notes from today's meeting

[14:09] == neha [~neha@public.cloak] has joined #blockchain
[14:09] <neha> I'm scribing.
[14:09] <neha> Doug: 113 people said they were interested, 4-5 W3C people,
they will scribe
[14:09] <neha> 73 people registered, 67 for both days
[14:09] <neha> Most worried about people who haven't responded yes/no
either way.
[14:10] <neha> PC meeting automatically invited.  Tell Doug if you know
someone who expressed interest in attending but is not anymore
[14:11] <neha> Doug would like to split attendees by "association" (bitcoin
vs. ethereum vs. hyperledger) just to understand representation
[14:11] <neha> (so not actively split, just know)
[14:11] <neha> Doug allocated 100-112 meals and seats
[14:12] <neha> layout is roundtables with seats facing towards stage (half
round)
[14:12] <neha> + loose chairs
[14:12] <neha> feels comfortable we could accommodate additional people
(those on the waitlist)
[14:14] <neha> oops forgot to scribe for a few minutes:  Chris (I think)
points out that the waitlist people haven't been vetted
[14:14] <neha> So is that OK?
[14:14] <neha> Doug says those people all seem legit, not randos
[14:15] <neha> Daniel (I think) wants to add more people like someone from
Mozilla (chief identity person)
[14:15] <neha> Doug says browser vendors should be accommodated
[14:16] <neha> Daniel: Couldn't we just add a few chairs since they're half
rounds?
[14:16] <neha> Doug: Yeah, we'll have loose chairs along the walls too
[14:16] <neha> Doug:  If you know someone from a browser-maker who wants to
attend, go ahead and tell them they can attend (this statement might be
targeted towards Daniel only)
[14:17] <neha> 2 people from apple are coming(!)
[14:17] <neha> also someone from MS
[14:17] <neha> would be great to have someone from Google and Mozilla
[14:17] <neha> Brave people said "we'll think about it"
[14:17] <neha> Doug: Anyone who is "credible" who wants to attend, he will
probably say yes
[14:18] <neha> Someone who is just interested in learning, maybe put them
on the waitlist
[14:22] <neha> Several people:  Really need browser vendors
[14:22] <neha> Carla:  reached out to anyone at Google specifically?
[14:22] <neha> Doug:  I talked to Ben Laurie for an hour, he said he'd
check it out but hasn't responded (won't be able to attend)
[14:23] <neha> Carla offered to follow-up with some Google folks!
[14:24] <neha> Doug:  IF you haven't yet registered and you aren't moving
to Florida you are a bad person!
[14:24] <neha> Daniel: I didn't know I was supposed to register...
[14:24] <neha> Doug:  EVERYONE is supposed to register!
[14:25] <neha> Has other parts to it -- dietary restrictions, who wants to
do a lightning talk, and topics
[14:25] <neha> Some people *have* to give a lightning talk in order to
attend
[14:25] <neha> Doug went ahead and said ok.  One of them is Guri from IBM
(IoT person)
[14:25] <neha> Others are folks from NTT
[14:26] <neha> Moving on to talk about lightning talks
[14:26] <neha> Chris:  Do we have the four categories and do we have enough
for each?
[14:28] <neha> ... lots of trying to find an email
[14:30] <neha> CHris:  one topic around optimal uses of blockchains
[14:30] <neha> what's it good for, what's it not good for
[14:30] <neha> legitimate skepticism
[14:30] <neha> second group is blockchain primitives
[14:31] <neha> underlying datastructures, objects, smart signatures
[14:31] <neha> interoperability & APIs (higher level than primitives)
[14:31] <neha> 2nd day:  identity.  wallets, other stuff
[14:31] <neha> oddball ones
[14:31] <neha> as inspiration for the final interactive phase (what are we
missing section)
[14:32] <neha> this was Chris's inititial pass
[14:32] <neha> could be 20-25 lightning talks
[14:33] <neha> chris: part of the reason i broke them out that way is they
would be intros into discussions that follow
[14:33] <neha> doug:  here's 2 specific things i've heard people mention
[14:34] <neha> 1) use of a blockchain for licensing
[14:34] <neha> Daniel: we get a lot of inbound about that.  it's actually
an identity piece
[14:34] <neha> artist keeps signed attestation that he owns something
[14:35] <neha> could keep sig off chain
[14:35] <neha> doug:  stooooop.  just wanted to give an example of
something that doesn't ahve a bucket
[14:36] <neha> chris:  4 or so proposals around this particular thing... 2
belong in identity section
[14:36] <neha> that was my theory
[14:36] <neha> daniel:  add entry to protocols and APIs?
[14:37] <neha> trent: IP is important.  other things for buckets --
different assets
[14:37] <neha> don't wanna lump that into identity
[14:37] <neha> identity fundamental piece of lots of things
[14:37] <neha> isn't everything interoperability?
[14:37] <neha> maybe we need more subdivisions
[14:37] <neha> identity:  reputation, KYC
[14:38] <neha> carla: instead of calling it identity, it's really provenance
[14:38] <neha> maybe another way to bucket it
[14:38] <neha> doug:  great point.  everyone look at christopher's email
[14:38] <neha> and either say "yes" or suggest moving them around or
suggest a different set of buckets
[14:38] <neha> want to conclude this by next wednesday
[14:39] <neha> one substantial criticism: since identity is such a huge
topic, if we push it off to the second day, we will end up constantly
referring to it
[14:39] <neha> maybe we should put it on the first day
[14:39] <neha> daniel: i agree
[14:40] <neha> <experience at MS>
[14:40] <neha> doug: as a bucket might be too broad to limit it to one
session
[14:40] <neha> likes reference to provenance
[14:41] <neha> identity split out into buckets all talked about on the
first day
[14:41] <neha> but maybe that's unworkable?
[14:41] <neha> just wanted to put it out there
[14:41] <neha> chris?
[14:42] <neha> chris: many of teh breakouts might be around broad topics
[14:42] <neha> 3 different proposals around IP
[14:42] <neha> that were very specific company approaches
[14:42] <neha> would rather there be one talk, not 3 talks
[14:43] <neha> would like to see diversity in each of those sections
[14:43] <neha> results of voting?
[14:44] <neha> doug:  dazza?  neha?  do you have the results of the
voting/reviews?
[14:44] <neha> neha: ...no....
[14:44] <neha> doug: apologies for not having time for reviews.  please do
them now
[14:45] <neha> chris:  let's pick 4 buckets and decide what goes into them
[14:46] <neha> do something by tuesday?
[14:46] <neha> jutta: more frequent calls?  can be shorter
[14:46] <neha> daniel's wife is due on tuesday!!! (exciting)
[14:47] <neha> trent:  or we could be more responsive on email
[14:47] <neha> doug +1
[14:47] <neha> aim for commentary, etc over the weekend
[14:47] <neha> tuesday about talking about the final list
[14:47] <neha> doug: for last day would be nice ot have a summary by bailey
[14:48] <neha> there's space, so is everyone on the same page?
[14:48] <neha> trent: i bought plane tickets expecting it to end at 3:30 PM!
[14:48] <neha> probably a lot of people already bought tickets
[14:49] <neha> last version of schedule said it ended by 3:30
[14:49] <neha> doug: we should have the main meat of conference done by
3:30 then
[14:49] <neha> last two hours are open session
[14:49] <neha> last breakout
[14:49] <neha> and general discussion
[14:50] <neha> doug:  move other to end of the day
[14:50] <neha> other at 3:30, last breakout at 4:45/5ish
[14:50] <neha> then talking session after that
[14:50] <neha> trent: dunno how many people this affects
[14:50] <neha> would rather thing end at 3:30/4
[14:51] <neha> free-form often the best part
[14:51] <neha> daniel: add free-form time after day 1 in different location
[14:52] <neha> make sure it's on the schedule
[14:52] <neha> it's ok if people pay their own way
[14:52] <neha> doug:  rez for 50-70 people might be hard
[14:52] <neha> daniel: i can try to do that
[14:53] <neha> doug: let's make a parallel effort everyone try
[14:53] <neha> trent:  good idea, take advantage of that evening
[14:53] <neha> doug:  definitely say by 4 PM thing is over
[14:53] <neha> (on second day)
[14:53] <neha> last 2 hours unstructured time for people to stick around
[14:53] <neha> doug:  maybe we should make a wiki
[14:54] <neha> i'll make a wiki page and send out a link
[14:54] <neha> doug: surprised some people said tehy don't want to be
recorded or on video
[14:55] <neha> makes it hard to record the event
[14:55] <neha> reasonable compromise might be to have designated table or
two where we will avoid videoing
[14:55] <neha> chris: problem where at hyperledger had an individual talk
about a particular use case
[14:55] <neha> coindesk did an article about company doing XX usecase
[14:55] <neha> hurt the individual
[14:56] <neha> possible the nature is such that it needs to be OTR
[14:56] <neha> no attribution
[14:56] <neha> doug: exactly the opposite reaction
[14:56] <neha> doug: speculative but public
[14:56] <neha> if you don't want something on the public record, this is
not the meeting for you
[14:57] <neha> chris:  set this up day one
[14:57] <neha> doug:  any disagreement?
[14:57] <neha> daniel: i totally agree
[14:57] <neha> chris: it's the press
[14:57] <neha> doug: in the days of the internet, same thing
[14:57] <neha> people need to understand what public means
[14:58] <neha> chris: documented, but if you're gonna twitter, get
permission
[14:58] <neha> so say stuff, but if it has attribution, get person's
permission
[14:58] <neha> cultural sensitivity
[14:59] <neha> doug: difference from legal vs. cultural.
[14:59] <neha> let's keep it in the realm of videotaping
[15:00] <neha> proposed solution is separate table
[15:00] <neha> and sadly can't talk a lot
[15:00] <neha> public event that is being recorded
[15:00] <neha> at least one press person there (bailey)
[15:00] <neha> she will be labeled
[15:01] <neha> and ask people to go on the record
[15:01] <neha> doug:  ok review the papers!  suggest topic areas!
[15:01] <neha> follow up on christopher's schedule suggestions
[15:01] <neha> settle by Monday or Tuesday


-- 
http://nehanaru.la | @neha