Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Lightning Specification Meeting 2021/11/22 #936

Closed
6 of 21 tasks
t-bast opened this issue Nov 22, 2021 · 7 comments
Closed
6 of 21 tasks

Lightning Specification Meeting 2021/11/22 #936

t-bast opened this issue Nov 22, 2021 · 7 comments

Comments

@t-bast
Copy link
Collaborator

t-bast commented Nov 22, 2021

The meeting will take place on Monday 2021/11/22 at 7pm UTC (5:30am Adelaide time) on Libera Chat IRC #lightning-dev. It is open to the public.

A video link is available if higher bandwidth communication is necessary at some point during the meeting: https://meet.google.com/abb-ekvg-oaw

Pull Request Review

Long Term Updates

Backlog

The following are topics that we should discuss at some point, so if we have time to discuss them great, otherwise they slip to the next meeting.

@t-bast t-bast pinned this issue Nov 22, 2021
@michaelfolkson
Copy link

Hey @t-bast

A video link is available if higher bandwidth communication is necessary at some point during the meeting:

If you want to try doing these meetings entirely on video (with someone monitoring IRC for additional comments/questions) I am happy to do a transcript like I've been doing for the c-lightning dev meetings. Too late notice for today's meeting but something to consider for future meetings perhaps.

@t-bast
Copy link
Collaborator Author

t-bast commented Nov 22, 2021

Thanks @michaelfolkson, our main concern was indeed the lack of a transcript if we did the meeting over video, if you kindly propose to do it would be great! I'll mention it tonight and if we have rough agreement, we can try it for the next meeting.

@vincenzopalazzo
Copy link
Contributor

If you want to try doing these meetings entirely on video (with someone monitoring IRC for additional comments/questions) I am happy to do a transcript like I've been doing for the c-lightning dev meetings. Too late notice for today's meeting but something to consider for future meetings perhaps.

Concept ack

@lucasdcf
Copy link

Hey @t-bast

A video link is available if higher bandwidth communication is necessary at some point during the meeting:

If you want to try doing these meetings entirely on video (with someone monitoring IRC for additional comments/questions) I am happy to do a transcript like I've been doing for the c-lightning dev meetings. Too late notice for today's meeting but something to consider for future meetings perhaps.

I was actually planning on proposing the same thing. I can help you if needed.

@t-bast
Copy link
Collaborator Author

t-bast commented Nov 23, 2021

One of my highlights from yesterday is that we're having issues agreeing on when/how feature bits and channel types should be used (in the context of #910, but it's something we bumped into a few times before).

I think it would be useful to focus on this particular topic during the next spec meeting, clarifying that meta topic will help speed up future discussions. We can use 0-conf as an example scenario to highlight our disagreements. @Roasbeef can you write something down to detail your approach (maybe in a new issue) and I'll do the same in parallel, and we can use that to guide the discussions next time?

@michaelfolkson
Copy link

Transcript (not yet merged but can be read here): https://github.com/michaelfolkson/bitcointranscripts/blob/lightning-2021-11-22/lightning-specification/2021-11-22-specification-call.md

@t-bast
Copy link
Collaborator Author

t-bast commented Nov 29, 2021

Thanks @michaelfolkson !

@t-bast t-bast closed this as completed Dec 14, 2021
@t-bast t-bast unpinned this issue Dec 14, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants