we need some time and process to um have some sort of headliner process. says that fossil should go through I think faster fork and fork complexity

is like they are not both of them are on Okay. >> I think it's >> Sorry, go ahead. >> I think client teamines can speak more to this than than I can, but I my impression that it was more about flexity because EPBS touches so much um that fossil also touches. >> No, I don't think that's really the case. I think they are pretty separate.

I think the so the concern was raised mostly from the testing side and I kind of do agree that splitting it makes sense but then we should SFI it for hacker that was basically why we kind of went with not putting it into clmsterdam otherwise there would have been more discussion I think to DFI it for >> test so it was it was testing concern that removed it that is the primary concern for glam Jam >> yeah I think it was mostly just the Panda ops team right from implementation point of view it's pretty trivial to rebase it on uh the EPBS spec >> yeah I also remember

>> sorry >> um I can maybe just say from our side it's mainly that we probably won't hit the deadlines that we're setting ourselves. That's our concern >> and that's because of the uh increased testing complexity coming from Fossil because both Fossil and EPBS touch the same thing. I mean the fork choice part that's how I understood it. >> I mean that's part of it but also if we want to ship more forks and faster that's the other part.

Yes, because we can. Yeah, if we if we ship fossil in hea for example, then we can try to ship two forks in a year in a row rather than try to ship a big fork once in a once in a year. >> But for me, they are not also going to Yeah. Complexity and faster fork is like it's kind of like a dependent on each other. Uh Tom, you do you want to addit something? Um yeah, I mean both are a bit entangled. I think uh I think there was yeah testing testing worries by the Pendops team and then um people were also not fans of touching the fork choice twice in in one fork and those

were the reasons in terms of complexity I guess. Um and then yeah of course like complexity means more time uh dedicated to a given fork and um and since there is a willingness to ship more forks um like every 6 months or something it was it was a bit untangled I think. But maybe what's what's confusing is like again like do do we want to frame for inclusion based on what happened in

Glamsterdam or do we want to start fresh with a nice process um that we think is like legible to the public and everything for Heekka. I just think there is a tension here basically between the two alternatives. Like we could, you know, totally start fresh and have for go through the headliner for process um for Heeka, but that will completely ignore what happened in Glamsterdam. Uh or we could just like sort of like basically follow up on what we said in in ACD discussions following Amsterdam which is

Credibility and Process Concerns

okay we are getting for out of Amsterdam but it is for for complexity for scope for cadence reasons only and we need to credibly commit to a way to include it in in in HEA and then yeah I feel like there is attention there and we need to somehow solve it. Yeah, I think Lisa also put the same thing in the chat. Um maybe Lisa, do you >> I think it's more a repetition. So yeah,

I I it's been brought up already just a confirmation from my side that I I'm also yeah more about the like if we talk credible commitments sorry if we talk um I guess credibility hits to the process then uh yeah there two sides to credibility hits to to ACD right there's a we've done something already and now yeah we we deviate from the process And uh yeah, so I'm I'm not super convinced of this and and also the like information gap uh potentially for the broader community. I think this was or must have been clear the moment I guess several weeks ago when we started

discussing or when we started considering like this uh first deviation from um make make an inclusion conditional on something happening in the next fork. So, um, yeah, it's it's not super convincing to me if if, uh, if we were to go down this route Yeah. I think the Nix question was good.

Discussion on FOCIL Fork Timeline and Challenges

Uh I don't know if we have like a good answer, but uh would you guys have estimates of like okay if there was like a fossil only fork? Imagine like how much time do you guys think that will take given its progress and and when where you guys are at? to add on top of it. Um I think the question should be framed as on top of APBS, not what we have today.

Realistically, I think the the biggest the biggest opposition that that Fossil is going to run into are the people who are going to push um like progress uh scaling type features over censorship resistance. And I think that the people who will support that, like the community members who will get behind that will also be spurred on by like we can ship two forks in a year and here's a solid proposal to do so like this is what we think that uh how long fossil will take and if we do a fossil only fork and we have an actual time estimate for how long that'll take then

we can start scoping. So like these people who want to ship another headliner, who want to push another headliner for HEKA, we can start talking about the star one and that pipelines things better. So that could get sort of the whole swath of community um all in at once because that shifts censorship resistance and starts pipelining. >> Lostar and Lighthouse say that they estimate like two to four weeks to rebase it on top of a PBS. Um there's a PR that rebases the spec onto a PBS. Uh it hasn't fully reviewed yet. I believe that's just because of priority issue because like you know Fossil the

decision to SFI Fossil is just keep the lane. So people just didn't have some time or reason to review it. But still we have the uh spec and um yeah and that's for spec and implementation I guess of course these two opinions are coming from um um CL but I'm not I'm not an EL dev but from my perspective if I were to share something Lucas please correct me if I'm wrong but from year's perspective it doesn't really change before for F30 PBS.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Fossil for us is the same. >> Yeah. And the tech also estimate similarly like 3 to 5 weeks. Um >> uh just to be clear my my estimate is like after we have a working EPBS implementation which >> Yes, of course. Yes. It's like after we like Roughly speaking, after we release clients for glams done, then if we if we start implementing fossil for hacker, then how long does it going to take? And testing of course.

So like I know that there are few people advocating for six slots for hacka and I know that they will continue advocating for it if we just keep delaying fossil for whatever reason and you know I developed six seconds prototype in prison I don't think six seconds have um good technical readiness as much as fossil have for many reasons. For like for fossil we already have like six clients interrupt. It will be like seven clients interrupt soon with argon on

board it anytime soon and we I booked many people in testing team and it pulps testing team already reviewed fossils complexity of course as Luka said testing is always underestimated that's for sure but like I'm not sure if you have any other candidate that can demonstrate technical Readiness that fossil has. So we have

we we listened to some of client teams that joined this breakout and we talked about we talked about um like what would be the right way to go about and like process also the governance process also matters I think. Um maybe next do you have any other concern like like getting feedback on that end would be beneficial I believe. I have no other concerns as long as like we have a published clear uh headliner process that that people know is happening

and if I understood you correctly are you planning to propose the timeline for the process and if so which one would that be? Um, I see like two options here. >> My preference would be the one that goes into January only because all of the the um things that have been published so far is that the Glamsterdam or that the Heekka headliner process would likely be in January. But I also wouldn't be opposed to the fast the faster cadence as long as we had like a dock that was very clear. And I think also having this like having someone go through the client teams and get estimates about how

long that will take for Fossil, I think it'll make it much um easier to have a fast headline process because then we can be like this is how long Fossil's going to take. Um and it'll just it'll make it a lot less it'll make it a lot harder to argue against. One question here maybe is like how do you how do you think about people then complaining about not having a completely level playing field on the headliner process? Meaning

doing fossil in the first step and everything else in the second step. Like that's not quite clear to me the logic here. Like other like it's it's like a headliner process but also not really like I feel like to make in a way if you want to make a sort of normal hacker process then that should involve everything if you front run fossil it's kind of what we had decided already except that now we're calling a headliner process.

So I'm I'm I'm just a bit unclear on what the improvement is except maybe I guess so maybe trying to um strong from my perspective maybe the the um the intention is to to just have another round of um like more time basically for the community to to voice uh opine on on Fossil as well. basically, yeah, just include the community more explicitly.

Community Involvement in FOCIL Discussion

>> Yeah, I I do think that argument will be made. Um, however, I do think that Fossil we, it's easy to argue that Fossil is in a different position than any other um, headliner because it was in Amsterdam and is being moved out to a further fork, not for not because it was DFI uh, because people didn't want it, but because it was DFI because of fork scoping issues. So, I think that that argument will happen. Um, and whether or not we think separating that process is the better process, I think that uh that should be up to um fossil proponents because separating that is is the best I think

the best middle ground for credible commitment. Um, we could just put it all in one, but um I think it's stronger if it's if it's fossil if it's fossil leading. I think I agree with the idea. My only concern is that it will end up being completely um conflated. Anyways, just like people are, you know, um they're already talking about uh 6second slots for for Heka on Twitter and now on ACD. So, um I I I agree. I think it would like the

idea of like talking about Fossil first and then going through the normal headliner process is good. Um I'm just afraid like it um it might in practice like not um lead to the expected um differentiation between the two. >> Yeah. Um I think that's I think that's a reasonable concern especially because we don't the opposition against fossil um has not been clear. Um I didn't think that there was any opposition against fossil until last all core devs. Um and so who comes out of the gate with that I think is

what uh we need to assess. But it's very difficult to assess when they haven't been vocal up to this point. >> They are they're starting to get vocal. But yeah, um I think I think it will be I agree like it will be more more and more clear um the the the more we get like the closer we get to the actual like headliner process.

Concerns Over Process Clarity and Documentation

I have a question. Um, I think what Nixo is suggesting makes sense, but my question is as Lisa said, um, we've been talking about this credible commitment thing for like several weeks and then if we add another like one month for example to inform the community about this SFI fossil for Heekka and the discussion is for Heka Sorry for fossil not other features. Then how do we know that the community is informed with that extra one month?

Like how do we know that we need like another like three months or something like when does it end? Um, I think it's more just about publishing a doc because at this point we've been talking on ACD, um, and having the client teams chime in, but we haven't really had anything published. And if we can publish a document, go through this process, and in a month people are like, I didn't know this was happening, we can point to a doc and be like, this was published, it was circulated on Twitter. Um, it'll just It'll just feel like it's more clear that it actually was an open public process.

>> So I guess you're referring to >> an EF blog. Then would an EF blog be sufficient? like people have been talking about what what we've been discussing in ACD calls like there are there are um people who share summaries after ACD call within like 24 hours and we also share summaries in discord and of course we can share like EF blog and then like in your opinion do you think like EF blog will be like a like a final stop that we can just say that are we sufficiently infor from the community.

>> Yeah, I think that's a lot different than uh publishing summaries because summaries are often like back and forth like this decision was made and then it was unmade and people argued about this and like people just don't have time to comb through that whereas if we publish document that says here are the dates that these things are happening. Um it becomes a lot more reasonable for us to assume that people are able to follow it. All right. Uh we already over like four minutes but given that we started like

four or five minutes late maybe we are hitting up an hour full. Um before we wrap up this call, uh does anyone have anything more share or any comments, thoughts? Yeah, I I guess I'm Yeah, just uh still struggling with the even with this stock. I mean although it's a it's a good idea uh I mean we theoretically should have done it for like weeks ago right when we made or we opened this process of conditioning the

inclusion uh in the first place so just to justify and give the community more uh time to digest this etc like I'm just worried that it becomes a little little bit too bureau bureaucratic at some point, right? If if like you yeah you need to you need to document then any yeah any any partial deviation or whatever to the process. So yeah, it's uh I don't know if this solves the the problem to be honest and I'm I'm still more convinced that um like people have to uh have to follow the ACD process and

they are I mean they they they don't have to but they they follow and decisions are being made there and then ACD has to um uh like credibly like also stick to to the commitment they've made. Um, so yeah, it it feels like a bit a little bit of a of an odd delay again in my opinion. Um, maybe Milos, do you want to add

something to Nixa's question? I'm sorry for pointing you out, but like, you know, like we are already going over 1 hour. So, in case we can make this progress a little bit faster and for people who have other uh schedule, please feel free to leave only. I'm going to share the summary so you guys can you know keep stay up to date. >> Um not much to add like in my opinion it's very hard to evaluate how long things would take. We don't even have the even clear schedule. We have some estimate of the schedule for Glamsterdam and it's we are we didn't even start scoping the H star and we already want

to start talking about the star. So it's very early to do any estimates or anything like that. So I don't have any good estimates on any of the topics. In my opinion, 6 seconds is way less technically mature like there was way less research done. I think it's somewhat uh in some aspects it's easier. I think there is less code changes but I think it requires way more testing and benchmarking. So it kind of like uh shifted like where and how how the process evaluating and this should be done. Um but yeah, I think it's bottom line it's too early to say for my opinion.

>> Are any of the fossil champions willing to put together a doc um like go to the client teams and uh figure out some time estimates and also ask eand ops and get some time estimates on that. I can do that, but honestly, I'm not sure if I can get their attention. I tried my best when we si fossil and they were super busy with Fuzaka, but we already ship Faka, so maybe uh the condition is different, but um I can do that, but I I need their attention. So like if we were to do that then we going to make it clear that that's our

plan ahead. So we need this kind of you know like a your effort to take a look into possible on top of a PBS and please share your opinion that kind of stuff. So I think that's dependent on what we decide on probably on ACDE or ACDC. Um maybe you you me and uh we can try to schedule a meeting with somebody from Ethandops just to talk through like a bare bones um what's the time estimate um that it would take. We don't have to like have them deeply look into it. Just some sort of some sort of like clear um steps that they need to take and time estimate would be I think sufficient for

Planning Meeting with EthPandOps: Discussing Time Estimates and Steps

a doc that just outlines um how prepared fossil is. Right. Sounds great. And in case anyone in this room or or outside of this room, any core devil researcher who want to chime in and share their thoughts, please send me some message or like ping me in discord or whatever. Uh we can I I think we can invite a few more people. All right. Um, is there anything else that we want to cover before we wrap up this call?

All right, then. Um, thanks for joining and sharing your opinions. As always, I'm going to share them minute in to tomorrow or day after tomorrow. Um, yeah. Okay. Yeah. Um, I'm thinking about No, never mind. Like we didn't have like full clients here. So, um, okay. Yeah, that's it for me and all right then. Thanks for joining again. Hope you have a great rest of your day and see you next time.

>> Thank you. Thank you.

>> Heat up here. >> Heat up here. [music] Heat.