Filecoin Core Dev 65 Meeting Agenda

[luckyparadise]

Filecoin Core Devs 65 Meeting Agenda

• Meeting Date & Time: Friday, January 5, 2024 @ [00:00 UTC]
• Meeting will be recorded.

Agenda

• Welcome & Agenda
• Convert f090 Mining Reserve actor to a keyless account actor by @jennijuju
• FIP0001v2 updates- by @kaitlin-beegle
• nv22 Dragon Updgrade Updates (tbc)
• QnA
• Close

[jennijuju]

I can quickly talk about https://github.com/filecoin-project/FIPs/pull/903 (>3 min) if wanted

[jennijuju]

I can quickly talk about filecoin-project/FIPs#903 (>3 min) if wanted

Actually nvm - I won’t be able to make this one.

[kaitlin-beegle]

As proposed in the Core Devs Slack channel (HERE), I propose we reschedule this meeting +2 weeks to Friday, January 19 at 00:00 UTC. All subsequent Core Devs meetings should be left unchanged.

The reason for the delay is that many Core Devs appear to still be out of office for the winter holidays, and there are no active agenda topics to cover today.

[willscott]

It sounds like we should add an agenda item to talk about participation and process of core devs for things like what came up this week around FIP0083 - how - outside of monthly meetings - should we get to quorum on moving forward with last call without gas numbers versus moving upgrade timelines vs excluding fips.

[luckyparadise]

@willscott I believe this matter has now been resolved and a way forward agreed to.

[willscott]

The immediate issue was resolved, but there's a meta process issue that may be worth talking about: we have cases where the current monthly cadence of core devs is too long to reach a formal quorum, and we don't have full comfort in how long we need to wait or what mechanisms constitute a sufficient broadcast to feel like we comfortably have buy-in from core-devs versus that the community of core devs just hasn't see a conversation.

Should we have a way to post messages for comment with an expectation of seeing how many have viewed the item? should we have an expectation that if something is posted as an issue in this repo for a week and there is no objection, that there is sufficient buy-in to move forward? It may be useful for future situations to set a stronger minimum expectation of participation.

[luckyparadise]

Got that! I will include it in the agenda and let you share your thoughts while allowing other Core Devs to weigh in as well. Are you ok to lead this discussion? @willscott

[willscott]

This month is at 1am my local time, so i'm not sure i will be particularly coherent. I'd be happy to lead next month since it isn't time sensitive.

[luckyparadise]

I, for sure, can come up with ideas, opened as a discussion thread. It will have some ideas with the way forward for reaching an async quorum and gating that process as well.

[jennijuju]

+1 - and how should the decision making process to be facilitated robustly when there are different opinions across core devs. (i.e: trade off tables, reviews, soft consensus, or vote when opinions are too split.

Network ops are key stakeholders group when it comes to network upgrades. As more network teams step up and contribute to filecoin development jointly, how will governance & core dev teams identify and loop new critical network dependency teams into the upgrade coordination discussion, so to deliver smooth upgrade for the community?

[luckyparadise]

@jennijuju will it be useful for you and other implementers to have an nv22 time on the call? Anything you want to call out on the call?